some principles of stratification

7/30/2019 Some Principles of Stratification

1/5

The Functions of Stratification

KINGSLEY DAVIS AN D WILBERT E. MOORE

Some Principles ofStratificationIn a previous paper some concepts for handlingthe phenomena of social inequality were presented.' In the present paper a fur ther s tep instratification theory is undertaken-an attemptto show the relationship between stratificationand the restof the socialorder.'Starting from theproposition that no society is "classless;' or unstratified, an effort is made to explain, in functional terms, the universal necessity which callsforth stratification in anysocial system. Next, anattempt is made to explain the roughly uniformdistr ibution of prestige as between the majortypesof positions in every society.Since,however,there occur between one society and anothergreatdifferences in thedegree and kind ofstratification, some attention isalso given to the varieties of social inequality and the variable factorsthat give rise to them.Clearly,the present task requires two differentlines of analysis-one to understand the universal, the other to understand the variable featuresof stratification. Naturally each line of inquiryaids the other and is indispensable, and in thetreatment that followsthe twowill be interwoven,although, because of space limitations, the emphasiswillbe on the universals.Throughout, i t will be necessary to keep inmind one thing-namely, that the discussion relatesto thesystem ofpositions, not to theindividuals occupying those positions. It isone thing toaskwhydifferent positions carry different degreesof prestige, and quite another to ask how certainindividuals getinto those positions. Although, astheargument will try to show,both questions are

related,it isessentialto keep them separathinking. Most of the literature on strathas tried to answer the second question (larlywith regard to theeaseor difficultyoitybetween strata) without tackling the ffirst question, however,is logicallypriorthe case of any particular individual ofactually prior.

The Functional Necessity of StratifiCuriously the main functional necessitying the universal presence of stratificatiocisely the requirement faced by any soplacing and motivating individuals in tstructure. Asa functioning mechanismmust somehow distribute its memberspositions and induce them to perform thofthesepositions. It must thus concern itmotivation at two different levels: to instproper individuals the desire to fillcertations, and, once in these positions, theperform theduties attached to them. Evethe social order may be relativelystaticthere is a continuous process of metabnew individuals are born into it, shift wand die off.Their absorptioninto the psystem must somehow be arranged anvated.This istrue whether thesystem isctive or non-competitive. A competitivegives greater importance to the motivachievepositions, whereasa non-compet


2/5

40tem givesperhaps greater importanceto the motivation to perform the duties of the positions;but inany systemboth types ofmotivationare required.If the duties associated with the various positions were all equally pleasant to the human organism, allequallyimportant to societal survival,and all equally in need ofthe same ability or talent , i t would make no difference who got intowhich positions, and the problem of socialplacement would be greatly reduced. But actually itdoes make a great deal ofdifferencewho gets intowhich positions, not only because some positionsare inherently more agreeable than others, bu talsobecause some require special talents or training and some are functionally more importantthan others. Also, it isessentialthat the duties ofthepositions beperformedwith the diligence thattheir importance requires. Inevitably, then, a societymust have,first,somekind ofrewards that itcanuseas inducements, and, second, some wayofdistributingthese rewardsdifferentially accordingto positions. The rewards and their distributionbecome a part of the social order, and thus giveriseto stratification.Onemay askwhat kind ofrewardsa society hasat itsdisposal in distributing itspersonnel and securing essential services. It has, first of all , thethingsthat contribute to sustenance and comfort.It has, second, the things that contribute to humor and diversion. And it has, finally,the thingsthat contribute to selfrespect and egoexpansion.The last, because of the peculiarly social characterofthe self,is largelya function of the opinion ofothers, but i t nonetheless ranks in importancewith the first two. In any social system all threekindsof rewards must be dispensed differentiallyaccordingto positions.In a sensethe rewards are"built into" the position. They consist in the "rights" associated withthe position, plus what may be called its accompaniments or perquisites. Often the rights, andsometimes the accompaniments, are functionallyrelated to the duties of the posit ion. (Rights asviewed by the incumbent are usual ly duties asviewed by other members of the community.)However,there maybe a host of subsidiary rightsand perquisites that are not essential to the function ofthe position and have only an indirectand

II I Forms and Sources 01 Slratllicationsymbolic connection with its duties, but whichstill maybe of considerable importancein inducing people to seek the positions and fulfilthe essential duties.If the rights and perquisites of different positions in a society must be unequal, then the society must be stratified, because that is preciselywhat stratification means. Social inequality isthus an unconsciously evolved device by whichsocietiesinsure that themost importantpositionsare conscientiously filled by the most qualifiedpersons. Hence everysociety, no matter howsimple or complex, must different iate persons interms of both prest ige and es teem, and mus ttherefore possess a certain amount of institutionalized inequality.

It does not fol lowthat the amountor type ofinequality need be thesame in allsocieties.This islargelya function of factors that will be discussedpresently.

The Two Determinants of Positional RankGranting the general funct ion that inequalitysubserves, one canspecifythe twofactorsthat determine the relativerank of different positions. Ingeneral those positions convey the best reward,and hence have the highest rank, which (a) havethegreatestimportance for thesocietyand (b) require the greatest training or talent. The first factor concerns function and is a matter of relativesignificance; the second concerns means and is amatter of scarcity.Differential Functional Importance. Actually asociety does not need to reward positions in proportion to their functional importance. It merelyneeds to givesufficient reward to them to insurethat they wil l be fil led competently. In otherwords, it must seethat less essential positions donot compete successfully with more essentialones. If a position is easilyfilled, it need not beheavilyrewarded, even though important. On theother hand, ifit isimportant but hard to fill,thereward must be high enough to get it filledanyway. Functional importance is therefore a necessary but not a sufficient cause of high rank beingassigned to a position.'

TheFunctions of StratificationDifferentialScarcity of Personnel. Practically allpositions, no matter howacquired, require someform of skillor capacity for performance. This isimplici t in the very notion of posit ion, whichimplies that the incumbentmust, byvirtue of hisincumbency, accomplish certain things.There are, ultimately,only two waysin which aperson's qualifications come about: through inherent capacity or through training. Obviously,in concrete activities both are always necessary,but from a practical standpoint the scarcity mayl ie primari ly in one or the other , as well as inboth. Some posit ions require innate talents ofsuch high degree that the persons who fillthemarebound to be rare. In many cases,however,talent is fairlyabundant in the population but thetraining process is so long, costly, and elaboratethat relativelyfew can qualify.Modern medicine,for example, is within the mental capacity ofmost individuals, but a medical education is soburdensome and expensive that virtually nonewould undertake i t i f the posit ion of the M.D.did not carry a reward commensurate with thesacrifice.Ifthe talents required for a position are abundant and the trainingeasy,the method of acquiring the position may havelittle to do with its duties. There may be, in fact, a virtually accidentalrelationship. But if the skills required are scarcebyreason ofthe rarityof talent or thecostlinessoftraining, the position, if functionally important,must havean attractive power that willdraw thenecessary skills in competition with other posit ions. This means, in effect, that the posit ionmust behigh in the social scale-must commandgreat prestige, high salary, ample leisure, and thelike.HowVariat ions Are to BeUnders tood . In sofar asthere isa differencebetween one system ofstrat ificat ion and another, i t is att ributable towhatever factors affect the two determinants ofdifferential reward-namely, functional importance and scarcityof personnel. Positions important in one society may not be important in another, because the condit ions faced by thesocieties,or their degree of internal development,may be different. The same conditions, in turn,may affect the question of scarcity; for in some

societiesthe stageof development, or tsituation, maywhollyobviate the necetain kinds of skillor talent. Anyparticof strat ificat ion, then, can be underproduct of the special conditions aftwo aforementioned grounds of diffward.

Major Societal Functionsand StratificationReligionThe reason whyreligion is necessaryisto be found in the fact that humachieves its unity primarily throughsion by its members of certain ult imand ends in common. Although theseends are subjective, they influence betheir integration enables the society toa system. Derived neither from inhfrom external nature, they have evolvofculture bycommunication and moraThey must, however, appear to the mthe society to havesome reality,and iof religious belief and ritual to supplyforce this appearance of reality. Throand ritual the common ends and valunected with an imaginary world symconcrete sacred objects,which worldinlated in a meaningful wayto thefactsathe individual's life. Through the worsacredobjects and the beingstheysymthe acceptance of supernatural prescriareat the same time codesof behavior,control over human conduct isexercisit along lines sustaining the institutiture and conforming to the ult imatevalues.Ifthis conception of the role of religone can understand why in every knothereligious activities tend to be underof particular persons, who tend therebgreater rewards than the ordinary socber. Certain of the rewards and speciamayattach to only thehighest religiou


3/5

42aries, but others usually apply, if such exists, tothe entire sacerdotal class.Moreover,there is a peculiar relation betweenthe duties of the religiousofficialand the specialprivileges he enjoys. If the supernatural. worldgoverns the destinies of men more ult imatelythan does the real world, its earthly representative, the person through whom one maycommunicate with the supernatural, must be apowerful individual. He isa keeper of sacred tradition, a skilledperformer ofthe ritual, and an interpreter of lore and myth. He is in such closecontact with thegodsthathe isviewedaspossessing some oftheircharacteristics. He is, in short, abit sacred, and hence freefrom some ofthe morevulgar necessitiesand controls.

It isno accident,therefore, that religiousfunct ionaries have been associated with the veryhighest positions of power, as in theocratic regimes. Indeed, looking at i t from this point ofview, one maywonder why it isthat they do notget entire control over their societies. The factorsthat prevent this are worthy of note.In thefirstplace,the amountof technical competence necessary for the performance of religious duties issmall.Scientificor artistic capacityisnot required. Anyonecan set himself up asenjoyingan intimate relation with deities, and nobodycan successfullydispute him. Therefore, thefactor ofscarcityofpersonnel does not operate inthe technicalsense.One may assert, on the other hand, that rel igious ritual is often elaborate and religious loreabstruse, and that priestly ministrations requiretact, if not intelligence.This istrue, but the technical requirements of the profession are for themost part adventitious, not related to the end inthe same way that science is related to air travel.The priest can never be free from competition,sincethe criteria of whether or not one hasgenuine contact with the supernatu ra l are neverstrictly clear. It is this competition that debasesthe priestly posit ion below what might be expected at firstglance.That iswhy priestly prestigeishighestin those societieswhere membership inthe profession is rigidlycontrolled by the priestlyguild itself.That iswhy, in part at least,elaboratedevices are utilized to stressthe identification ofthe person with hisoffice-spectacular costume,

II I Forms and Sources of Slralilicalionabnormal conduct, special diet, segregated residence, celibacy,conspicuous leisure, and the like.In fact, the priest isalwaysin danger ofbecomingsomewhat discredited-as happens in a secularized society-because ina worldof stubborn fact,ritual and sacred knowledge alone will not growcrops or build houses. Furthermore, unlesshe isprotected by a professional guild, the priest'sidentificationwith the supernatural tends to preclude hisacquisition of abundant worldlygoods.As between one society and another it seemsthat the highest general posit ion awarded thepriest occurs in the medieval type of social order.Here there isenough economic production to afford a surplus, which can be used to support anumerous and highly organized priesthood; andyetthe populace isunletteredand therefore credulous to a high degree. Perhaps the most extremeexample isto be found in the Buddhism ofTibet,but others are encountered in the Catholicism offeudal Europe, the Inca regimeof Peru, theBrahminism of India, and the Mayan priesthood ofYucatan. On the other hand, ifthe society issocrude as to have no surplus and littledifferentiation, so that everypriest must be also a cultivatoror hunter, the separat ion of the priestly statusfrom the others has hardly gone far enough forpriestly prestige to mean much. When the priestactually has high prestige under these circumstances, it isbecause he also performs other important functions (usually political and medical).In an extremely advanced society built on scientific technology, the priesthood tends to losestatus, because sacred tradition and supernaturali sm drop into the background . The u lt imatevaluesand commonends ofthe societytend tobeexpressed in less anthropomorphic ways,by officials who occupy fundamentally political, economic, or educational rather than religiouspositions. Nevertheless, i t is easi ly possible forintellectuals to exaggeratethe degree to which thepriesthood in a presumably secular milieu haslost prestige. When the matter iscloselyexaminedthe urban proletariat , as well as the rural cit izenry, proves to be surprisingly god-fearing andpriest-ridden. No society has become so completely secularized as to liquidate entirely the beliefin transcendental ends and supernatural entities. Even in a secularized society some system

TheFunctions of Stratificationmust exist for the integration of ultimate values,for their ritualistic expression, and for the emotional adjustments required by disappointment,death, and disaster.

GovernmentLikereligion, government playsa unique and indispensable part in society.Butin contrastto religion, which provides integration in terms of sent iments, bel iefs , and rituals , i t organizes thesociety in terms of law and authority. Furthermore, i t orients the society to the actual ratherthan the unseen world.The main functions of government are, internally,the ultimate enforcement of norms, the final arbitration of conflicting interests, and theoverallplanning and direction of society;and externally, the handling of war and diplomacy. Tocarryout thesefunctions itacts asthe agent oftheentire people, enjoys a monopoly of force, andcontrols allindividuals within its territory.Political action, by definition, implies authority.An officialcan commandbecause he has authority, and the citizen must obey because he issubject to that authority. For this reason stratification is inherent in the nature of political relationships.Soclearis the power embodied in political posit ion that polit ical inequality is sometimesthought to comprise all inequality. But it can beshown that there are other bases of stratification,that the following controls operate in practice tokeep political power from becoming complete:(a)The fact that theactual holders of political office,and especially those determining top policymust necessarily be few in number compared tothe total population. (b) The fact that the rulersrepresent the interest ofthe group rather than ofthemselves, and are therefore restricted in theirbehavior by rules and mores designed to enforcethis l imitat ion of interest. (c) The fact that theholder of political officehas hisauthority by virtue of his officeand nothing else, and thereforeanyspecialknowledge, talent, or capacity he mayclaim ispurely incidental, so that he often has todepend upon others for technical assistance.In view of these limiting factors, it is notstrange that the rulers often havelesspower and

prestige than a literal enumeration oftrights would lead one to expect.

Wealth, Property, and LaborEvery position that secures for its inl ivel ihood is, by definit ion, economwarded. For this reason there isan ecpect to those posit ions (e.g. polit icagious) the main function of whieconomic. It therefore becomes conthe society to use unequal economic rprincipal means of control ling the epersons into positions and stimulatinformance of their duties. The amountnomic return therefore becomes one oindices of social status.It should be stressed, however,thatdoes no t bring power and prest igedraws a high income. Rather, it drawscome because it isfunctionally importavailable personnel is for one reasonscarce. It istherefore superficialand eregard high income asthecause ofa mand prestige, just asit iserroneousto tman's feveris the cause of hisdisease"

The economic source of power andnot income primarily, but the ownerstal goods (including patents, good wifessional reputation). Such ownershipdistinguished from the possession ofgoods, which is an index rather thansocial standing. In other words, the owproducers' goodsis properly speaking,income like other positions, the incommaining an index. Evenin situations wvalues are widely commercialized anare the readiest method of judging stion, income does not confer prestigetion so much asit induces people to cthe position. It is t rue that a man whoincome as a resul t of one posit ion mmoney helpful in climbing into anothas well,but this again reflectsthe effectial, economically advantageous statuserc ises it s inf luence through the mmoney.In a system of private property inenterprise, an income above what an


4/5

44spends can give r ise to possession of capi ta lwealth. Presumably such possession is a rewardfor the proper management of one's financesoriginally and of the productive enterprise later.But as social differentiation becomes highly advancedand yetthe institution of inheritance persists,thephenomenonof pure ownership, and reward for pure ownership, emerges. In such a casei t isdifficul t to prove that the posit ion is functionally important or that the scarcity involved isanything other than extrinsic and accidental. It isfor this reason, doubtless, that the institution ofprivate property in productive goods becomesmore subject to criticism as social developmentproceeds toward industrialization. It is only thispure, that is,strictly legaland functionless ownership, however, that is open to attack; for someform of act ive ownership, whether private orpublic, is indispensable.One kind of ownership of production goodsconsists in rights over the labor of others. Themost extremely concentrated and exclusive ofsuch rights are found in slavery,but the essentialprinciple remains in serfdom, peonage,encomienda, and indenture. Naturally this kindof ownership has the greatest significance forstratification, because it necessarilyentails an unequal relationship.Butproperty in capital goods inevitably introduces a compulsive element even into the nominally free contractual relationship. Indeed, insome respects the authori ty of the contractualemployer is greater than that of the feudal landlord, inasmuch as the lat ter is more l imited bytraditional reciprocities. Even the classical economics recognized that competitors would fareunequally, but it d id no t pursue thi s fact to i tsnecessary conclusion that, however it might beacquired, unequal control of goods and servicesmust giveunequal advantage to the parties to acontract.

Technical KnowledgeThe function of finding means to single goals ,without any concern with the choice betweengoals,is the exclusively technical sphere. The explanation of why positions requiring great technicalskill receivefairlyhigh rewards iseasy to see,

II I Forms and Sources ofStratificationfor it isthe simplest caseof the rewards being sodistributed as to draw talent and motivate training. Why they seldom if ever receive the highestrewards is also clear:the importance of technicalknowledge from a societal point of view is neverso great as the integration of goals, which takesplace on the religious, political, and economiclevels. Since the technological level is concernedsolely with means, a purely technical posit ionmust ultimately be subordinate to otherpositionsthat are religious, political, or economic in character.Nevertheless, the distinction between expertand layman in any social order is fundamental,and cannot be entirely reduced to other terms.Methods of recruitment , as well as of reward,sometimes lead to the erroneous interpretationthat technical positions are economically determined. Actually, however, the acquisi tion ofknowledge and skill cannot be accomplished bypurchase, although the opportunity to learn maybe.The controlof the avenues oftrainingmayinhere asa sort ofproperty right in certain familiesor classes,giving them power and prestige in consequence. Such a situation adds an artificial scarcity tothe natural scarcityof skillsand talents. Onthe other hand, itis possiblefor an opposite situation to arise. The rewards of technical positionmay be so great that a condition of excesssupplyis created, leading to at least temporary devaluation of the rewards. Thus "unemployment in thelearned professions" may result in a debasementof the prestige of those positions. Such adjustments and readjustments are constantly occurring in changing societies; and it is alwayswelltobear in mind that the efficiencyof a strat ifiedstructuremaybe affectedby themodes of recruitment for positions. The social order itself, however,setslimits to the inflation or deflation of theprestige of experts: an over-supply tends to debase the rewards and discourage recruitment orproduce revolution, whereas an under-supplytends to increase the rewards or weakenthe societyin competitionwith othersocieties.Particular systems of stratification showa widerange with respect to the exactposition oftechnically competent persons. This range is perhapsmost evident in the degree of specialization. Extreme division of labor tends to createmany spe-

TheFunctions ofStratificationcialistswithout high prestige since the training isshort and the required native capacity relativelysmall.On the other hand italso tends to accentuate the high posit ion of the true experts-scientists, engineers, and administrators-by increasing their authority relative to other functionallyimportant posit ions. But the idea of a technocratic socialorder or a governmentor priesthoodof engineers or socialscientists neglects the limitations of knowledgeand skillsas a basis for performing social functions. Tothe extent that thesocialstructure istruly specializedthe prestige ofthe technical person must also be circumscribed.

Variation in Stratified SystemsThe generalized principles of stratification heresuggestedform a necessarypreliminaryto a consideration of types of stratified systems,because itisin terms ofthese principles that the types mustbedescribed. This can be seenby trying to delineate types according to certain modes of variat ion. For instance, some of the most importantmodes (together with the polar types in terms ofthem) seemto beas follows:(a) The Degree of Specialization. The degree ofspecialization affectsthe finenessand multiplicityofthe gradations inpowerand prestige.It also influences the extent to which particular functionsmaybe emphasized in the invidious system, sincea givenfunction cannotreceivemuch emphasis inthe hierarchyuntil ithas achievedstructuralseparat ion from the other functions . Finally, theamount of specialization influences the bases ofselection. Polar types: Specialized, Unspecialized.(b) The Nature of the Functional Emphasis. Ingeneralwhen emphasis isput on sacredmatters, arigidity is introduced that tends to limit specialization and hence the development of technology.In addition, a brake is placed on social mobility,and on the development of bureaucracy. Whenthe preoccupation with the sacred is withdrawn,leaving greater scope for purely secular preoccupations, a great development, and rise in status,of economic and technological positions seemingly takesplace.Curiously,a concomitant rise in

political position is not likely,becauseally been allied with the religious andgain littleby thedeclineof thelatter. It isib le for a socie ty to emphasize famtions-as in relatively undifferentiatewhere high mortality requires high fekinship forms the main basis of socialtion. Main types: Familistic, Authoritarcraticor sacred, and Totalitarian or secitalistic.(c) The Magnitude of Invidiouences. What maybe cal ledthe amoundistance between positions, taking intthe entire scale,is somethingthat shouself to quantitative measurement Codifferences apparently exist betweensocieties in this regard, and also betweethe same society. Polar types: EqInequalitarian.(d) The Degree of Opportunity. Thquestion of the amount of mobility ifrom the question of the comparative einequality of rewards posed above, betwo crit er ia may vary independent lypoint. For instance, the tremendous din monetary income in the United Stagreater than those found in primitiveyet the equalityof opportunity to moverung to the other in the socialscalemgreater in the United States than in a htribal kingdom. Polar types: Mobile (omobile (closed).(e) The Degree of Stratum Solidaritythe degreeof "classsolidarity" (or thepspecific organizations to promote classmay vary to some extent independenother criteria, and hence is an importaple in classifying systems of stratificattypes: Class organized, Class unorganizedExternal ConditionsWhat state any particular systemof strisin with referenceto eachof thesemodation depends on twothings: (1) itsstate


5/5

MELVIN M . TUMIN

Some Principles ofStratification: A Critical Analysis

The Dysfunctions of Stratification46erence to the other ranges of variation, and (2)the conditions outside the system of stratificationwhich nevertheless influence that system. Amongthe latterare the following:(a) The Stage of Cultural Development. As thecultural heritage grows, increased specializationbecomes necessary, which in turn contributes tothe enhancementof mobility, a decline of stratumsolidarity, and a change of functional emphasis.(b) Situation with Respect to Other Societies.The presence or absence of open conflict withother societies, of free trade relations or culturaldiffusion, allinfluence the class structure to someextent. A chronic state of warfare tends to placeemphasis upon the military functions, especiallywhen the opponents are more or less equal. Freetrade, on the otherhand, strengthens the hand ofthe trader at the expense of the warriorand priest.Free movement of ideas generally has an equalitarian effect. Migration and conquest create special circumstances.(c) Size of the Society. A small society limits thedegree to which functional specialization can go,the degree of segregation of different strata, andthe magnitude of inequality.

Composite TypesMuch of the l it erature on s trat if icat ion has a ttempted to classifyconcrete systems into a certainnumber of types. Thistask is deceptivelysimple,however, and shouldcome at the end of an analysis of elements and principles, rather than at thebeginning.If the preceding discussionhas any validity, it indicates that there are a number ofmodes of variat ion between different systems,and that anyone system isa composite of the society's status with reference to all these modes ofvariation. The danger of trying to classify wholesocieties under such rubrics as caste, feudal, oropen class is that one or two criteria are selected

1\ I Forms and Sources 01 Stratificationand others ignored, the resultbeing an unsatisfactory solution to the problem posed. The presentdiscussion has been o ffered as a possible approach to t he more systematic classification ofcomposite types.

Notes1. Kingsley Davis,"AConceptualAnalysis ofStratification;' AmericanSociological Review. 7:309-321, June,

'94 2.2. The writers regret(and begindulgence) that thepresent essay, a condensation of a longer study,coversso much in such short space that adequate evidenceand qualificationcannot be givenand that as a resultwhatis actuallyverytentativeis presented in an unfortunatelydogmaticmanner.3. Unfortunately, functional importance is difficultto establish.Touse the position'sprestigeto establishit,asis oftenunconsciouslydone, constitutes circularreasoningfrom our point ofview.There are,however, twoindependentclues:(a) thedegreeto whicha position isfunctionally unique, there being no other positionsthat can perform the same function satisfactorily; (b)the degreeto which other positions aredependent onthe one in question. Both clues arebest exemplified inorganizedsystemsofpositionsbuilt around onemajorfunction.Thus, in most complexsocietiesthereligious,political,economic, and educational functionsare handled by distinct structures not easilyinterchangeable.In addition, each structure possesses many differentpositions,some clearlydependent on, if not subordinate to,others. In sum, when an institutional nucleusbecomesdifferentiatedaround onemainfunction,andat thesame timeorganizesa largeportion ofthe population intoits relationships,the keypositionsin itare ofthehighestfunctionalimportance.The absenceofsuchspecializationdoesnot provefunctionalunimportance,for the whole society maybe relatively unspecialized;but it issafeto assumethat the more important functions receivethe firstand cleareststructural differentia-tion.4. Thesymbolic rather thanintrinsic roleof incomein socialstratification hasbeen succinctlysummarizedby Talcott Parsons, "An Analytical Approach to theTheoryof SocialStratification;' American Journal 0[50-ciology. 45:841-862, May, 1940.

The fact of ~ o c i a l . i n e ~ u a l i t y in human society ismarked by. ItS ubiquity and its antiquity. Everyknown society, past and present, distributes itsscarce and demanded goods and services un-e q ~ a l l y . And there are a tt ached to the positionswhich command unequal amounts of such goodsa.nd s e r v i c e ~ c ~ r t a i n highly morally-tonedevaluanons of t ~ e l r . Importance for the society.. The ub.,qUlty.and the antiquityof such inequality has given nse to the assumption that theremust .besomething both inevitable an d positivelyfunctional about such social arrangements.. C l ~ a r l y , the truth or falsity of such an assumpnon IS. a strategicquestion for any general theoryof SOCial organization. It isthereforemostcuriousthat basic premises and implications of the assumption have only been most casually exploredby American sociologists.. The most systematic treatment is to be foundin.the well-known article by Kingsley Davis andW i l b ~ r t ~ o ~ ; l e , enti tled "Some Principles ofStratification, More t han twelve years havepassed since its publication, and though it i s one0: the very few treatments of stratification on ah l ~ h level of generalization, it is difficult to locatea single s ~ s t e . m a t i c analysis of itsreasoning. It willbe the ! ? n r ~ c l p a l concern of this paper to presentthe beginnings of such an analysis.The central argument advanced by Davis andMoore . c ~ n be s ta te d in a number of sequentialproposrtions, as follows:(1) ~ e r t a i n positions in any society are functionallymore important than others and

requirespecial skills for their p e r f o r ~ a n c e .

(2) Only a limited number of individsociety have the talents which

t r a l ? ~ d into the skillsappropriateposrtions.(3) The conversion of talents into skil

v?lves a training period during wnfices of one ~ i n d or another arethose undergoing the training.(4) In order to induce the talented pe

u n ? e ~ g o t h e ~ e sacrifices and acqut r a ~ m n g , their future positionsmuan ~ n d u c e m e n t value in the formential, i.e., privilegedand dispropaccess to the scarce and desired rewhich the society has to offer.'

(5) T h e s ~ scarce and desired goods cothe rights and perquisitesattachedbuilt into, the positions, and can bfied into those things which contr(a) sustenance and comfort, (b) hand ~ i v e r s i o n , (c) self-respect andpansion,

(6) Thisdifferential access to the basicof the society has as a consequencferentiation of the prestige and es

w ~ i c h variousstrata acquire. Thissaid, alo.ng w ~ t h t.herights and perto constituteinstitutionalizedsociequality, i.e., stratification.

(7)Therefore, social inequalityamonent strata in the amounts of scarcesired goods, the amounts of pand esteem which they receive, is

some principles of stratification

Documents