Major theoretical perspectives on social stratification
This article will be evaluating the Marxist, Functionalist and Weberian models of social stratification. It will go into detail about the origins of the class system, how and what stratification is based upon including its structure and also the positives and negatives of the functions of stratification.
Stratification is based on the different layers of social class within society depending on a person’s economical status. According to Peter Saunders (1990), it is built up of three main layers then broken down into smaller classes relating to a person’s profession. The layers are Upper class, Middle class and lower class. Stratification derived originally from the science of geology in the context of ‘strata’ which is the layers of rock created by various activities such as volcanoes to create the Earth’s crust over millions of years. However, this is not an accurate way to define social stratification as the layers in rock do not move unlike that of social stratification.
Social Stratification has both advantages and disadvantages as with most things. Some of the advantages include the fact that the layering in today’s society allows people to determine what occupations people have, how much they earn and the area they live in. For example, if someone lives in an area such as Buckingham in
There are three variations of social stratification; Marxism, Functionalist approach and the Weberian approach. Marx claims there are two levels of stratification in his model; the bourgeoisie which is the upper class and the proletariat which is the lower class. This form of stratification reflects the society at the time Marx was writing and shows a very distinct divide while at the same time being explained adequately enough to show that the bourgeoisie are the capitalist ruling class or business owners and that the proletariat are the slave to the wage, your average worker. In today’s society this theory could form a good basis for stratification but would be very unrealistic as there are more than one strata in society. Marx explains his beliefs about the divisions in detail and suggests that the three main conflicts between the two classes are: social alienation, economic crisis and polarisation of social classes which would create tensions due to the change and this would be the breaking. One criticism would be that if a change to communism was to occur it will require the proletariat to revolt which is what Marx had predicted. This would be difficult as the bourgeoisie would use the education system, media and legal systems to push back the proletariat by leading them to not know that they are being exploited.
On the other hand the Functionalist theory claims there are several layers of strata, with people’s positions being based on a person’s economical status and job role. The functionalists believed that you should work hard to earn a position or a reward. Compared to the other theories you could say that they all require a certain amount of role placement which means the person should have worked for it in the form of training and having the correct skills and experience for the position. One criticism that could arise here would be that low paid jobs are just as important as those higher paid jobs. These can be justified by giving specialist jobs that require experience, training and accreditation such as doctors and surgeons a place near the top of stratification. Stratification on such a large scale can make those at the bottom feel unworthy and make them feel unequal. This theory is very useful if you are faced with several job roles that fall under one main category.
A more complicated stratification theory based would be that of Weber as there were more class divisions. Weber took different parts from both the functionalist and Marxist theories and created his own, only it is not be practical in today’s society as today the lower class is moving up into the middle class and the upper-class are moving down into the middle class. He believed in the difference between class, status and party and he treated these as separate (but related) sources of power so they have different effects on people’s lives. He claimed there should be four main classes: the upper class (like the bourgeoisie of Marx’s theory), the white collar workers, the petite bourgeoisie and the manual working class (like Marx’s proletariat class). This theory is realistic to a degree as it is like the class system we have in today’s society. However, you are able to be in a high class without it being based solely on earnings because economic status doesn’t necessarily put you in a class position and enable you to be in a high position as you can be born into wealth or have won the money. However, he criticised Marx’s theory about the proletariat revolt and said that this was not likely.
The least detailed but most relevant to today’s society is the functionalist’s theory on social stratification because our society consists of up to eight layers and each layer is determined on economical status and most people have to work hard to gain a higher position. The Functionalists theory doesn’t even name the class groups. However, the majority of people work hard but never reach a high position. On the other hand the most detailed theory is that of Weber as he explains what criteria determines which class you go into however he only considered two classes. Weber says that not all power comes from wealth and he does not discuss the relationship between the classes unlike Marx. From looking at the four classes you would assume they are mainly geared towards the bourgeoisie, meaning that they were created by the upper-class for the upper-class without considering the working class. Compared to all three in perspective of today’s society the functionalists seem to have hit the nail on the head by being more diverse with the strata however you may argue that some criteria are not spread out and that stratification can have a very distinctive level of division. Functionalists are vague about who goes into which class; they don’t even list the classes however if you look at it from today’s perspective you will see that more lower class have moved into the middle class and more upper class have moved down into the middle class due to the changes in occupations and economy which is why it is more relevant to us in this day and age.
Reference to this article: Hallas, J. (2007) ‘Major theoretical perspectives on social stratification‘ Date accessed: http://rose.nadasolutions.com/pink/2007/12/07/major-theoretical-perspectives-on-social-stratification/
References:
Holborn, M & Langley, P (2004) AS & A level Student Handbook, accompanies the Sixth Edition: Haralambos & Holborn, Sociology – Themes and perspectives,
Saunders, P, (1990) the Rutledge Social Class and Stratification
Stevenson, J, (1998), The Complete Idiots Guide to Philosophy, New York, Alpha Books
Haralambos, M & Holborn, M, 2004, Sociology Themes & Perspectives, London, HarperCollins