Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseSocial stratification refers to the way society is organised in layers or strata, with some groups having more power, wealth and status than others. But why does this inequality exist? Functionalists have a particular way of explaining this that focuses on how society needs to fill important roles.
Key Definitions:
In 1945, two sociologists named Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore published a theory that has become central to functionalist thinking about stratification. They argued that social inequality is actually necessary and beneficial for society. Let's explore their key ideas:
Davis and Moore claimed that all societies need some form of stratification. Why? Because some positions in society are more important than others and these positions need to be filled by the most talented people. To attract the best people to these crucial roles, society offers greater rewards (like money, status and power).
According to this theory, higher rewards for certain positions serve two purposes: they motivate talented people to work hard to achieve these positions and they compensate people for the sacrifices they make (like spending years in education or training) to qualify for these roles.
Not all jobs are created equal in the functionalist view. Davis and Moore identified two main factors that determine a position's importance:
How essential is the role to society's survival and functioning? Doctors, for example, are highly rewarded because healthcare is crucial for society.
How difficult is it to find people with the right talents and skills? Brain surgeons are paid more than general practitioners partly because their skills are rarer.
Functionalists see education as playing a crucial part in effective role allocation. Schools and universities help identify talent and provide the necessary training for important roles. They also socialise young people into accepting the unequal rewards system as fair and necessary.
Education tests and grades students, helping to identify who has the abilities needed for different roles.
Those who work hard and show ability can earn qualifications that lead to better jobs, regardless of their background.
Higher education provides the specific skills needed for complex, highly-valued roles like medicine or engineering.
Functionalists believe that modern societies are becoming increasingly meritocratic, where people's positions are based on their abilities and efforts rather than their social background. In a perfect meritocracy:
Becoming a doctor in the UK requires at least five years at university followed by several years of on-the-job training. The path is demanding, competitive and expensive. According to functionalists, the high salaries and social status of doctors are necessary rewards to ensure that enough talented people are willing to make these sacrifices. Without these rewards, society might face a shortage of medical professionals, putting public health at risk. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the essential nature of healthcare workers, temporarily raising their social status and public appreciation, though not necessarily their financial compensation.
While the functionalist theory of stratification seems logical at first glance, it has faced significant criticism from other sociological perspectives:
Marxists argue that stratification benefits the ruling class, not society as a whole. They see inequality as a tool for exploitation rather than a functional necessity. For example, they would question why CEOs earn hundreds of times more than their workers when both roles are necessary for a company to function.
Feminists point out that the theory ignores gender inequality. Traditionally female roles (like childcare) are essential for society but often poorly rewarded. This contradicts the claim that important roles always receive high rewards.
Critics argue that social background still heavily influences who gets into top positions. Children from wealthy families have advantages in education and connections that help them secure high-status roles, regardless of their natural abilities.
Many essential workers (like refuse collectors, cleaners and care workers) receive low pay despite performing crucial functions. Meanwhile, some highly-paid roles (like social media influencers) may not be functionally essential to society.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government identified "key workers" whose roles were essential for society to function during lockdowns. This list included not only doctors and nurses but also supermarket staff, delivery drivers and waste collectors – many of whom are among the lowest-paid workers in society. This highlighted a contradiction in the functionalist theory: if these roles were functionally essential enough to continue during a pandemic, why aren't they rewarded accordingly? The pandemic prompted discussions about whether our reward system truly reflects the importance of different roles to society.
The functionalist theory can help us understand how technological changes affect which roles society values. As technology advances, some previously important skills become less valuable, while new ones gain importance.
Computer programming was once a niche skill but is now highly rewarded. This reflects both its growing importance to society and the relative scarcity of people with advanced coding abilities.
Some traditional manufacturing jobs have declined in status and rewards as automation has reduced their scarcity value, even though the products themselves remain important.
The functionalist theory of stratification offers one explanation for why societies are unequal. It suggests that stratification serves a purpose by ensuring the most important positions are filled by the most capable people. However, the reality is more complex than the theory suggests.
While there is some truth to the idea that different roles require different levels of training and ability, many other factors influence who gets what rewards in society. These include power relationships, discrimination, historical inequalities and cultural values that may not reflect true functional importance.
Understanding this theory helps us critically examine claims that our society is a meritocracy and consider whether our current system of rewards truly reflects what we value and need as a society.