Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseThe Davis and Moore theory is one of the most famous functionalist explanations for social inequality. They argued that stratification (the way society is divided into layers) is both inevitable and beneficial for society. However, their theory has faced significant criticism from various sociological perspectives.
Key Definitions:
Before we look at the criticisms, let's quickly recap what Davis and Moore argued in their 1945 theory:
Davis and Moore believed that stratification exists in every society because it serves an important purpose. They argued that without different rewards for different jobs, people wouldn't be motivated to train for difficult but essential roles like doctors or engineers. This inequality, they claimed, benefits everyone by ensuring society runs smoothly.
The most famous criticism of Davis and Moore came from American sociologist Melvin Tumin in 1953. He identified several major flaws in their theory:
Tumin questioned who decides which positions are most important to society. Is a banker really more important than a teacher? A CEO more valuable than a nurse? He argued that the "importance" of roles is subjective and often reflects existing power structures.
Tumin pointed out that many talented people never get the chance to develop their skills due to poverty, discrimination, or lack of educational opportunities. The system isn't meritocratic if people don't have equal access to opportunities.
Tumin noted that rewards often don't match a job's difficulty or importance. Many essential workers (like carers or refuse collectors) receive low pay despite their crucial role, while some high-paying jobs contribute little to society.
Tumin also argued that stratification actually wastes talent rather than maximising it. He suggested that:
Marxist sociologists have been particularly critical of the Davis and Moore theory, seeing it as a justification for capitalism and class inequality:
Marxists argue that stratification doesn't exist because it's functional, but because it benefits the ruling class. The wealthy elite use their power to maintain a system that works in their favour while exploiting the working class. The idea that inequality is "necessary" simply legitimises this exploitation.
Marxists point out that Davis and Moore ignore the role of power and conflict in creating stratification. They argue that rewards aren't distributed based on function but on who has the power to take the largest share of society's resources.
The functionalist theory is seen as promoting "false consciousness" - making workers believe the system is fair and necessary when it actually exploits them. This helps maintain the status quo and prevents challenges to inequality.
Feminist sociologists highlight how Davis and Moore completely overlook gender inequality:
Feminists argue that Davis and Moore's theory:
For example, nursing and childcare are essential to society but are often undervalued and underpaid because they're seen as "women's work".
Research shows that family background strongly influences educational achievement in the UK. Children from wealthy families are more likely to attend university regardless of ability, contradicting the idea of a meritocratic system.
The average FTSE 100 CEO earns 117 times more than the average UK worker. This massive gap has grown over time, even when company performance hasn't improved, suggesting rewards aren't tied to function.
Some societies (like the Nordic countries) have less inequality but still function effectively with high standards of living, suggesting extreme stratification isn't necessary for society to work well.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a key flaw in the functionalist theory. Many of the most "essential" workers - including healthcare assistants, supermarket staff, delivery drivers and cleaners - were among the lowest paid in society. Despite their crucial role in keeping society functioning during a crisis, their positions weren't rewarded with high status or pay. This real-world example challenges Davis and Moore's claim that the most important roles receive the greatest rewards.
The debate around Davis and Moore remains relevant today as societies grapple with growing inequality:
Income inequality has increased in many countries, including the UK, over recent decades. If stratification is functional, why does it continue to grow even when it creates social problems?
Inheritance of wealth and property means advantages are passed down generations, creating a system based on birth rather than merit - directly contradicting Davis and Moore's meritocratic claims.
When discussing criticisms of Davis and Moore in your exams, remember to:
While this lesson focuses on criticisms, remember that a good evaluation in your exam should consider both strengths and weaknesses. You might note that Davis and Moore do help explain why some difficult jobs (like surgeons) receive high rewards, even if their theory doesn't explain all aspects of stratification.
Davis and Moore's functionalist theory of stratification has been widely criticised for:
These criticisms highlight how functionalist theories often justify existing inequalities rather than questioning whether they're truly necessary or beneficial. Understanding these critiques is essential for developing a balanced view of social stratification.