Modern Functionalism and Social Stratification

Modern Functionalism

Functionalists maintain that a system of social inequality serves the needs of society as a whole. In other words, all benefit from such a system, including those at the lowest levels of the social ladder. For example, they argue that a system of stratification maintains the order and stability of society.

Talcott Parsons is a prominent functionalist who argues that the stability and functioning of society is maintained by a value consensus, that is, an agreement among members of society that the social order is worth preserving. Hence, functionalism is also known as consensus structuralism; it states that society is structured into functionally distinct groups, including classes, but that the cohesion of society as a whole is maintained by a consensus held by members of society that such as structure is natural and fair. Parsons also maintains that American society, for instance, is a meritocracy since social status within it is achieved rather than ascribed; that is, the American system of stratification is open as opposed to closed. He argues that American businessmen deserve their high social status because they have achieved it through their own work and skills. In this way, Parsons argues that American society is fair.

It is claimed that the division of society into classes also benefits all classes; cooperation between the classes is in the interest of all. This is because society requires organisation, and the fundamental basis of that organisation is the class system. Parsons writes

Organization on an every increasing scale is a fundamental feature of such a system [i.e. Western Society]. Such organization naturally involves centralization and differentiation of leadership and authority; so that those who take responsibility for coordinating the actions of many others must have a different status in important respects from those who are essentially in the role of carrying out specifications laid down by others.

The functionalist argument was forcefully proposed by Davis and Moore in 1945 in their essay Some Principles of Stratification. They claim that every society exhibits some form of stratification. They argue that this is because a system of stratification is the expression of the fundamental need of society to allocate roles to each individual. Whilst every role is essential to the maintenance of the survival of the whole, some roles are more functionally important than others. These require individuals with more specific skills, and hence to ensure that these roles are filled by able people, the system must reward the holders of these offices with higher status, wealth, power and prestige. They conclude that social stratification is the “device by which societies insure that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons.”

This argument partly rests on the notion of functional importance. It is criticised by the sociologist, Tumin as follows: Firstly, it can be argued that there is simply no way of objectively measuring the functional importance of one role as opposed to another. Secondly, Davis and Moore assume that differences in power are based on differences in functional importance; however, it is possible to argue that the ascribed functional importance of a role in society is due to differences in power. In other words, people with power define the roles that they fulfill as functionally important, and then use this to justify drawing higher rewards for performing those roles. Thirdly, Davis and Moore assume that only a limited number of people have the necessary basic talents to fill certain roles, and that people in general cannot be trained or educated to fulfill them. Thus, fourthly, it can be claimed that the class system itself limits the life chances of individuals born into a lower class situation, and prevents them from obtaining the necessary qualifications or training to progress up the social ladder. In fact, fifthly, members of professional elites prevent free entry into their professions — they erect barriers to entry, and ensure a shortage of supply of labour in their fields in order to drive salaries up.

In contrast to the functionalist claim that the system of social stratification is the expression of commonly held values, it is indeed true that in many cases the existence of social divisions serve to segment society and bring about conflict.

The perspective of the New Right

The philosophy of the New Right is based on C19th theories of liberalism — the idea that that free markets are the best means of organising production and distribution, and that state intervention should be minimal. It is quite obviously a philosophy opposed to Marxism and socialism.

Leading intellectuals in the movement include the American economist Milton Friedman, the American philosopher, Robert Nozick, the Austrian sociologist, Friedrich Hayek and the British sociologists Peter Saunders and David Marsland. These sociologists advocate the functionalist theories discussed above, and develop additional arguments of their own. Nozick claims that the pursuit of equality in itself leads to injustice, since it deprives those who wish to make greater efforts of the rewards for their effort. Both Nozick and Saunders maintain, by contrast, that equality is best served by the notion of entitlement, that is, when people are permitted to acquire and keep property earned through their own efforts. This argument clearly falls down on the fact of inheritance.

Nozick and Saunders also both argue that social inequality promotes economic growth. Competition thrives in a society that permits social inequality, and competition results in better and better products being brought to the market, and increasing quality and quantity of economic output.

This invites the examination of social mobility. Social mobility is usually studied as occupational mobility rather than in terms of wealth or income. Occupational mobility refers to the ability of an individual whose father comes from one occupational background to move into a different occupational class. Occupational mobility is likely to be greater than mobility defined in terms of wealth, since it is easier to progress from being a manual labourer to a doctor than to progress from a pauper to a millionaire. However, even so, every study of occupational mobility in Britain has shown that (a) people whose parents occupy a higher occupational class have a higher chance of occupying a higher occupational class themselves; (b) occupational mobility has increased during the C20th. Thus, Britain remains a society in which it is not true that there are equal opportunities, though the extent to which opportunities are becoming more equal is increasing.

Furthermore, there has been a general movement of people up the occupational ladder. That is, there are more people employed in Britain in higher occupational classes now than ever before. However, this point must be examined very carefully, since it may be an expression only of the structure of the economy rather than the structure of society; that is, owing to deindustrialisation many more people are employed in white-collar jobs than ever before, as a percentage of the population. This may create the illusion that social mobility is increasing. This requires an examination of what the class structure actually is.