Page 228 - Essencials of Sociology

Why Is Social Stratification Universal? 201

Second, if stratification worked as Davis and Moore described
it, society would be a meritocracy; that is, positions would
be awarded on the basis of merit. But is this what we have?
The best predictor of who goes to college, for example, is
not ability but income: The more a family earns, the more
likely their children are to go to college (Bailey and Dynarski
2011). Not merit, then, but money—another form of the
inequality that is built into society. In short, people’s posi-
tions in society are based on many factors other than merit.
Third, if social stratification is so functional, it ought to
benefit almost everyone. Yet social stratification is dysfunc-
tional for many. Think of the people who could have made
valuable contributions to society had they not been born in
slums, dropped out of school, and taken menial jobs to help
support their families. Then there are the many who, born
female, are assigned “women’s work,” thus ensuring that they
do not maximize their mental abilities.

In Sum: Functionalists argue that some positions are more impor-
tant to society than others. Offering higher rewards for these posi-
tions motivates more talented people to take them. For example, to
get highly talented people to become surgeons—to undergo years of
rigorous training and then cope with life-and-death situations, as well
as malpractice suits—that position must provide a high payoff.
Next, let’s see how conflict theorists explain why social stratifica-
tion is universal. Before we do, look at Table 7.2, which compares the Venus and Serena Williams at the
functionalist and conflict views. award ceremony at the Olympic
Games in London. To determine the
social class of athletes as highly suc-
The Conflict Perspective: Class Conflict cessful as the Williams sisters presents
a sociological puzzle. With their high
and Scarce Resources prestige and growing wealth, what do
you think their social class is? Why?
Conflict theorists don’t just criticize details of the functionalist argument. Rather, they
go for the throat and attack its basic premise. Conflict, not function, they stress, is the
reason that we have social stratification. Let’s look at the major arguments. meritocracy a form of social strat-
Mosca’s Argument. Italian sociologist Gaetano Mosca argued that every society ification in which all positions are
awarded on the basis of merit
will be stratified by power. This is inevitable, he said in an 1896 book titled The Ruling
Class, because:
1. No society can exist unless it is organized. This requires leadership to coordinate
people’s actions.
2. Leadership requires inequalities of power. By definition, some people take leadership
positions, while others follow.
3. Because human nature is self-cen-
tered, people in power will use their
positions to seize greater rewards TABLE 7.2 Functionalist and Conflict Views of
for themselves.
Stratification: The Distribution of Society’s Resources
There is no way around these facts of
life, added Mosca. Social stratification is Who Receive the Most Who Receive the Least
inevitable, and every society will stratify Resources? Resources?
itself along lines of power. The Functionalist View Those who perform the more Those who perform the less
Marx’s Argument. If he were alive important functions (the more important functions (the less
to hear the functionalist argument, capable and more industrious) capable and less industrious)
Karl Marx would be enraged. From his The Conflict View Those who occupy the more Those who occupy the less
point of view, the people in power are powerful positions powerful positions
not there because of superior traits, as Source: By the author.