Stratification as a Functional Necessity - Coursework Example

STRATIFICATION AS A FUNCTIONAL NECESSITY Having a keen observation and a comparative account of the past civilizations, it becomes obvious that allhuman societies, from the most primordial ones, belonging to the Palaeolithic and Neolithic eras, to the most modern technological societies of contemporary times, have been socially stratified since ever. Sociological researches also affirm the evidence of divergent socioeconomic classes in every culture and civilization even during the prehistoric times. “According to historical and archaeological records”, Tumin observes, “stratification was present even in the small wandering bands that characterized society in the earliest days of man. In such primitive conditions both age and sex in combination with physical strength must have been important criteria of stratification.” (1967: p 16) Stratification among the individuals are not only based on socioeconomic status and financial position; rather differences in caste, class, clan, community, region, religion, race, ethnicity, gender, age-groups and geographical boundaries also makes social divergences, though the diversified economic positions, professions and occupations of the individuals make up social stratification in its crude sense. “When we think of castes and classes”, Davis notes, “and of social stratification in general, we have in mind the groups which occupy different positions in the social order and enjoy different amounts of prestige. Hence, positions based on sex, age and kinship do not form part of the system of stratification. On the other hand, the positions that are socially prohibited from being combined in the same legal family viz. different caste and class positions constitute what we call stratification.” (1969: p 364) Stratification is often mistaken as a negative social phenomenon that paves the way towards the creations of competition and conflict among the individuals, groups, communities and societies. The theorists are of the view that presence of class struggle between different groups of society, with the urge for capturing more and more privileges, liberties, benefits and rights, gives birth to class conflict. Thus, social conflict is often based on socioeconomic differentiation as well as unequal distribution of wealth, opportunities and resources. All these conflicts at communal, national and international levels have caused chaos, disorder and anarchy; even civil wars and World Wars are also the outcome of conflict and rivalries among individuals, groups, societies and nations. Even then, social stratification cannot be declared as a non-productive characteristic of society; rather, it not only contains so many advantages in its fold, but also it is very essential for the systematic functioning of all the social institutions and organisations at large. Emile Durkheim declares anarchical social situation and even crime too as the constructive and creative product of social stratification. “Durkheim views crime”, Coser notes, “as normal in terms of its occurrence, and even as having positive social functions in terms of its consequences. Where crime exists, collective sentiments are sufficiently flexible to take on a new form, and crime sometimes helps to determine the form they will take. How many times, indeed, it is only an anticipation of future morality--a step toward what will be.” (1977: p 141) Before embarking upon the topic, it would be appropriate to define the structural functional theory of stratification. Structural Functional Theory: Structural functional theory upholds exceptionally prominent position in the discipline of Sociology, particularly under the topic of sociological theory. “Kingsley Davis”, Ritzer submits, “took the position that structural functionalism was, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with Sociology.” (1988: p 202) The theory views human society as an organic whole, like human body, which is in its best, when it observes symmetry and concord between its different organs, and witnesses unabated progress, prosperity and growth as a strong organic whole. “A social system”, Parsons argues, “must have a sufficient proportion of its component actors adequately motivated to act in accordance with the requirements of its role systems.” (1951: p 27) August Comte, the father of Sociology, compares the discipline with different terms of Biology, with family as cell, classes as tissues, and castes and communities as various organs of the body. In addition, Herbert Spencer also observes commonalities between social and individual organisms. “First”, Spencer submits, “both social and individual organisms grow and develop. Second, in both, increase in size tends to lead to increasing complexity and differentiation; third, progressive differentiation of structures in both tends to be accompanied by progressive differentiations in functions.” (Quoted in Ritzer, 1988: p 203) Davis and Moore are the theorists who particularly witness the imperative necessity of social stratification for the active and effective structural functionalism. They opine that various social positions of the individuals within a social set up determine the nature of the liabilities people fulfil in the structural framework of their environment. Each and every institution of society is dependent of role identification for the proper administration of various organisations existing in society. Religious cults, economic activities, political implications and cultural rituals—all require the allocation of responsibilities as well as specification of the role performance. “Elaborate devices”, Davis and Moore conclude, “are utilised to stress the identification of the person with his office—spectacular costume, abnormal conduct, special diet, segregated residence, celibacy, conspicuous leisure and the like.” (Quoted in Coser, 1977: p 418) Sociologists view a social structure as functional as an organic whole, where every organ of body has to perform completely separate role according to its position for its proper functioning. “From cradle to grave”, Cuber witnesses, “position in the stratification hierarchy is one of the most important facts circumscribing the formation of personality and the freedom of action of the person.” (1959: p 432) The same is the case with structural functionalism of different institutions of a social set up, where the individuals have been assigned divergent responsibilities, which they have to perform according to their status and role within the social set up for the maintenance of peace, solidarity and harmony in society. “Social, cultural, racial and financial discrimination”, Zaidi argues, “supports the individuals perform their obligations accordingly as the representative of their occupation, class and community, adding to the constructive activities and growth of their social, economic and political structure. (1998: p 17) Different philosophers, intellectuals and theorists preserve different opinions while elaborating social stratification. Since they are the brains of a society, their theories are looked into with great inquisitiveness and curiosity. Theorists identify presence of three social classes in a society including upper, middle and lower ones, activities of which are also different including recreational and entertainments one during the leisure time. “Elite stratum of society,” Matras writes, “enjoys the privilege of being executed from economic activity and is free to devote its time and attention to extra economic affairs. Its members are often intimately involved in public affairs and in voluntary organisations.” (1975: p 137) The proportion of three classes is also different from one another, though it is almost same in an overwhelming number of states and countries, where upper class is usually smallest in the proportion, though highest in benefits, privileges and pleasure, earned and acquired without much effort or any labour. “The upper class”, Abbott & Wallace submit, “forms a very small proportion of the population—about 10%-- comprises the landed aristocracy and those who live in income derived from the ownership of land, business etc.—what Marxists refer to as the bourgeoisie.” (1991: p 19) Tumin views stratification very necessary for the division of labour as well as assigning of proper responsibilities, particularly for the upper and ruling stratum within the social set up. “Social stratification systems”, he asserts, “function to provide the elite with the political power necessary to procure acceptance and dominance of an ideology which rationalises the status quo, whatever it may be, as logical, natural and morally right. In this manner, social stratification systems function as essentially conservative influences in the societies in which they are found.” (1953: p 391) Celebrated Swiss philosopher and intellectual of 18th century, Jean Jacques Rousseau has thrashed out class struggle and its root-cause in his illustrious “Social Contract”. Rousseau has determined demarcation between human nature and society, and declares natural tendencies among them as the purest ones. He is of the view that it is society and social surroundings that corrupts the “noble savage” i.e. human being. Rousseau raises points in support of the social stratification and states it prolific for the people’s struggle. He declares it an imperative social phenomenon towards the accomplishment of the welfare of society on the one hand, and to seek social justice and equal opportunity of growth and opinion on the other. Freedom of thought and individual liberty give birth to class differentiation. The deprivation from rights results into class struggle between haves and haves-not, putting the unity and integrity of the nation in grave jeopardy. “Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains.” (Rousseau, 1762: p 3: Quoted in Porter, 1997: p 429) The negative attitude and antipathy of society, towards the deprived individuals or classes, creates feelings of self-love among themselves and hatred for the rival strata of society. It is therefore, class discrimination and social stratification are regarded as the direct threat to the unity, integrity and solidarity of a nation. Hence, class struggle and stratification leads towards the division of society into groups and communities, resulting in social conflict between haves and haves-not. Consequently, the Marxist perspective designates the conflict between the rewarded-ones and the deprived-ones as detrimental and damaging for each and every social institution and organisation. Class struggle, as a by-product of social stratification, always starts taking place for the apposite and fair distribution of duties, privileges, rights and obligations. Though class conflict brings injustices and inequality to an end during the course of time, it is unable to eradicate social discrimination and stratification altogether. Rousseau opines that social conflict aims to regulate the exploitation of the unprivileged at the hands of the privileged. But social stratification must be examined in a separate way other than class conflict due to the very reality that the classes do not remain in severe condition of conflict every moment; rather, there is plenty of co-operation and compromise within the framework of social stratification that is the building block in respect of assigning various positions and responsibilities to the persons belonging to different stratum of society. But allocation of proper positions to different classes is only one aspect of social stratification. Karl Marx states conflict as the reaction of the injustices inflicted upon the proletariat at the hands of the bourgeoisie. He has drawn a strong connection between the social stratification and the means of production. The major modern classes are, according to him, the owners merely of labour-power, owners of capital, and landowners, whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent. “Coser’s broad definition of the Marxist Conflict Perspective”, Turner writes, “serves his intellectual purpose to demonstrate the ubiquity of conflict and to document its functions for system integration.” (Turner, 1978: p 181) Dahrendorf’s definition of the term conflict is consistent with his dialectical assumptions. He uses this term for contests, competitions, disputes and tensions. (1957: p 135) On the other hand, Coser views conflict as violent confrontations. Conflict can be antagonistic or potentially antagonistic, he opines. These antagonisms have promoted integration and adaptations among the parties to the conflict. Fink, like other sociologists, also supports Coser’s broad definition of conflict. Theorists opine that Dahrendorf’s statement of the concept of conflict is limited and narrow. In his work, “Some Conceptual Difficulties”, Fink argues conflict as a social situation or process in which two or more entities are linked by at least one form of antagonistic psychological relation. (1968: p 415) Karl Marx always favours the rights of the proletariat and declares capitalism as a grave menace for them. He proposes a model of history in which economic and political conditions determine social conditions. Marx and Engels were to counter the social hardships stemming from the rise of capitalism. Appropriately, their theories are formulated specifically to analyse how society functions in a state of upheaval and constant change. He is yet not afraid of the existence of the clash of interests between the classes. Instead, he welcomes change, taking place in some specific society. Marx declares social change as the outcome of stratification and consequent conflict. Social change is the rule, not revolution in his point of view. It is the way of development that is to be faced, not a thing to be avoided. “Conflict is”, Marx insists, “the major source of change in social systems. They develop through the exposure of people, he emphatically states, occupying particular social positions to particular social circumstances. Thus, in early industrial enterprises, competition divides the personal interests of a crowd of people who are unknown to each other.” (Coser, 1977: p 149) The existence of conflict in each and every society is inevitable and every group finds its challenger class since its own birth and creation. “Lockwood insists”, Porter notices, “on the presence of some mechanism in all societies resulting in inexorable conflict among its individuals.” (1956: p 134: Quoted in Porter, 1997: p 356). The mechanism of such kind serves as natural check and is responsible for the survival and solidarity of societies and cultures. CONCLUSION: To conclude, it becomes evident that social stratification is extremely essential and beneficial for the individuals in respect of offering their services to their society, nation and country. “Institutionalised clusters of roles”, Turner observes, “or stabilised patterns of interaction comprise a perfect social system.” (1978: p 47) Though the unequal distribution of wealth and resources is sure to bring chaos in society, yet assigning of duties and division of labour on the concrete foundations of dexterity, technical skills, personal abilities and work experience portrays a very just and beneficial structural functional set up. “Every society”, Davis and Moore articulate, “must distribute its individuals in the positions of its social structure and induce them to perform the duties of these positions. If the duties associated with the various positions were equally pleasant to the human organism, all equally important to social survival, and all equally dependent of the same ability or talent, it would make no difference who got into which positions and the problem of social placement would be greatly reduced.” (1945: p 244) Freedom of thought though is especially needed in a political set up, yet man must be free of unnecessary and unlimited social bindings too. Since amalgamation of different occupations makes up the organic whole of a society, the individuals should have been provided with definite chances of growing in his occupation, which can only be possible under the adequate determination of roles and statuses as well as comprehensive and just allocation of responsibilities and assignments. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Abbot, Pamela & Wallace, Claire. (1991) An Introduction to Sociology London Routledge p 19 2. Coser, Lewis A. (1977) The Functions of Social Conflict The Free Press p 141 3. Craib, Ian (1992) Modern Social Theory- From Parsons to Habermas, 2nd Edition, Harvester Wheatsheaf Books. 4. Cuber, John F. (1959) Sociology: A Synopsis of Principles. 3rd Edition New York Appleton Century Crofts p 432 5. Dahrendorf, R. (1957) Toward A Theory of Social Conflict in McQuarie, D. Readings in Contemporary Sociological Theory, Prentice Hall, pp. 74-83, p 157 6. Davis, Kinsley. (1969) Human Society Collier-Macmillan International Editions. The Macmillan Publishing Company New York pp 364-368 7. Davis, Kinsley and Moore, Wilbert (1945) "Some Principles of Stratification" 8. Fink, C. F. (1968) Some Conceptual Difficulties in the theory of Social Conflict Journal of Conflict Resolution 12 p 415 9. Marx, Karl. (1971) Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Tr. S. W. Ryanzanskaya, edited by M. Dobb. London: Lawrence & Whishart. 10. Matras, Judah. (1975) Social Inequality, Stratification and Mobility New Jersey, Prentice Hall p 137 11. Parsons, T. (1951) A Paradigm for the Analysis of Social Systems in J. Farganis (ed) Readings in Social Theory, McGraw-Hill, pp.25-29, pp 213-218 12. Porter, Jene M. (1997) Classics in Political Philosophy Second Edition. Prentice Hall Canada Inc. p 356, p 429 13. Ritzer, George. (1988) Sociological Theory, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, N.Y pp 201-221 14. Tumin, Melvin M. (1953) Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis. New Delhi Prentice Hall of India p 391 15. Tumin, Melvin M. (1967) Stratification in American Society: Prentice Hall p 16 16. Turner, Jonathan H. (1978). The Structure of Sociological Theory. The Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois. Chapter 3 pp 39-44 17. Zaidi, Mujtaba Haider. (1998) Leisure Time Activities with Relation to Social Classes: A Sociological Analysis An Unpublished Thesis submitted to the Department of Sociology, University of the Punjab, New Campus, Lahore Pakistan p 17 Read More