THE CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON
STRATIFICATION
we can observe interesting parallels in the manner in which the, phenomenon of social inequality was explained by classical thinkers of modern Europe and the ways in which contemporary sociological theories deals with the subject of social stratification. The two dominant perspectives on the subject, the functionalist theory and the conflict theory, resemble very closely the conservative and radical viewpoints presented above. Both these perspectives begin with a normative position on the subject. The functionalist perspective or the consensus approach emphasizes on the in evitability of social inequality and the positive function that it performs for the social system. The conflict theory, on the other hand, looks at the phenomenon in terms of interests that the given structures of inequality in a particular society fulfil of certain individuals and groups at the cost of others. Hence, they highlight the illegitimacy and the negative side of it.
THE FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE
As we know, the functionalist or the structural-functionalist theories tend to look at society as an organically integrated system where different parts or units work to fulfil the essential needs of the system. They look at social stratification too in functionalist terms, i.e. in terms of the needs that the patterns of social inequality fulfil for the society as a whole. Thus, for them social inequality is not merely an inevitable fact but also essential requirement of the system. Talcott Parsons and Kingsley Davis are the leading functionalist theorists who have written on social stratification.
The basic premise of the functionalist position is that stratification arises out of the needs of societies and not from the needs and desires of individuals. According to Parsons, in every society there are certain shared values that arise out of the needs of that society. Since the needs of all societies are more or less similar, these values also tend to be similar the world over. What differs is the relative ranking of these values. One society may value efficiency more than stability while another may reverse the order but every society must value both stability as well efficiency to some degree. The system of social stratification is essentially an expression of the value system of that society. The positions that measure up to the standards set by the society are rewarded more than those that are valued less.
Similarly, Davis argues that stratification arises in response to two specific needs common to every human society. First, the most important positions in society ought to be fulfilled by the most competent individuals and second, the society must reward those occupying important positions better than those occupying less important positions. Social inequality is thus an unconsciously evolved device by which societies insure that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons.
Davis identifies two important factors that determine the magnitude of rewards attached to highly ranked position:
1) their functional importance for the society and
2) the relative scarcity of qualified personnel in that category.
For example, a doctor is functionally more important for society than a sweeper. And being qualified to be a doctor requires longer period of training that makes their availability scarce in society. Hence higher rewards for
the doctor. Since all positions can never be of equal importance, nor all men equally qualified for the important positions, inequality is inevitable. Not only is it inevitable, as Davis argues, it is necessarily beneficial to everyone since the survival slid wellbeing of every individual is contingent on the survival and well being of society.
THE CONFLICT APPROACH
In contrast to the functionalists, the conflict theories do not approach the problem of social stratification by identifying an abstract notion of society with its own need. They view society as being formed by various individuals and groups and their needs and interests. It is these needs and interests that become the starting point for the conflict theorists. While the functionalists have no place for the concept of power in their analysis of society and social inequality, the conflict theorists begin with the question of power. Society for them is a stage where struggles take place among different groups and individuals over the available scarce resources and the socially valued positions. Those who are powerful use their strength to comer the valued positions. Those who are powerful use their strength to comer the valued resources. It is the domination of some groups over the others that perpetuates social inequality in society. For example those who are rich are able to send their wards to good schools and it is because of this that they are able to compete for the positions that are valued better. Since the poor cannot even afford to send their children to ordinary schools they can never compete with the rich and the powerful. Comparing the two schools of thought, Lenski writes:
Where the functionalists emphasize the common interests shared by the members of a society, conflict theorists emphasize the interests which divide. Where functionalists stress the common advantages, which accrue from social relationships, conflict theorists emphasize the element of domination and exploitation. Where functionalists emphasize consensus as the basis of social unity, conflict theorists emphasize coercion. Where functionalists see human societies as social systems, conflict theorists see them as stages on which struggles for power and privilege take place.
The two schools of thought are generally seen as being totally opposed to each other. However, some scholars have also argued that there are in any things common in the two perspectives. They argue that conflict and consensus are two sides of the same coin. A sociological theory should be able to take into account all the aspects of social reality.
Some sociologists have even attempted to go beyond the polarities and develop a unified theory of society and social stratification that attempts to bring the two viewpoints together. Scholars like Dahrendorf, Lenski, Berghe and Luhnlam are among those have tried to go beyond the polarities and have attempted syntheses of the two perspectives.
PIERRE VAN DEN BERGHE
In one of his research articles, ‘Dialectic and Functionalism: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis’ published in the American Sociological Review in 1963. Pierre van den Berghe, tried to identify the common elements in the two major traditions of sociological theorizing by using the Hegelian concept of synthesis.
He argues that Functionalism and Marxian conflict theory each stresses one of two essential aspects of social reality. “Not only does each theory enlphasize one of two aspects
of social reality which are complementary and inextricably intertwined, but some of the analytical concepts are applicable to both approaches” (Berghe,).
However, it is not enough to say that the two theories are complementary. One should be able to show their reconcilability. According to Berghe, by retaining and modifying elements of the two approaches, one can develop such a unified theory of society. He shows that the two theories converge on four important points.
First, both the approaches are holistic in character as they both look at society as a system with interrelated and interdependent part However. the two theories have opposite views on the interrelationship of different parts. While functionalism emphasizes on the reciprocal interdependence of parts, the dialectical theory talks about the conflictual relations among the different parts of the system. However, both the theories have been criticised for over emphasizing one at the cost of the other. The concept of system thus needs to include both, interdependence as well as conflict.
Second, their concern with regard to conflict and consensus also tends to overlap. Whereas functionalism regards consensus as major focus of stability and integration, the dialectical theory views conflict as a source of disintegration and revolution. However, according to Berghe, the two can be reconciled into a single theory. For example, Closer has pointed to the integrative and stabilizing aspect of conflict. Instead of leading to disintegration, conflict can help the system to retain a dynamic equilibrium. Furthermore. in a number of societies; conflict is institutionalized and ritualized in a manner that seems conducive to integration. In industrial societies, for example, the existence of trade unions of the working class helps in regulating industrial relations and they work as safety valves against the possibility of a disintegrative kind of class conflict. Similarly, excessive unity among different occupant also lead to inter-group conflict in a plural society where diverse cultural groups live together.
Thirdly, both functionalism and the conflict/dialectical theory share the evolutionary notion of social change. Though their notion of stages and processes involved in the course of historical change differ, they both nevertheless believe in progress.
While the Marxian dialectical theory visualizes a process of change taking place through class struggle, functionalists attribute this change to a continuous process of social differentiation. Theories of change have at least one important point in common: both theories hold that a given state of the social system presupposes all previous stages, aid, hence, contains them, if only in residual or modified.
Fourthly, Berghe, claims that both functionalism and dialectic-conflict theories are based on “an equilibrium model”. In the case of functionalism thesis is obvious. But the dialectic sequence of thesis-antithesis-synthesis? also involves a notion of equilibrium. The dialectic conceives of society as going through alternating phases of equilibrium and disequilibrium. While the notion of equilibrium in the dialectical theory is different from the classical notion of dynamic equilibrium, the views are neither contradictory nor incompatible with a postulate of long-range tendency towards integration.