Click here to join telegram group
Social stratification refers to the hierarchical arrangement of individuals and groups in society based on resources, status, and power. Different theoretical perspectives—functionalism, conflict theory, and interactionism—explain stratification in their own ways. The structural-functionalist perspective, represented by thinkers like Kingsley Davis, Wilbert Moore, and Talcott Parsons, sees stratification as both necessary and functional for society. But this raises the question: does this viewpoint promote the status quo by justifying inequalities?
The Functionalist Explanation of Stratification
- Inequality as Necessary and Inevitable
- Davis and Moore (1945) argued that stratification is universal, necessary, and inevitable.
- Every society requires a system that motivates individuals to fill different positions. Some positions (like doctors, judges, scientists) are considered more functionally important and require greater training.
- To ensure that the most qualified people occupy them, society must attach greater rewards (wealth, prestige, power).
- Meritocracy
- Functionalists believe society rewards people according to merit, talent, and effort. Inequality reflects differences in contribution, not unfairness.
- Parsons’ View
- Talcott Parsons emphasized that stratification serves the function of integrating values and norms.
- Different roles are evaluated according to societal value systems, and inequality ensures role allocation and social order.
Why Functionalism Promotes the Status Quo
- Justification of Inequality
- By portraying stratification as functional and beneficial, the perspective tends to justify existing inequalities rather than challenge them.
- For instance, if doctors earn far more than sanitation workers, functionalists argue it is because their role is more critical and requires rare skills. This naturalizes inequality instead of questioning systemic barriers like access to education or inherited privilege.
- Neglect of Power and Exploitation
- Functionalism ignores how elites often maintain privilege not through talent or merit but through control of resources, political power, and cultural domination.
- This silence on exploitation indirectly supports existing power structures.
- Illusion of Consensus
- Functionalism assumes a value consensus—that everyone agrees on which roles are more important. In reality, stratification often reflects imposed hierarchies shaped by class, caste, gender, or race.
- For example, in India, caste-based inequalities cannot be explained away as “functionally necessary,” yet the functionalist model could be used to rationalize them.
- Resistance to Social Change
- By viewing stratification as inevitable and useful, functionalists discourage movements that seek radical redistribution of wealth and power.
- This indirectly preserves the status quo and legitimizes stability over transformation.
Critiques of Functionalism
- Melvin Tumin (1953) critiqued Davis and Moore, arguing that:
- The theory exaggerates the importance of certain positions.
- It ignores that social inequalities block opportunities for talented individuals from lower classes.
- Rewards are not always proportional to functional importance (e.g., entertainers earn more than teachers).
- Conflict theorists (like Marx) argue that stratification serves the interests of the ruling class, not society as a whole.
Contemporary Relevance
- In modern societies, structural-functionalism still influences ideas of meritocracy—for instance, arguments that income inequality is acceptable if it incentivizes innovation.
- However, growing evidence of systemic barriers (gender wage gaps, caste-based exclusion, racial discrimination) shows that stratification often reflects historical privilege, not functional necessity.
Conclusion
The structural-functionalist perspective does promote the status quo because it naturalizes and justifies social inequalities as functional and necessary. By ignoring exploitation, power struggles, and systemic barriers, it ends up legitimizing existing hierarchies.
While it provides insights into how stratification contributes to social order and stability, its weakness lies in downplaying injustice and hindering critical examination of inequality. A balanced approach would recognize both the integrative functions of stratification and the need to address its exploitative dimensions.