David Grusky's Social Stratification: Part II - Forms and Sources of Stratification

A quick note about this huge book: it is very well organized and the connections from one author to the next are very clear for the most part. The one problem I have with it is that it does not clearly state the date of each article. Only the final article in each Part was written originally for this book.

The Functions of Stratification:

Davis and Moore - "Some Principles of Stratification"

Davis and Moore are sort of the starting point for this whole study of stratification. They argue that since no society is "classless" there must be a universal functional necessity that causes stratification in any social system. The functional necessity is "precisely the requirement faced by any society of placing and motivating individuals in the social structure" (pg. 39).

Motivation occurs at two levels: we must instill the desire in the proper individuals to fulfill certain positions, and then instill the desire to perform the duties of the position once they are in it. D&M believe that the system of stratification is relatively static, the positions do not change. What do change continually are the individuals within the system. As they are born, age, and die they must be arranged and absorbed into the positional system. Who gets what position is important because each job is not equally pleasant and certain talents are required in certain positions. So, a system of rewards and their distribution arises and there we have stratification. What kind of rewards? D&M list three types: sustenance and comfort, humor and diversion, and self respect and ego expansion. All three must be distributed according to positions in any society. In fact, the rewards are "built in" to the positions. They are the "rights" of the positions. We can see that D&M are clearly functionalist who see that since stratification exists in all societies, it must fulfill a universal need. "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" (pg. 40).

Two Determinants of Positional Rank:

a) functional importance - the more important a position is to society, the higher its rank is and the greater its rewards are.

b) differential scarcity of personnel - this refers to the training or talent (inherent capacity) position requires. Those that require a rare talent or a lot of training will be higher in rank and be rewarded more.

Any stratification system can be understood as the product of these two determinants. Variations between systems means that different positions are more important in each society and/or different personnel are scarce due to talent or training.

Major Societal Functions and Stratification

In this section, D&M discuss religion, government, wealth/property/labor, and technical knowledge. For each they discuss how the power and rank of position based on each is limited by certain factors related to the above determinants. The main control of each appears to be competition between people capable of holding the positions.

Variations in Stratified Systems

D&M lay out a model for analyzing types of stratification systems in different societies based on several using several key principles or modes of variation:

1. Degree of specialization--Polar types: Specialized, Unspecialized.

2. The Nature of Functional Emphasis--Main types: Familistic (emphasis on family functions), Authoritarian (theocratic based on sacred functions or totalitarian based on secular functions), Capitalistic.

3. Magnitude of Invidious difference--or the amount of social distance between positions. Polar types: Equalitarian (small distance), Inequalitarian (great distance).

4. Degree of Opportunity--Polar types: Mobile (open), Immobile (closed).

5. Degree of Stratum Solidarity--Polar types: Class organized, Class unorganized.

External Conditions

The state of any society in regards to any of the above ranges of variation is determined by its state in regards to the other ranges of variation and the conditions outside of the stratification system that influence it. These external conditions include:

1. Stage of cultural development: as cultural heritage grows, more specialization in required which enhances mobility, reduces stratum solidarity and changes functional emphasis.

2. Situation with respect to other societies: presence or absence of conflict and of free trade or cultural diffusion all effect the class structure.

3. Size of the society: small societies are limited in the degree of specialization possible, the degree of class segregation and the magnitude of inequality.

In closing, D&M argue that it is useless to try to classify societies under one or two criteria such as those that create the categories caste, feudal and open class. They argue that "there are a number of modes of variation between different systems, and that any one system is a composite of the society's status with reference to all these modes of variation" (pg. 46).

The Dysfunctions of Stratification

Melvin Tumin - "Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis"

In this article, Tumin examines the above D&M article and argues that those authors are wrong in assuming that since social inequality has existed in all societies it must therefore be inevitable and positively functional. He lays out D&M ideas in a very straightforward list of propositions on pp. 47-48 that I will not repeat but recommend you take a look at. Then he examines critically each proposition in turn (pp. 48-52). For example, he finds the concept of "functional importance" problematic and he questions the idea that training periods for skilled positions are sacrificial From this analysis he comes up with eight dysfunctions of stratification (summarized on pp. 52-53).

1. Social stratification systems (SSS) limit the possibility of discovering the full range of talent available in a society. This results from unequal access to appropriate motivation, channels of recruitment and training centers.

2. By limiting the range of talent available, SSS limit the possibility of expanding the productive resources of society in comparison to what could be under a system of greater equality of opportunity.

3. SSS provide the elite with the political power necessary to achieve acceptance and dominance of an ideology that rationalizes the status quo as "natural", "morally right", etc. In this way SSS exert a conservative influence on the society.

4. SSS distribute favorable self-images unequally throughout the population which are necessary to the development of the creative potential inherent in humans, thereby limiting the development of this creative potential.

5. SSS encourage hostility, distrust and suspicion among various segments of society, limiting the possibilities of extensive social integration because the inequalities cannot be made fully acceptable to the less privileged.

6. Since the sense of significant membership in society depends on one's place on the social ladder, SSS distribute unequally this sense of membership in the population.

7. Since loyalty depends on a sense of significant membership in society, SSS distribute loyalty unequally in the population.

8. Since participation and apathy depend on the sense of significant membership in society, SSS distribute the motivation to participate fully in society unequally in the population.

These are only examples of the consequences of social stratification that are usually not taken into account. They are also empirical hypotheses subject to test. A sophisticated sociology should recognize that any social arrangement has a mixed nature (positive and negative) when long and short range consequences as well as manifest and latent dimensions are considered.

Concluding Commentary

Gerhard Lenski - "New Light on Old Issues. . ."

The debate over whether SSS are natural and inevitable or unnatural and unnecessary has been going on forever. In the 20th century, this debate is primarily inspired by the work of Marx and his followers. We are debating the merits of Marxism basically. The debate has focused almost exclusive on the Western capitalist societies. Lenski proposes an examination of "really existing socialism"(RES) such as the former Soviet Union, Poland, East Germany, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. These countries were or have been governed by dedicated Marxists and provide a unique laboratory for studying RES. "In these societies, we can see what actually happens when private ownership is abolished and the emphasis in a society's system of rewards is shifted from material incentives to moral incentives" (pg. 55).

Lenski cites an earlier thesis of his (in the 1970s) and argues that it has held up fairly well over time with only a few modifications necessary. The original thesis asserted that these experiments in destratification were most successful in reducing economic inequality. Unfortunately, this success was offset by two major failings: 1) political inequalities in these societies were huge, much greater than in Western industrial democracies; 2) none had achieved the critical transformation in human nature that Marx predicted would result from the abolition of private property. Lenski attributes these failures to the unrealistic assumptions about human nature that marxian theory supposes.

Looking back on this thesis with the benefit of time and better data, Lenski makes only a few modifications:

1) the amount of economic inequality was greater than he originally observed. The overthrow of Marxist regimes in eastern Europe have made this clear. The rich were much richer than he knew and poverty was more widespread and more serious than Westerners were aware. However, it still appears that the level of inequality in marxist societies never equaled the level found in most Western democracies and Japan.

2) Lenski's earlier examination failed to predict the speed and magnitude of the changes that lay ahead. Hindsight makes obvious the internal and systematic problems of command economies and one party polities and we now know that the economies had been stagnating for years causing the majority of the population to become disaffected and hostile. Marxism and Marxist elites had lost whatever legitimacy they had ever had in the minds of the people.

These internal, systematic problems are the most relevant to the study of the causes and consequences of inequality. It seems that many of these problems were the result of inadequate motivational arrangements like those debated by D&M and Tumin. There were two basic types of motivational problems: undermotivation of ordinary workers, and misdirected motivation of managers, bureaucrats, and decision-makers.

Undermotivation of ordinary workers can be summed up in the quote "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work". The rewards for most work did not justify anything more than very minimal effort. The motivational problems (shoddy work, absenteeism, corruption, etc.) had demoralizing consequences for the majority of the population So what went wrong? Why were the Marxist promises of freedom and affluence for the masses never fulfilled?

External factors were blamed by marxist elites for many years, but it has become increasingly obvious that internal systemic factors also played a major role. The limitation on wage differentials so that there was no incentive for talented young people to seek special training. School was not seen as being worth the effort and sacrificed income. These problems seem to be the result of a basic flaw in Marxist theory: the assumption that private property is the major source of society's ills and that its abolition will transform human nature. The abolition of private property did not lead to this transformation. Instead, worker performance deteriorated and production stagnated or declined.

But there was more the motivational problems than a faulty assumption about human nature. They were also a result of defective organizational arrangements that were born out of the command economies. Labor resources were used very inefficiently creating cynicism in workers about the value of their work. Managers received only minimal rewards for innovation and reinvestment and so did not pursue them, leading the economies to become less and less competitive in the world market.

Lenski argues that this evidence seems to support D&M's assertion that successful incentive systems motivate the best qualified people to the most important positions and motivate them to perform to the best of their abilities. Marxist societies failed on both accounts.

These numerous problems with the command economies raise the question of whether they were inevitable consequences of the system itself. Is marxism doomed from the start? "Some observers have argued that the massive failures of the socialist economies of Marxist societies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere demonstrate the obvious superiority of capitalism and indicate that the future lies with capitalism. That conclusion, however, seems unwarranted" (pg.59). Even societies categorized as capitalist are actually mixed economies in which rewards are distributed partly based on need, partly on work, and partly on property. They combine elements of communism, socialism, and capitalism. The distinction between socialism and capitalism is increasingly irrelevant. What students of inequality need to do now is "catch up with this new social reality and create the kind of theoretical synthesis that does justice to the economic synthesis that has been created in most Western democracies in recent decades" (pg. 60).