Part II - Forms and Sources of Stratification

Is stratification inevitable? This recurring and one of the most fundamental question regarding stratification is the subject of this section. The first article is the now classic article by Davis and Moore, which asserts the inevitability of, and even the positive assessment of, stratification, based largely on the perspective of functionalism. In direct contrast, the second article by Melvin Tumin speaks against the functional necessity of stratification and suggests that at least in theory, all forms of stratification can be eradicated by creative means. Overall, this stance seems to be the one supported by most of liberally oriented, or anti-functionlism intellectuals. The third article by Lenski shifts the favor back to the first stance somewhat, by drawing upon the empirical evidence from former communist countries.

First, what is the rationale for the claim that stratification is functionally necessary and inevitable? Basically, the ideas go as follows. Insofar as there is a division of labor in society, and that different societal roles have different degrees of importance, these different role positions must be filled by individuals. Further, not anybody can fill in any of the potentially available roles - there is the differential scarcity of personnel available, so that there is a need for the society to make sure that the most qualified individuals fill the most appropriate role positions for his or her ability. So long as there are these functional necessities facing the society, then stratification system - by providing for the differential reward for differentially valued role positions - is the functionally necessary mechanism of the society making sure right people fill the right positions. In another word, stratification system provides for the appropriate motivations for the people to seek to fill certain role positions and desire to perform the appropriate tasks required of that position adequately.

In direct contrast, the article by Tumin, which challeges the functional necessity of stratification and inequality, does so by criticizing number of theoretical assumptions Davis and Moore made in their exposition. Specifically, Tumin divides Davis and Moore's exposition into 7 distinctive propositions, and critiques each of them to state that all of these seemingly inevitably true propositions actually do not have to be true. So, for instance, the idea that only a limited number of individuals have needed abilities to fulfill roles with high status is downplayed by the counterargument that large segments of the society are not even given the chance to discover what their talent is, and that elites develop the power to restrict the access to their privileged positions over time. Similarly, the idea that the conversion of talent into skills require "sacrifice" in the form of training - justifying the higher reward for those who do make this "sacrifice" - is challenged that these "training periods" may not even be properly considered as a sacrifice of any kind. Instead, when considering the non-material psychic and spiritual rewards, these training periods may themselves even be part of the privilege of belonging to the higher class. Further, it is also called into question whether motivational schemes should necessarily involve differential distribution of "scarce" goods and rewards. Many different forms of motivational schemes may be conceived of, instead.

Which position regarding the inevitability of stratification is more right? It has certainly been a focus of one of the most fundamental concern in sociology, as which stance one adopts leads to very different political implications and policy implications regarding what should be done about stratification. It is also a question so broad and encompassing in scope that no empirical research could seem to provide for the answer adequately. In this light, the article by Lenski may be seen as a piece providing the not necessarily adequate, but nevertheless convincing, evidence for the stance of stratification as functional necessity. It studies the former communist nations, and notes that while the demise of the communist regime came as a result of variegated factors, including the degree of wealth accumulation by the political elite and widespread poverty overlooked by Western followers of communism, the most significant factor in bringing about the fall of communism is the problem of undermotivation of workers. According to Lenski, due to faulty assumption regarding human nature Marxism made, the policy of eradicating wage differentials among differentially skilled workers thoroughly backfired in the form of the epidemic spread of the lack of motivation to work. Lenski also notes that it is significant that same sort of trends took place in most of communist countries with diversely different cultural background, and that the similar tendency is also evinced by the public sector of the capitalist economy. All this, for him, then, acts as the supporting evidence for the Davis and Moore proposition that differential rewards are needed in order to motivate people to fill and perform duties in certain role positions.

Finally, perhaps the problem with both Davis and Moore and Tumin is that they both focus on the all or nothing question of whether stratification is functionally necessary or not. Perhaps we should not think in such clearly demarcated dichotomic scale. As the evidence from communist nations shows, it may be that certain degrees of differential rewards and consequent stratification are necessary. Yet it should not mean that any forms of stratification is justifiable, nor that the attitude and stance represented by Tumin is entirely useless. The fact that some forms of stratification may be necessary should not mean that stratification as in the form of contemporary West or Japan is perfectly justifiable or inevitable. We should not let aversion to stratification systems in these particular contexts lead us to the simplistic ideal that all forms of stratification can be eradicated, yet neither should we let functional notion make us accept that current forms of stratification we are living in are inevitable.