Page 68 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Unit 4: Theories of Social Stratification-II

(c) The magnitude of invidious differences Notes
(d) The degree of stratum solidarity
The degree of specialization affects the fineness and multiplicity of the gradations in power and
prestige. A particular function is emphasized in specific terms in relation to other functions. The
amount of specialization influences the bases of selection. The polar types are : specialized and
unspecialized.
The nature of the functional emphasis depends upon the nature of society – whether it is gripped
with sacred strings or is having secular preoccupations. Social mobility and specialization would
be determined by the nature of society. In the first case, the society would be undifferentiated,
familistic, authoritarian (theocratic or sacred) and in the second case, it could be totalitarian or secular
capitalistic.
The degree of opportunity may be seen in terms of an advanced society and a primitive society. It is
not a question of comparative equality/inequality, but of access to opportunity. The polar types
are : mobile (open) and immobile (closed).
Finally, the degree of class solidarity may vary to some extent independently of the other criteria.
As such, the polar types would be : class organized and class unorganized.
The external conditions that may affect the system of stratification are :
(a) The stage of cultural development
(b) Situation with respect to other societies
(c) Size of the society
The enhancement of mobility, a decline of stratum solidarity, and a change of functional emphasis
characterize the stage of cultural development of a society. Free trade relations or cultural diffusion,
warfare, etc., explain the situation with respect to other societies. A small size of the society
restricts specialization, differentiation and mobility.
A rigid dichotomy of societies is almost unworkable in today’s fast changing world. Internal
differentiation also makes it difficult to segregate different strata in clear terms. One needs to
think of composite types.
A Critique of the Davis-Moore Theory
The basic assumption of the Davis-Moore theory, that stratification is an inherent feature of social
organization, has been challenged by Melvin M. Tumin. He doubts the historical validity of the
criterion of functional importance for the necessity of stratification. The idea of positions with
greater and lesser power and prestige, as explained by Davis and Moore, is considered by Tumin
as a “tautology and unsound procedure”. Tumin observes that true inequality takes place when
persons are rewarded according to their assignments and performances. The distinction between
“less functional” and “more functional” is also misleading. There is a necessity for different types
of functions, and one function becomes infructuous without the other.
Walter Buckley, another critic of the theory, accuses Davis and Moore of confusing social
differentiation, the existence of specialized roles or a division of labour with social stratification.
Buckley defines social stratification as “a system of unequally privileged groups”, the membership
in which is determined by the intergenerational transmission of roles, or of opportunities to attain
them through kinship affiliation. However, Davis considers this as “a terminological question”
only. Dennis H. Wrong, who is also a functionalist like Tumin and Buckley, criticizes the Davis-
Moore theory for being too general. It says nothing whatsoever about the range of inequality and
the determinants of the rank in concrete societies. It “ignores the possible disruptive consequences
of mobility and inequality of opportunity – a theme notably neglected by American sociologists”.
As we have mentioned earlier, Ralph Dahrendorf considers that the control of social behaviour
based on positive and negative sanctions creates “a rank order of distributive status”. Conformity

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 63