The Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification: Introduction

Patterns of social stratification[ especially those related to differences in

occupation/income/wealth/class, power and status] in different societies have been
analysed using the differing sociological perspectives of Marxism, Weberianism,
Feminism, Functionalism and, indeed, Postmodernism In the functionalist theory
which was developed initially in the 1940s and 1950s it was argued some form of
social stratification exists in all known societies, that hierarchical patterns of social
stratification were both desirable and inevitable and that occupational differences in
income were explicable in terms of differences in the functional importance of
different occupations combined with limited availability within societies'
populations of the talents necessary for the performance of the more functionally
important [and difficult] occupational roles and that inequalities of social status
were similarly desirable and inevitable.

On this basis Functionalists argue that owners of capitalist firms and managers,
administrators and other professionals in both the private and public sectors are
well rewarded financially because their work is functionally important [that is:
because it contributes to the stability of their societies in various ways] and because
they have scarce skills .These functionalist theories were widely accepted in the
1950s and early 60s which may be seen as the period of Functionalist ascendancy
within Sociology but they also quickly attracted criticism especially from sociologists
influenced by Marxist and Weberian theories of social stratification and support
within sociology for functionalist theories has certainly been limited from the 1960s
onwards.
However the sociologist Peter Saunders who has been much influenced by New
Right ideology has condemned what he believes to be the ideological biases within
Sociology against Functionalism and mounted a defence against some [but not all]
aspects of the Functionalist theory of social stratification all of which has
encouraged many sociologists to reiterate the original criticisms of the Functionalist
theory although some have developed so-called neo-Functionalist arguments
suggesting that Functionalist theory does make some useful contribution to the
explanation of patterns of social stratification.
Functionalism is described as a Structural Consensus perspective on Sociology
which distinguishes it from Structural Conflict perspectives such as Marxism and
from various types of Social Action Sociology. In Functionalist models of societies
such as those outlined by Talcott Parsons all of the social institutions which make
up a given society are assumed to contribute to the overall efficiency and stability
of that society in various ways and to contribute positively to the welfare of its
members [as you may already seen, for example, in your studies of functionalist

theories of the family and formal education systems] and the hierarchical systems
of social stratification operative within societies are also seen as functional for
societies and beneficial for all of its members.

Because all of the subsystems and institutions of any given society are seen as
functional and beneficial for societies and all of their members Functionalists argue
that an overall social consensus emerges in support of existing subsystems and
institutions and that this consensus is continually reinforced via the socialisation
process which is assumed to transmit shared norms and values which will
themselves contribute to social stability. That is to say: the socialisation process also
is functional for society as a whole. From this we can see that the Functionalist
theory de-emphasises the importance of inherent social conflict (by comparison
with structural conflict perspectives) and that it de-emphasises the importance of
individual freedom of action ( by comparison with social action perspectives.) This
Functionalist de-emphasis of individual agency can be seen most clearly in the
following quotation from the Functionalists Davis and Moore: "Social stratification is
thus an unconsciously evolved device [my emphasis] by which societies ensure that
the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified
persons" ,a view that would be rejected strongly by Social Action theorists.

Conflict theorists have argued that Functionalists have in general overstated the
extent to which societies are organised in the interests of all of societies' members
and overstated also the useful contributions which existing social institutions make
to the stability of societies and understated both the extent to which societies are
organised primarily in the interests of privileged minorities and against the interests
of the majority and the possible dysfunctions of exiting social institutions.
Consequently, the Conflict theorists argue, Functionalist theories contain inherent
conservative biases in support of the social status quo and against arguments for
radical social change.

Functionalism and the Nature of Social Stratification

The original development of the Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification is
associated primarily with an article entitled "Some Principles of Stratification [ K.
Davis and W. Moore 1945]. .
Davies and Moore [and other later Functionalists] argue that some forms of social
stratification exist in all known societies. Capitalist societies are characterised by
inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth, social status and power; in
former State Socialist societies economic inequalities [although considerable] may

have been somewhat smaller than in capitalist societies but political power was
more heavily concentrated among senior Communist Party politicians and
bureaucrats while in many developing countries economic inequalities are greater
than in industrialised societies whether capitalist or state socialist.
Functionalists have therefore argued that the existence of some form of social
stratification in every known society implies that social stratification [and the
inequalities of income, wealth, power and status implied by it] must be both
desirable and inevitable.
Social stratification is seen as desirable because it meets one of the so-called
functional pre-requisites in all societies of ensuring that individuals are
allocated to suitable occupational roles and that they will perform these roles
effectively which will contribute to the economic and social well-being of all
members of society whatever their positions within the system of social
stratification and thereby contribute to the stability of society as a whole.
It is important to consider Functionalist analyses of the different aspects of social
stratification: i.e. occupational differences in income and wealth, differences in
social status and differences in power. As we shall see Functionalists describe
occupational differences in income and wealth as involving a hierarchy of a large
number of slightly differentiated and non-antagonistic social strata rather than as
involving a limited number of antagonistic social classes as in Marxist Class Theory
and, to a lesser extent in Weberian Class Theory.]
Differences in income as between different occupations arise because of differences
in the functional importance of different occupations and because only limited
numbers of individuals have the talents necessary for the effective performance of
the functionally most important occupations. Functionalists argue that in some
cases such talents are scarce because they are innate only to a minority within a
society's population and in other cases that such talents are scarce because they
can be developed only after long periods of onerous training.
Davis and Moore agree that it is difficult to assess objectively the
functional importance of different occupations but they do suggest also that
occupations are likely to be functionally important "to the extent that they are
functionally unique" and "to the extent to which other positions are dependent
upon the one in question."
Davis and Moore agree that the functional importance of different occupations will
vary considerably over time and as between societies at different stages of
development but they do suggest that in advanced industrial societies national
politicians, business leaders and skilled non-manual occupations are seen as the
most functional important occupations and this helps to explain why they are
rewarded most highly. National politicians take important decisions on behalf of
their citizens; business leaders coordinate the production of useful goods and

services and provide gainful employment while skilled non-manual workers

contribute in various ways to the efficient operation of the private and public
sectors of the economy.
However individuals receive high incomes not only because their work is
functionally important but also because they possess skills which are limited in
supply and Functionalists do accept, however, that there are some functionally
important occupational roles which are nevertheless relatively easy to fill because a
supply of suitable labour is readily available and Functionalists argue that these
functionally important occupations will not be especially well rewarded. For example
on this basis it would be argued by Functionalists that ,for example, the work of coal
miners, agricultural labourers ,care assistants, plumbers, electricians etc. is
certainly functionally important but that incomes in these occupations are relatively
low [say by comparison with merchant bankers and industrial entrepreneurs ]
because of the relatively large supply of suitable labour in the former occupations.
and the limited supply of suitable labour in the latter occupations.
Functionalism and the Desirability of Social Stratification
Income inequalities are desirable [i.e. functional for society] because they provide
financial incentives which encourage talented individuals to undertake long periods
of training and to accept the pressures associated with functionally more important
occupations . In the absence of income inequalities insufficient numbers of suitably
talented individuals would choose employment in the functionally most important
occupations.
Income inequality also promotes meritocracy and social mobility because the
existence of financial incentives encourages talented individuals from poorer
backgrounds to aim for higher positions within the hierarchy of occupations.
Davis and Moore note that some wealthy individuals derive substantial incomes
from the ownership of wealth which is managed not by themselves but by financial
advisers such that the wealth owners are receiving high incomes despite fulfilling no
obviously useful role. However if wealth owners are actively involved in the
management of their wealth their activities may be considered to be functionally
important .
According to Functionalists incomes in capitalist societies are distributed unequally
within a finely differentiated hierarchy of occupation groups but such groups are
essentially non-antagonistic since Functionalists believe that income inequalities are
functional for capitalist societies as a whole and for all of their individual members
primarily because they help to promote economic efficiency and rising living
standards for all. Thus there are no good reasons why income inequalities should
result in social conflict as is suggested especially in Marxist class theories

The most significant inequalities of social status in capitalist societies are related to
inequalities of income and both types of inequalities reflect the functional
importance of different occupations. That is: a doctor is well paid and is accorded
high status in the community because the functional importance of his/her work is
widely recognised. Therefore these social status differences are also functional for
societies because they provide another [ in this case non-financial] incentive for
individuals to opt for difficult but functionally important occupations.
Functionalists also see social stratification by power as desirable and inevitable .
Functionally important occupational roles often necessarily involve the use of
decision-making power to direct the work activities of subordinate workers who
themselves lack the talents and knowledge to contribute to complex decisionmaking procedures. However Functionalists have argued that power should be seen
as a variable sum concept which the powerful use not in their own interests but in
the interests of society as a whole. Thus inequalities of power like inequalities of
income and of social status are seen as functional for societies as a whole and
inevitable given the limited supply of individuals with the talents necessary to make
effective decisions in relation to complex problems.
Functionalism and the Inevitability of Social Stratification
Furthermore Functionalists argue that social stratification by income is inevitable in
a free society because once income differentials are established which reflect the
functional importance of different occupations limitations of talent within the overall
population will prevent individuals from moving into functionally more important
occupations and depressing the incomes of these occupations. Thus, for example, it
might be argued that brain surgeons receive higher salaries than shop assistants
because their work is functionally more important and that these income
differentials are maintained because shop assistants would be unable to transfer to
brain surgery because they lack the talents to do so. Functionalists appear to
assume that individuals are primarily self- interested such that it is very unlikely
that suitably talented individuals would be prepared to train for and to undertake
functionally important and difficult work unless they are relatively well paid for
doing so.
Functionalists similarly believe that differences in social status are inevitable : for
example in capitalist societies differences in social status derive from inevitable
differences in the functional importance of different occupations.
Differences in power are similarly inevitable because especially in complex
industrial societies there are many technically difficult decisions to be taken and
only limited numbers of individuals with the abilities to take these decisions
effectively all of which inevitably leads to differences in power as between those
who take decisions and those who accept them. However these differences in power
are seen as desirable because Functionalists argue that power itself is a variable

sum concept and that power is used in the interests of societies as a whole. Further
information on alternative theories of power may be found by clicking here. and
scrolling down to the middle of the document
Functionalism, Socialisation, Social Consensus and Social Change
Since Functionalists believe that patterns of social stratification involving differences
in income, wealth, power and social status as inevitable, meritocratically
determined and desirable they entirely support the processes of socialisation
operative in families, schools, the mass media and elsewhere which encourage
citizens to accept norms and values which are likely to solidify an overall consensus
in support of these patterns of social stratification which ,to repeat, are considered
to be both inevitable and functionally desirable.
Since unequal patterns of social stratification are seen as desirable and inevitable
and are supported via socialisation processes operating throughout capitalist
societies fundamental social conflict is seen as unlikely and undesirable . Instead
Functionalists expect capitalist societies to be characterised by a broad consensus
in support of existing social institutions and believe that any conflicts of interests
which do arise can be settled relatively easily within existing political frameworks so
that see radical economic, social or political change are entirely unnecessary.
Instead societies might change and evolve gradually in response to changing social
needs.
Functionalism, The New Right and Neo-Functionalism
Although , as will be shown below, the Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification
has been subjected to several important criticisms, it has also received some
support from the 1970s onwards from New Right theorists. Thus , for example, the
New Right theorist Peter Saunders has argued in accordance with the Functionalist
theory that income differences may well be necessary to incentivise talented
individuals to undertake functionally important and difficult work; that the effective
performance of this work contributes to higher living standards even for those in
lower positions within the social stratification system; and that the extent of social
mobility in contemporary capitalist societies is actually greater than is implied by
other theorists such as John Goldthorpe and Gordon Marshall which suggests that
income inequality does not seriously undermine the extent of meritocracy in
capitalist societies [all of which means that a careful assessment of competing
theories of social mobility is necessary before the Functionalist theory of social
stratification can be fully evaluated.] Peter Saunders does, however, reject the
Functionalist claim that social stratification is inevitable arguing instead that it
would be perfectly possible for powerful [and possibly totalitarian ] governments to
impose greater economic equality but this would mean that individuals would then
be forced rather than incentivised to undertake difficult functionally important work
which they would then perform less effectively. such that increased equality would

be achieved but only at the expense of reduced individual liberty and reduced
economic efficiency. Of course other theorists have argued that individuals could be
persuaded to work for the common good with no necessary reduction in liberty nor
in economic efficiency.
In recent years so-called neo-Functionalists have argued that although some of the
arguments raised by original orthodox Functionalists are certainly open to criticisms
it may nevertheless be legitimate to argue that the incomes of highly paid industrial
and financial entrepreneurs and of skilled managers , administrators and
professionals within the private and public sectors may to some extent reflect the
functionality of their work combined with the relative scarcity of their skills and
abilities. However neo-Functionalists do recognise the limitations of the orthodox
Functionalist theory and it is to these limitations which we now turn.

Key Criticisms of the Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification

Even if we accept initially the key assumptions of Functionalist Sociology that

advanced capitalist societies are basically democratic, meritocratic, economically
efficient and based upon a consensus around shared attitudes, values and norms of
behaviour the Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification can still be shown to have
important limitations several of which ,having been emphasised initially by M. W.
Tumin [1953], have been reiterated by subsequent critics . Furthermore once we
relax the basic general assumptions of Functionalism we are led on to additional
criticisms of the Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification.

On the Difficulties of Measuring the Functional Importance of Different Occupations

Functionalists argue that occupational differences in incomes reflect differences in
the functional importance of different occupations but critics argue that it is difficult
to measure the functional importance of different occupations as will now be
illustrated.
It may well be the case that some owners and employers make a very significant
contribution to the efficiency of their company, that they produce necessary ,
functionally useful goods and services, that they pay their employers fairly and that
they abide strictly by health and safety and environmental legislation in which case
it must certainly be agreed that their work is functionally useful although it will still
be difficult to set a financial value on their functional usefulness. However radical
critics of the Functionalist theory will argue that many owners and employers do not

satisfy the above conditions such that the functional contribution of owners and
employers is much less than might be supposed. Very similar arguments may be
used to call into question the functional importance of some well paid non -manual
workers in both the public and private sectors.
When the production of goods and services involves the collective efforts of manual
workers, non-manual workers and owners and employers it is difficult to separate
the contributions of different groups of workers to the final goods or services. Thus
an employer may simply accept the decisions of senior managers who in turn have
accepted the advice of lower level specialists which suggests that in this example it
is the lower level specialists who are functionally most important although they will
certainly not be the highest paid employees. This point suggests that Davis' and
Moore's criteria for assessment of the functionality of different occupations
[functional uniqueness and "the extent to which other positions are dependent
upon the one in question." ] may sometimes be difficult to apply in practice.
It is impossible to compare the functional importance of different occupations
objectively. For example we might agree that a well-meaning socially conscious
employer whose company produces a useful product [say whole wheat bread or
efficient, user friendly personal computer software ] is a functionally important
worker but we cannot compare the functional importance of his/her work with that
of ,say, teachers or social workers or doctors or nurses without making some value
judgements as to the relative functional importance of providing a particular
product , educating students, managing difficult social issues or healing the sick.
Consequently individuals make differing assessments of the functional importance
of different occupations on the basis of their own value judgements not on the basis
of objective criteria.
On the basis of points 2, 3 and 4 we may conclude that it is difficult to measure and
to compare the functional importance of different occupations which suggests that
we cannot assess with any certainty whether actually existing differences in
income among occupations reflect actual differences in functional importance. For
example it has been pointed out that the average FT100 Chief Executive now earns
4.9 Million per year which is 200 times greater than the average wage and it must
be at least questionable whether these Chief Executives' work is 200 times more
functionally important than the work of an average worker.
Individuals' incomes are influenced by factors other than the functional importance
of their occupations
Critics argue that the incomes of particular individuals and/or occupational groups
may be affected by factors other than the functional importance of different
occupations. For example owners/employers and senior managers may have the
power within their companies to allocate especially high incomes to themselves;
they may work in monopolistic industries where it is possible to charge excessively

high prices for their goods and services; because they are able to exploit their
subordinate workers and to persuade consumers via advertising techniques to buy
goods and services which they do not necessarily need; because long periods of
training specified by some professional organisations are designed partly to restrict
entry as a means of maintaining high incomes and because some trade unions have
sometimes been able to use their powers to maintain skill differentials in pay
although many would argue that the powers of trade unions have been much
reduced in recent years.
Criticisms of Functionalist Analysis of Social Status and Power
Functionalists claim that differences in social status derive primarily from
occupation and are therefore based upon the differential functional importance of
occupations but since we cannot measure differences in functional importance of
occupations we cannot assume that status differences are related to differences in
the functional importance of different occupations. In any case there is considerable
evidence that on average individuals from differing social class backgrounds are
unlikely to have similar perceptions of the social status of different occupations:
thus non-manual workers are more likely than manual workers to accord high social
status to non-manual work and vice versa which may well reflect class differences in
value judgements as to the functionality of different occupations. Also there may be
sudden changes in the assessments of the functionality and social status of some
occupations as recently in the cases of MPs and investment bankers!
According to Functionalists inequalities of power are also inevitable and functional
for societies because only limited numbers of individuals have the talents necessary
to enable them to take complex decisions which the majority should accept because
they are taken not in the interests of the powerful minority but in the interests of all
members of society. Thus in the Functionalist theory power is seen as a non zero
sum or variable sum concept . However in more radical theories power is seen as a
multi-dimensional fixed sum concept and powerful minorities are seen as using
their power in their own interests and against the interests of the majority. At this
point some further familiarity with general concept of power and in particular with
Stephen Lukes' three-dimensional concept of power may be useful.
Criticisms of the Functionalist View that Unequal Patterns of Social Stratification are
desirable
Critics have argued that unequal patterns of social stratification are likely to be
dysfunctional in that such patterns of social stratification impose a variety of
material and cultural disadvantages on many working class students pupils and
that in unequal societies educational systems themselves may in various respects
favour affluent upper and middle class students at the expense of working class
students all of which is likely to restrict the educational progress and prospects of
upward social mobility of working class students.. Therefore according to the critics

unequal patterns of social stratification, far from increasing the availability of talent,
actually restrict it via the disadvantages which they impose on working class
students [and on some ethnic minority students and on some female students] and
in so doing undermine rather than promote social mobility and meritocracy which in
turn restricts the possibilities of rising living standards for all. { For a reminder click
as appropriate for PowerPoint Presentations on Social Class, Ethnicity, Gender and
Educational Achievement} .
Social Inequalities may also be dysfunctional in other respects. Inequalities of power
may result in the abuse of power by the powerful at the expense of the relatively
powerless; income inequalities may result in severe poverty which prevents the
poor from developing their talents and living with the dignity which they deserve;
even in contemporary advanced capitalist societies there are class -related
inequalities in health and life expectancy; it is likely that social inequality is and
important cause of crime and disorder; and social inequality may undermine the
prospects of social harmony and consensus which Functionalists see as crucial to
social order. According to many critics of Functionalism only greater equality can
ultimately promote social harmony.
Conversely although well paid professionals may encounter stresses and strains in
their work they may also receive great intrinsic satisfaction from it which reduce the
necessity for large income differentials. If this is true rising living standards for all
may be entirely possible without the necessity for large income inequalities .
Some liberals and social democrats might well adopt an intermediate position that
although massive inequalities of income, wealth, power and status are undesirable,
more limited inequalities may indeed be desirable in order to provide financial
incentives and to ensure that decisions are taken by those most capable of doing
so effectively as a means of promoting the increased efficiency which improves the
economic welfare of all including the poorest.
Criticisms of the Functionalist View that there is a "limited pool of talent
Functionalists assume that each society contains only a limited proportion of
talented individuals ; that income inequality is necessary to encourage talented
individuals to train and to undertake the onerous tasks associated with functionally
important occupations; that income differentials encourage individuals in
functionally important occupations to perform their roles effectively which
contributes to increased economic welfare for all and that income inequality
promotes meritocracy by providing financial incentives for talented individuals to
rise up within the social hierarchy. Against all this the critics deny that large income
and wealth inequalities are desirable and inevitable and claim that the
Functionalists have neglected the clear dysfunctions of social inequality.
Critics dispute the Functionalists argument that in each society there is a limited
pool of talent available for allocation to functionally important occupational roles

and that unequal patterns of social stratification are necessary to ensure the
development and effective use of the talents of the limited number of individuals
capable of performing in functionally important occupations. The critics of the
Functionalist theory argue it is impossible to estimate with any certainty the
potential availability of talent within societies and that, if anything, Functionalists
have under-estimated it as might be indicated, for example, that whereas in the
1940s and 1950s in the UK it was assumed that only perhaps 20% of pupils could
benefit from a grammar school education it is now hoped that perhaps 40% of
young people have the potential to benefit from Higher Education courses.
Criticisms of the Functionalist Analysis of Training Costs
Critics reject the Functionalists' argument that individuals who undertake the
training necessary for the performance of functionally important occupations will
necessarily incur large financial costs in terms of lost earnings which means that
they are unlikely to be prepared to undertake such training unless they are to
receive high salaries one fully qualified and employed in their chosen profession.
Thus the critics argue that the sacrifices implied by the need for training have been
much overstated in that students would only lose incomes equivalent to those
earned by poorly paid young people; they may be financially subsidised by their
parents or via student grants [when these were available!] and , once qualified and
employed in well paid occupations they quickly recoup earnings foregone in their
student years when they also experienced significant advantages in terms of status,
individual freedom and possibilities for self-development which are denied to young,
unskilled workers.
Melvin Tumin, for example, claims that although some income inequalities may be
necessary to encourage young people to embark on higher education and to
incentivise workers to take on functionally important but difficult work it is by no
means certain that the massive income inequalities which exist in capitalist
societies are necessary for this purpose and it is also entirely conceivable in
principle that individuals may be prepared to accept employment in difficult
functionally important roles as much for the good of the community as for their
own financial self-interest especially if the ideologies of competitive individualism
associated with capitalism can be weakened. In this scenario great differences in
incomes would be neither necessary nor inevitable and the this aspect of the
Functionalist theory would be discredited.
[However we must note that Tumin could be mistaken in his assumption that
individuals would be prepared to work in the good of the community in this way. As
was mentioned above a rather different view [which may be described as more
pessimistic or more realistic!] is offered by the New Right theorist Peter Saunders
who has rather more sympathy with the Functionalist theory. In his view although
some individuals might be prepared to undertake functionally important but difficult
occupational roles out of altruistic motives many would not so that in the absence

of social stratification by income either some functionally important occupations

would not be filled at all [with adverse consequences for social stability and
progress] or some individuals would be forced to undertake these roles in which
case greater economic equality results in a decline in individual liberty which is a
fundamental conclusion of New Right thinking. ]
Criticisms of the Functionalist Theory that patterns of social stratification in
capitalist societies should be seen as hierarchies of non -antagonistic social strata.
As already mentioned Functionalists argue that incomes in capitalist societies are
distributed unequally within a finely differentiated hierarchy of occupation groups
but such groups are essentially non-antagonistic since it is widely recognised that
income inequalities are functional for capitalist societies as a whole and for all of
their individual members primarily because they help to promote economic
efficiency and rising living standards for all. Similarly differences in power are
unlikely to promote conflict because of the Functionalist assumption that power
holders use their power in the interests of society as a whole and differences in
status are seen as broadly acceptable because they reflect the functional
importance of different occupations. However in other conflict- based approaches
to social stratification such as Marxism, Weberianism and most variants of
Feminism , it is argued that social conflict is central to the relationships between the
dominant and the subservient social classes and that income inequalities derive
largely from the powers of dominant social classes or groups to exploit subservient
social class or groups .
According to Functionalists capitalist societies are democratic, economically
efficient and unequal but also fair and meritocratic. Because the capitalist system
works well in the interests of all of its members there will limited conflict in society
and a general consensus that the capitalist system should be continued in the
future. In the Functionalist view the socialisation process operative in families,
schools, the mass media and elsewhere is itself functional for capitalist societies
because it encourages individuals to accept norms and values which will promote
the continued existence of capitalism which , as stated is beneficial to all.

However according to Marxists capitalism is dominated economically by the

Bourgeoisie which uses its power at the expense of the exploited Proletariat; it is
grossly unequal as a result of which many members of the proletariat live a rotten
existence with little chance to develop their potential; it is also dominated politically
by the Bourgeoisie whose political influence is hidden by the "sham institutions of a
pretend democracy".

Criticisms of the Functionalist Theory that unequal patterns of social stratification

are inevitable.

The Functionalist arguments that differences in income, wealth, power and social
status are inevitable may be criticised on the grounds that the potential supply of
talent may be greater than Functionalists have assumed; that furthermore the
potential supply of talent might actually be restricted via the unequal patterns of
social stratification that Functionalists support; that the supply of talent might
actually increase in a more equal society which offers greater opportunities for
individuals from lower social strata to develop their talents; that we might assume,
more optimistically than the Functionalists [and New Right theorists] that individuals
might be persuaded and encouraged to work more for the good of society such that
large financial incentives become less necessary; that greater decentralisation of
power in the political system and within the industrial and financial systems might
make for more effective decision -making so that great inequalities of power can be
eradicated without reducing the efficiency of decision-making and that societies
based upon equality of status might be more harmonious than those based upon
status inequality.

Nevertheless as I mentioned also in relation to the desirability or otherwise of

unequal patterns of social stratification it may be that some liberals and social
democrats will take the intermediate position that although massive inequalities are
by no means inevitable some more limited inequalities may indeed be inevitable if
societies are to be organised effectively.

Conflict Theorists' Criticisms of the Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification

As has been indicated above Functionalism is regarded as a Structural Consensus

Perspective in which all existing social institutions contribute usefully to the
stability of society as a whole as a result of which a general consensus is
established in support of existing social institutions and processes including
hierarchical patterns of social stratification. Occupational differences in income and
wealth, differences in social status and differences in power are all seen as desirable
and inevitable and as involving divisions between non -antagonistic strata in which
all [or the vast majority] of individuals contribute usefully to the stability and
welfare of societies as a whole.

Conversely Marxists argue instead that there are inevitable conflicts of interest
between the major social classes in society since although the property owning
Bourgeoisie do provide employment and produce some useful goods and
services[ although they may also manipulate consumers so that they are prepared
to buy goods and services which are not entirely useful] the profits and resultant
high incomes of the Bourgeoisie derive not entirely from their functional usefulness
but to a considerable extent from their power to exploit the property-less
Proletariat.

Furthermore Marxists argue that capitalist states use political power mainly to
further the interests of the Bourgeoisie as against the interest of the rest of the
citizenry all of which means that capitalist patterns of social stratification inevitably
involve conflict; that power is used primarily by and/or in the interests of the
Bourgeoisie and that the Functionalist image of capitalist patterns of social
stratification as involving large numbers of non -antagonistic social strata is
definitely flawed.

In the Marxist view there is nothing desirable about the patterns of social
stratification which exist under capitalism since they inevitably involve the
exploitation of the Proletariat and the denial of real equality of opportunity
[although the existence of limited amounts of social mobility may serve to
strengthen the myth of equality of opportunity] but such patterns of social
stratification are indeed inevitable under capitalism not because of the "limited
pool of talent" but because they derive ultimately from the existence of private
property which means that the Bourgeoisie can use its economic and political
power to sustain these inequalities.

A fragile but bogus consensus is maintained because the Bourgeoisie can spread a
so-called ruling class ideology which is a set of ideas which prevents the Proletariat
from realising the causes of their exploitation and encourages them to accept the
very capitalist system which is actually the source of their discontents. In this
Marxist view the entire Functionalist theory would be seen not as an academic
theory which seeks to explain patterns of social inequality but as a variant of ruling
class ideology which seeks to legitimise the inequalities which in reality benefit the
capitalist class at the expense of the rest of society.

Nevertheless according to Marxists the class conflict which inevitably exists under
capitalism will eventually cause the Proletariat to rise up against the institutions of

capitalism which will in turn eventually by replaced by a classless, socialist utopia in

which capitalist patterns of social stratification will be shown to be neither desirable
nor inevitable. Nevertheless actual attempts to introduce socialism by Marxistinspired revolutionary means have as yet been unsuccessful although Marxists
continue to hope for a better future while even social democrats argue that it should
in principle be possible to reduce inequalities of class, status and power by
parliamentary means even if it is not desirable totally to abolish them since they
may , as Functionalists claim serve some useful incentivising purposes. [Certainly
this is a view that Toy Blair and his New Labour supporters accepted.

There are of course major differences between Marxist and Weberian class theories
and I shall not consider such differences here but shall note simply that Weberian
class theories also assume that there is some conflict as between social classes and
status groups [although such conflicts are not expected to have the revolutionary
outcome predicted by Marx] and also that Weber most definitely did not adopt the
variable sum concept of power used by the Functionalists. In Weber's view power
could definitely often be used against the interests of the powerless so that, again,
he would have rejected Functionalists' conclusions regarding the existence of nonantagonistic social strata. [I hope in future to provide some more detailed
information on Weberian class theory...but it will not be in this academic year.]

In this Marxist view the entire Functionalist theory would be seen not as an
academic theory which seeks to explain patterns of social inequality but as a
variant of ruling class ideology which seeks to legitimise the inequalities which in
reality benefit the capitalist class at the expense of the rest of society. Nevertheless
according to Marxists the class conflict which inevitably exists under capitalism will
eventually cause the Proletariat to rise up against the institutions of capitalism
which will in turn eventually by replaced by a classless, socialist utopia in which
capitalist patterns of social stratification will be shown to be neither desirable nor
inevitable. Nevertheless actual attempts to introduce socialism by Marxist-inspired
revolutionary means have as yet been unsuccessful although Marxists continue to
hope for a better future while even social democrats argue that it should in principle
be possible to reduce inequalities of class, status and power by parliamentary
means if not totally to abolish them.

The Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification: A Summary

Functionalists argue that hierarchical patterns of social stratification are observable
which to them suggests that such patterns must be both desirable and inevitable. In
their view occupational differences in incomes derive from differences in the

functional importance of different occupations combined with the scarcity of

individuals with the talents necessary to undertake functionally important roles. The
Functionalists Davis and Moore agree that it is difficult to assess objectively the
functional importance of different occupations but they do suggest also that
occupations are likely to be functionally important "to the extent that they are
functionally unique" and "to the extent to which other positions are dependent
upon the one in question."

They also argue that the functional importance of different occupations will vary
considerably over time and as between societies at different stages of development
but they do suggest that in advanced industrial societies national politicians,
business leaders and skilled non-manual occupations are seen as the most
functional important occupations and this helps to explain why they are rewarded
most highly. National politicians take important decisions on behalf of their citizens;
business leaders coordinate the production of useful goods and services and provide
gainful employment while skilled non-manual workers contribute in various ways to
the efficient operation of the private and public sectors of the economy.
Furthermore Functionalists argue that in capitalist societies differences in social
status derive primarily from the recognition of differences in the functional
importance of different occupations and that inequalities of power derive from the
necessity for complex decisions to be taken by those with the scarce talents
necessary for effective decision making.

Functionalists see inequalities of income among different occupations as desirable

since the higher incomes associated with functionally important occupations are
assumed to incentivise talented individuals to undertake the long periods of
training and to accept the challenges associated with the effective performance of
these functionally important occupations while the higher social status associated
with these occupational roles is assumed to provide a further non-financial incentive
for talented individuals to opt for them. The financial and non -financial incentives
which generate economic and social inequality are seen as functional for societies
because they help to ensure that functionally important roles are performed
effectively by suitably talented individuals including those originating from the
lower social strata who are assumed to be encouraged to strive for the higher
incomes available in the higher social strata so that unequal patterns of social
stratification are assumed to be consistent with a considerable degree of social
mobility and meritocracy and the resultant effective allocation of individuals to
appropriate occupational roles results in greater economic efficiency and greater
economic welfare which benefits all members of society including those in the lower
strata.

Furthermore those in functionally important occupations certainly exercise some

power over those in the lower strata but the Functionalists argue , optimistically that
power should be seen as a variable sum concept and that those who achieve power
do so because they have the talents to use it effectively and that they actually use
their power in the interests of society as a whole rather than solely in their own
interests.

It is therefore important to note that Functionalists see patterns of social

stratification in capitalist societies as involving a relatively large number of finely
differentiated social strata which are also non -antagonistic in the sense that those
who are financially well rewarded and who exercise considerable power
nevertheless act in the interests of the rest of society which reduces the likelihood
that social conflict will arise out of the unequal distribution of income, wealth, power
and status which Functionalists consider to be desirable.

Functionalists also see hierarchical patterns of social stratification as inevitable.

They argue that social stratification by income is inevitable in a free society
because once income differentials are established which reflect the functional
importance of different occupations limitations of talent within the overall
population will prevent individuals from moving into functionally more important
occupations and depressing the incomes of these occupations. Thus, for example, it
might be argued that brain surgeons receive higher salaries than shop assistants
because their work is functionally more important and that these income
differentials are maintained because shop assistants would be unable to transfer to
brain surgery because they lack the talents to do so. Income inequalities are also
inevitable in free societies .Functionalists similarly believe that differences in social
status are inevitable : for example in capitalist societies differences in social status
derive from inevitable differences in the functional importance of different
occupations. Differences in power are similarly inevitable because especially in
complex industrial societies there are many technically difficult decisions to be
taken and only limited numbers of individuals with the abilities to take these
decisions effectively all of which inevitably leads to differences in power as between
those who take decisions and those who accept them. However , as already
mentioned, these differences in power are seen as desirable because Functionalists
argue that power itself is a variable sum concept and that power is used in the
interests of societies as a whole.

Although , as will be shown below, the Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification

has been subjected to several important criticisms, it has also received some
support from the 1970s onwards from New Right theorists. Thus , for example, the
New Right theorist Peter Saunders has argued in accordance with the Functionalist
theory that income differences may well be necessary to incentivise talented
individuals to undertake functionally important and difficult work; that the effective
performance of this work contributes to higher living standards even for those in
lower positions within the social stratification system; and that the extent of social
mobility in contemporary capitalist societies is actually greater than is implied by
other theorists such as John Goldthorpe and Gordon Marshall which suggests that
income inequality does not seriously undermine the extent of meritocracy in
capitalist societies [all of which means that a careful assessment of competing
theories of social mobility is necessary before the Functionalist theory of social
stratification can be fully evaluated.] Peter Saunders does, however, reject the
Functionalist claim that social stratification is inevitable arguing instead that it
would be perfectly possible for powerful [and possibly totalitarian ] governments to
impose greater economic equality but this would mean that individuals would then
be forced rather than incentivised to undertake difficult functionally important work
which they would then perform less effectively. such that increased equality would
be achieved but only at the expense of reduced individual liberty and reduced
economic efficiency. Of course other theorists have argued that individuals could be
persuaded to work for the common good with no necessary reduction in liberty nor
in economic efficiency.

In recent years so-called neo-Functionalists have argued that although some of the
arguments raised by original orthodox Functionalists are certainly open to criticisms
it may nevertheless be legitimate to argue that the incomes of highly paid industrial
and financial entrepreneurs and of skilled managers , administrators and
professionals within the private and public sectors may to some extent reflect the
functionality of their work combined with the relative scarcity of their skills and
abilities. However neo-Functionalists do recognise the limitations of the orthodox
Functionalist theory and it is to these limitations which we now turn.

The main criticisms of the Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification may be listed
as follows. [See above for further development of these criticisms. You might like to
do some further work yourselves slightly extending this section of my summary!]

It is impossible to measure objectively the functional importance of different

occupations.

Differences in income as between different occupations depend upon factors other

than the functional importance of different occupations even if this could be
measured objectively.
The Functionalist analysis of power and is flawed in that power should not be seen
as a variable sum concept and it is not necessarily used in the interests of all
members of society.
The Functionalist analysis of social status is flawed because there is no necessary
agreement within society as to what factors determine social status and which
occupations are deserving of high social status. Who has the higher socials status;
nurses or investment bankers?
Unequal patterns of social stratification may for several reasons be dysfunctional
and undesirable rather than functional and desirable.
The Functionalist analysis of the significance of training costs as a factor
necessitating income inequality is flawed.
Functionalist have overstated the extent to which there is a limited pool of talent of
individuals with functionally important skills.
The Functionalist analysis of hierarchical patterns of social stratification as
consisting in finely differentiated non -antagonistic strata accurate severely
underestimates the extent of social conflict as between different social classes
which is emphasised by conflict theorists.
Although hierarchical patterns of social stratification are observable in most, if not
all, known societies this does not mean that such patterns are inevitable.
The Functionalist Theory amounts to little more than a variant of ruling class
ideology dressed up as sociological theory which can be used to legitimise
inequalities which are in fact unjustified and counterproductive.
Some sociologists would accept that the Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification
[and particularly, perhaps, the more recent neo-Functionalist version of the theory]
does contribute something to our understanding of unequal patterns of social
stratification in that the incomes received by industrial and financial entrepreneurs
and skilled administrators, managers and other professionals in the private and
public sectors do in some cases and to some extent correspond loosely to the
functional importance of their work, [assuming that this could be measured
objectively].

Nevertheless conflict theorists especially make severe criticisms of the Functionalist

theory claiming in particular that it is impossible to measure objectively the

functional importance of different occupations; that incomes are influenced by

factors other than functional importance including especially the powers of
employers and other senior white collar workers to exploit subordinate workers
and/or mislead consumers; and that consequently relations between social classes
or strata are in reality characterised by conflicts in which the powerful use their
power in their own interests rather than by non- antagonism and the generalised
use of power in the interests of all as suggested by Functionalist. Furthermore
against Functionalism it is argued that unequal patterns of social stratification
undermine meritocracy and are dysfunctional in several other respects including ,
for example, the generation of social class differences in health and life expectancy
and that although unequal patterns of social stratification are observable in most, if
not all known societies, this does not mean that they are necessarily inevitable.

However whereas some radical critics of Functionalism argue in favour of the kinds
of classless societies which would be based on the absence of unequal patterns of
social stratification others of perhaps liberal or social democratic persuasions [such
as for example, the political theorist John Rawls] argue for the significant narrowing
of existing inequalities but for the maintenance of more limited inequalities which
they still consider to be desirable and indeed necessary to promote effective
decision making, economic efficiency and the best outcomes for the most
disadvantaged members of society. Against this the radicals claim that only the
abolition of private property and the class system can promote the selfdevelopment of all, a view which Functionalists, of course, regard as entirely
unrealistic.