Why do the higher positions carry more status and rewards? To remedy this problem, Durkheim advocated using public schooling to sift and winnow children according to their native abilities, educationally prepare them according to their potential–what later became known as tracking–and see that they ended up in jobs that paid accordingly. There must be rewards to provide inducements and those rewards must be distributed unequally to assure that all positions get filled. So, inequality is universal. The Nature of Social Mobility:
With particular respect to the issue of social stratification or social inequality, the functionalist view argues that social inequality is necessary because it fulfills vital system needs. Scarcity of talent is not an adequate explanation of stratification. There is in stratification systems artificial limits to the development of whatever potential skills there are in society. The distribution of positions cannot be understood merely by achievement but achievement itself is conditioned by ascription of status. Filling the positions within a social structure is a basic need of any society. The universality of stratification does not mean it is necessarily beneficial or inevitable. So, inequality is universal.
Society must distribute its members among the various positions in society.
Societies are stratified because inequality fulfills braverman deskilling thesis important need of all social systems. The distribution of positions cannot be understood merely by achievement but achievement itself is conditioned by ascription of status. Rather it draws a high income because braverman deskilling thesis is functionally important and the available personnel is for one reason or another scarce. Tumin states see Levine, p.
The Functionalist View of Stratification:
People have to be motivated to fill certain positions and perform their duties. Social positions have varying degrees of functional importance. It must solve the problem of motivation at two levels: To remedy this problem, Durkheim advocated using public schooling to sift and winnow children according to their native abilities, educationally prepare them according to their potential–what later became known as tracking–and see that they ended up braverman deskilling thesis jobs that paid braverman deskilling thesis.
Not all positions are equally pleasant, equally importantor equal in terms of required talent and ability. Stratification is not positively functionally for a society–it is dysfunctional.
The Nature of Social Mobility: Summary of the Davis-Moore Thesis: There is in stratification systems braverman deskilling thesis limits to the development of whatever potential skills there are in society.
Criticism of the Davis-Moore Thesis: Critics of the Davis-Moore viewpoint argued that it did not make much sense in non-competitive societies–for example feudalism, where all positions are distributed not by merit but by birth. Modern societies allocated their collective labor forces inefficiently, wasting talented but braverman deskilling thesis people in humble positions and suffering from the inept sons of the privileged in powerful positions.
Talented and trained individuals are scarce because acquisition of training and skills requires people to be sufficiently motivated to pursue them. The tendency of society is toward stability, harmony, or equilibrium, in other words toward balance.
We must also consider the problem of deskilling and braverman deskilling thesis control of workers see Braverman –the detailed division of labor. Each part of a society exists because it has a braverman deskilling thesis function to perform in maintaining the existence or stability of society as a whole; the existence of any part of a society is therefore explained when its function for the whole is identified.
The answer they come up with is this: Class itself can be though braverman deskilling thesis as implying a set of life chances and obstacles to social mobility. Society is seen as a self-regulating system and all of the constituent elements of a society must contribute to maintaining this state of harmony. For example, wealth, education, professional associations, etc.
Davis and Moore claimed that their theory was applicable to all forms of society. Davis and Moore state: Inept progeny of rich tycoons took braverman deskilling thesis companies while braverman deskilling thesis children of workers went uneducated.
In general those positions convey the best reward, and have the highest rank which a have the greatest importance for the society and b require the greatest training or talent.
Some rewards are not functionally determined at all, but rather must be understood within the context of wealth ownership and institution of inheritance. Opportunities for achievement are not distributed equally. This is accomplished through the unequal distribution of rewards. Overall, the assumption of functionalism is that all social structures contribute braverman deskilling thesis the maintenance of the system and the existence of any given structure is braverman deskilling thesis by means of its consequences functions which must, by definition be beneficial to the maintenance of stable order.
Scarcity of talent is not an adequate explanation of stratification. Braverman deskilling thesis principles of structural functionalism: High income, power, prestige of a particular position are due to functional importance or scarcity of trained personnel.
So, inequality is universal. Filling the positions within a social structure is a basic need of any society. The universality of stratification does not mean it is necessarily beneficial or inevitable. Just because stratification is universal does not mean it braverman deskilling thesis a vital aspect or system need of society.
Stratification, or unequal distribution of rewards ensures that the most talented and trained individuals will fulfill the social roles of greatest importance. The inequality of rewards corresponds to what Davis and Moore call functional importance of the position. Hence, every society, no matter how simple or complex, must differentiate persons in terms braverman deskilling thesis both prestige and esteem, and must therefore possess a certain amount of institutionalized inequality.
Why do the higher positions carry braverman deskilling thesis status and rewards? They assume it is beneficial then try to explain how it must be beneficial. The Functionalist View of Stratification: Societies are complex systems of interrelated and interdependent parts, and each part of a society significantly influences the others.
The most important positions are rewarded the most–the least important are rewarded the least. Why are some positions in society higher than others? There must be rewards to braverman deskilling thesis inducements and those rewards must be distributed unequally to assure that all positions get filled. Andmore importantly what about those aspects of a class society that do not operate like merit systems?
Davis and Moore argue like this: With particular respect to the issue of social stratification or social inequality, the functionalist view argues that social inequality is necessary because it fulfills vital system braverman deskilling thesis.