Functionalism vs. Conflict Theories Derek Wilson SOC760

Some Principles of Stratification Shows relationship between Stratification and Social Order Explains a uniform prestige between positions in society States that stratification is a functional necessity Society places desire on positions that need fulfillment These positions have prestige and reward Davis & Moore (1945)

Some Principles of Stratification (Cont.) Determinants of Positional Rank Differential Functional Importance Easily filled positions need not be rewarded Essential positions require talent and reward Differential Scarcity of Personnel Individuals who fulfill necessity positions are scarce Due to talent requirement and rigor They need reward and social scale increase as motivation to attempt these positions Davis & Moore (1945)

Some Principles of Stratification (Cont.) Societal Functions of Stratification Religion Focusses on unity and values Higher positioned people within Religion hold power Can often determine their own prestige within their religion Government Focusses on enforcement of norms and planning Guides arbitration of conflicting interests Davis & Moore (1945)

Some Principles of Stratification (Cont.) Societal Functions of Stratification Wealth/Poverty/Labor Entirely economic focused Based on rewarding talents and labor with economic prestige Technical Knowledge Displays of intellect and norms Seen as socially desirable Davis & Moore (1945)

Some Principles of Stratification (Cont.) Talent Conversion is a Process Takes time and dedication Turns talent into ability to fulfill necessity positions In “most” cases: The more talent/ability required = the more reward/prestige Things to Consider… Cultural development Situation with respect to other societies Size of society observed Davis & Moore (1945)

… A Critical Analysis Critique 1 Critique 2 No methods for measuring long/short range consequences of functionality shifts Critique 2 Societies have alternative means of finding talents Societies have hidden/built-in obstacles Tumin (1953)

… A Critical Analysis (Cont.) Critique 3 Differential rewards are not necessary for motivation Families sacrifice for children during training Prestige during training is high Critique 4 Alternative rewards exist as forms of motivation Motives could be joy of work or social duty Tumin (1953)

… A Critical Analysis (Cont.) Critique 5/6 There are cultural/societal differences in praise and desire This makes many concepts less universal Societies also reward those following the norms Critique 7 There are other forms of inequality not measured Assumes that all individuals are equally worthy Tumin (1953)

… A Critical Analysis (Cont.) Inequality Issues (Ways Stratification is Dysfunctional 1. It limits the possibility of individuals discovering a full range of their talents. 2. It limits the ability to expand productive resources of society. 3. It gives the elite power to control the status quo and their positions on top. 4. It limits the creativity potential and opportunity to create a self-image that is favorable to individuals. 5. It encourages hostility, suspicion, and distrust. 6. It distributes a sense of significance of membership unequally. 7. Loyalty depends of membership significance within a society. 8. It distributes motivation unequally. Tumin (1953)

Comparison & Conclusion Articles flow well as they rely upon each other (literally) Focusses on the motivations of individuals obtaining professions Medical Doctor Plumber Teachers as a counter argument Handout includes Reply from Davis Reply counters counter-arguments and addresses issues of assumptions Discussion Questions Davis & Moore (1945), Davis (1953), Tumin (1953)

Sources Cited Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. 1945. “Some Principles of Stratification.” American Sociological Review 10:242-49. Davis, K. 1953. “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis: Reply.” American Sociological Review, 18:394-397. (Given as part of handout) Tumin, Melvin. 1953. “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis.” American Sociological Review 18:387-394.