1. The functionalist view of social inequality

2. Functionalism and that
Functionalists are macro-perspective sociologists who set their explanations of phenomena in a framework of larger theories which seek to explain the operation of society as a whole.
They assume that society has certain basic needs – functional prerequisites – that have to be met if society is to survive.
For functionalists, stratification in society – based on social and economic status – helps to provide order and stability in society.
Functionalism and that

3. Talcott Parsons – for it is he
Order, stability and cooperation in society are based on value consensus, which is a general and unspoken agreement in society about what is good and worthwhile.
Stratification derives from common values. If universal values exist, and there is a set of criteria against which to measure people’s behaviour, then it follows that individuals will be evaluated and placed in some kind of rank order as to who is meeting those criteria best.
Those who perform well in terms of society’s shared values will be ranked highly, and therefore will be rewarded highly. They will gain power and status because they have performed well against common values.
Different societies have different value systems, and the ways of attaining high position differ in different cultures. But stratification is an inevitable part of all human societies – therefore some form of stratification will result from the ranking of individuals. There will be different criteria in every society, but there will always be some form of ranking going on.
Talcott Parsons – for it is he

4. Functionalism sees inequality as good for society.
For functionalists there is a general belief that stratification systems are just, right, and proper – because they are an expression of the shared values of the society. We are all living by the same codes. So well-paid professionals, heads of companies etc. are seen to deserve their rewards because members of society place a high value on their skills and achievements.
Parsons recognised that there may well be some degree of “sour grapes” on the part of the “losers”. (Just look at how he is framing this – people who are at the bottom as “losers”, and clearly just jealous of the winners – I am sure you can already see how Marxists and Feminists might take issue with this view). But conflict would be kept in check by the common value system which justifies the unequal distribution of rewards.
So people would be socialised into seeing the importance of the inequalities and realising they are just.
Functionalism sees inequality as good for society.

5. Society is based on relationships of cooperation and consensus
Groups in society relate to each other in a relationship of cooperation and interdependence. This is because all groups in society rely on each other for survival; there must be an exchange of goods and services with other groups, so the relationship between groups has to be one of reciprocity.
When society has a highly specialised division of labour – which is what capitalism is – then there needs to be a high level of organisation and planning, and this confers power and status on the organisers.
So, differences in power (power differentials) are based on shared values. People accept that some people have legitimate authority. It is accepted that those in positions of authority use their power to pursue collective goals that derive from society’s central values. Stratification is inevitable and it is functional for society.
Inequality It serves to integrate all of the groups in society. (that is quite a messed up view)
Society is based on relationships of cooperation and consensus

6. Davis and Moore wrote the most famous study on the functionalist theory of stratification
They started with the observation that stratification exists in every known human society.
A functional prerequisite that all societies share is the need for effective role allocation and performance.
1. All roles must be filled
2. They must be filled by those best able to perform them
3. Individuals must be trained to fill them
4. The roles must be performed conscientiously
All societies therefore need an effective system for ensuring effective role allocation and performance.
Davis and Moore

7. People placed in the right roles
People differ in terms of their innate abilities and talents, and positions differ in terms of their importance for the survival and maintenance of society. Certain positions are more functionally important than others. These require special skills for their effective performance and the number of individuals with the necessary ability to acquire skills is limited.
So the system – theoretically matches the most able people with the most functionally important roles – offering high rewards to those important positions.
People placed in the right roles

8. The desire to achieve these rewards gives people an incentive to work hard for those positions. The promise of high rewards is necessary to motivate people to make all the sacrifice they need to in order to achieve success.
So, like all functionalists, Davis and Moore regarded social inequality as a functional necessity for all societies. They saw it as a solution to problems faced by all social systems i.e. placing and motivating individuals in the social structure. They offered no other means of solving this problem and so social inequality is an inevitable feature of human society.
Differential rewards contribute to the maintenance of social order (now that is a bloody Obi Wan Kenobi mind trick there! I have to have this pile of cash, and you have that snot rag, because it maintains social order).
Inevitable misery

9. Unsurprisingly, there have been some criticisms of Davis and Moore
The most famous was from Melvin Tumin. He argued that actually the most functionally important roles in society are not the most highly paid. This takes us back to the argument that we have no doubt had a number of times, who should be paid more, a surgeon or a cleaner? Cleaners and bin men save many more lives than surgeons. Surely that makes them more functionally important? We have got people who work in the stock market who are things like Hedge Fund managers, and Futures Analysts. They trade in nothings, they produce nothing, yet they get paid millions of pounds a year. Tumin would say, how do we measure the functional importance of jobs at all? We can’t – it is all just down to personal opinions.
Tumin says that really the difference in pay and prestige is to do with difference in power, rather than functional importance.
Unsurprisingly, there have been some criticisms of Davis and Moore

10. He also took issue with the fact that Davis and Moore said that only a small number of people have the talent and skills necessary for the most functionally important jobs – but how do we really know this, and why do we accept it?
Is there really any effective way of measuring the talent and ability of everyone? The pool of talent could be massive – many, many people have skills and abilities they simply do not harness.
Tumin also said that training to become the thing that you want to be shouldn’t be seen as a sacrifice. You are gaining by putting in the work, you are learning about something you care about and enjoy, education is a good in itself, and people should view it as a privilege to gain knowledge in an area that they love.

11. Not everyone is motivated
Unequal rewards are not motivational for people from the lower strata because stratification is acting as a barrier which discourages rather than motivates people.
Children from middle class backgrounds are much more likely to go to university than those from working class backgrounds, and those who are in highly paid professions put barriers in the way of people trying to join those professions. They try and make it deliberately difficult to get in, so that they can ensure shortages of these professionals and keep the wages high.
Not everyone is motivated

12. The Spirit Level Yayyyyy 
As a further criticism of the functionalist view, Wilkinson and Pickett, in the Spirit Level, show that inequality actually leads to dysfunctional societies. You know about this – so I am not going into it 
The Spirit Level