Compare the Functionalist and Marxist Views on Social Stratification
CRITICALLY COMPARE MARXISM AND FUNCTIONALISM IN THE WAY EACH PERSPECTIVE CONCEPTUALIZES THE PHENOMENON OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION.
Social stratification refers to the presence of distinct social groups which are ranked one above the other in terms of factors such as prestige and wealth (Haralambos & Holborn, 2004). Those who belong to a particular group or stratum will have some awareness of common interests and a common identity. They also share a similar lifestyle which, to some extent, will distinguish them from members of other social strata (Lenski, 1984). Social stratification involves a hierarchy of social groups and they either enjoy or suffer the unequal distribution of rewards in society as members of different social groups. Four principles are identified which help explain why social stratification exists. First, social stratification is a characteristic of society and not merely of individuals. Second, social stratification is universal but variable. Third, it persists over generations and fourth, it is supported by patterns of belief. There are different sociological perspectives which have been put forward about social stratification; the Functionalists and the Marxists.
A Functionalist, (Parsons, 1954 in Haralambos & Holborn, 2004), has argued that stratification systems derive from common values. He proposes that those who perform successfully in terms of society’s values will be ranked highly and they will be likely to receive a variety of rewards. At a minimum they will be accorded high prestige because they exemplify and personify common values. He also states that because different societies have different value systems, the ways of attaining a high position will vary from society to society.
Functionalists tend to see the relationship between social groups in society as one of co-operation and interdependence. Each group in society may specialize in a different activity, so no one group is
Social stratification refers to the presence of distinct social groups which are ranked one above the other in terms of factors such as prestige and wealth (Haralambos & Holborn, 2004). Those who belong to a particular group or stratum will have some awareness of common interests and a common identity. They also share a similar lifestyle which, to some extent, will distinguish them from members of other social strata (Lenski, 1984). Social stratification involves a hierarchy of social groups and they either enjoy or suffer the unequal distribution of rewards in society as members of different social groups. Four principles are identified which help explain why social stratification exists. First, social stratification is a characteristic of society and not merely of individuals. Second, social stratification is universal but variable. Third, it persists over generations and fourth, it is supported by patterns of belief. There are different sociological perspectives which have been put forward about social stratification; the Functionalists and the Marxists.
A Functionalist, (Parsons, 1954 in Haralambos & Holborn, 2004), has argued that stratification systems derive from common values. He proposes that those who perform successfully in terms of society’s values will be ranked highly and they will be likely to receive a variety of rewards. At a minimum they will be accorded high prestige because they exemplify and personify common values. He also states that because different societies have different value systems, the ways of attaining a high position will vary from society to society.
Functionalists tend to see the relationship between social groups in society as one of co-operation and interdependence. Each group in society may specialize in a different activity, so no one group is
Bibliography: Haralambos, M. & Holborn, M. (2004). Socilogy Themes andPerspectives. London, HarperCollins Publishers. Lenski, G.E. (1984). Power and Privilege. A Theory of Social Stratification. United States, University of North Carolina Press.