Social inequality, stratification and social mobility. Social inequality, its main theories
In the article we will talk about what social stratification is and social inequality. This is a rather burning question, which still remains relevant and popular in modern world. Inequality has existed since the beginning of time, but it has changed its forms and transformed. We will try to consider this issue in detail from all sides.
What are we talking about?
We should consider issues of social inequality and stratification of society only after we clearly understand the terminology. It is interesting that not all people know that the very term to which our article is devoted was borrowed from geology. There it means that the earth consists of different layers.
Social stratification is the division of society into separate layers using a variety of social tools. Most often, this is a social status that gives an idea of the achievements and significance of a particular person in our value system. There are actually a lot of criteria for division. We will try to mention all of them.
Figuratively speaking, one can imagine a straight line that is divided along its entire axis. Stratification is that there are different distances between different coordinates. The vertical line very clearly demonstrates how stratification is formed. Most often, the divisions on it display financial condition a person, the amount of his power, education, ways of spending leisure time, measures of consumption, and so on.
Why are we so different?
Many people have a negative perception of social stratification and social inequality. The reason is that they believe that all conflicts in society arise on this basis. However, this is not true. Even a child notices that all people are different. We are all very different in character, appearance, and intellectual abilities. Of course, you don’t always want to admit it and focus attention on it, but it is so. Another issue is that the concept of social inequality and social stratification is under so much attack because people, even though they understand their shortcomings, do not want to overcome them. They simply have a negative attitude towards those who are at a higher level of the social hierarchy. But reasonable people understand that it is completely pointless to envy and denigrate those whom nature has endowed with the talent of an artist, musician, entrepreneurial ingenuity, and so on. At the same time, each person can try to develop these qualities and become better. But you need to take into account your psychological and physiological characteristics in order to realistically assess the situation.
Distribution base
Now we will talk about the basic criteria by which society is divided. As we know, the inequality of social groups is reflected by social stratification, but let’s delve into the main indicators.
Firstly, this is income. Money has always been a key factor because it gives power and allows you to maintain it. On at the moment money is not the only key factor in stratification, but it still plays a huge role in society. And that's okay. The next indicator is education. The point here is not whether you received a higher education, how many universities you graduated from, or whether you have a diploma with honors. It's more about how educated a person is, how he can carry on a conversation, how he decides logic problems how to navigate difficult situations how to get rid of stress and so on. All this allows us to judge how intelligent this person is and how to build relationships with him.
Power
The next indicator is power. Very often it depends on family connections and income, as well as on intellectual abilities, but not always. Sometimes power can be an innate quality of a person. That is, he can be able to lead people, convince them of something, correct their points of view and influence decisions. This is also a type of power that has a fairly strong influence on large groups population. Of the following basic indicators, we note prestige, that is, an indicator of our status. All people understand that they have shortcomings and advantages, but some know how to present this advantageously, while others create the impression of an insecure and careless child. The fact is, even if you are very smart and talented, this is not enough. You must be able to demonstrate your qualities, defend your point of view, and most importantly, be yourself in any situation. The courage to be oneself also brings a certain power and prestige, which in the future is reflected in the reputation and relationships in the group.
Reasons
Social stratification describes social inequality in a society, but it also provides an explanation for why things happen the way they do.
Let us note that without social inequality it would be very difficult for society to exist. In other words, the usual chaos would begin, since there would be no hierarchy. Sociology cannot answer specifically the reasons for stratification, but it offers different options and points of view, which we will discuss below.
First, social stratification and social inequality are explained by the fact that each person or a certain group of people performs a certain function in society. In other words, everyone has their own specific task and, naturally, some tasks are more important, and some are less important. Based on this, people are already being divided into those who are engaged in more specific, serious matters, and those who help them with this. A parallel can be drawn with production. For example, there are key workers who are directly involved in the production process itself. And there are those who help serve this process and this is their main job. It's the same with society. So that everyone can exist in normal conditions everyone must mind their own business and fulfill their role. But the problem of our time is that due to the large number of motivational books, trainings, videos, films, etc., many people have decided to give up their role and try themselves in something more. In fact, there is nothing wrong with this; on the contrary, it is a very good development of events. But there is one big problem. All motivational incentives influence even those people who are satisfied with their position. That is, they like to live in a certain city, do a certain job, return to their family, or live on their own and engage in some kind of craft, it is possible to live only for the goals of society, etc. But modern society criticizes all this and aims everyone at a single goal - to achieve happiness through self-realization. All this confuses people, and they stop following their real desires and follow the lead of marketers.
We have retreated a little from the topic of functional causes of inequality. In fact, it leads us to the next reason, which is the different status of people. That is, if you occupy a certain place, then you have a certain status. Inequality in status leads to the emergence, in principle, of differentiation of the population.
Economic point of view
It is very important to consider this issue from this angle. Social structure, social inequality, social stratification - all this is discussed in detail in the works of Marxists. They say that the stratification of society began with the emergence of private property. Naturally, this is an exaggeration, which, nevertheless, has gained many fans around the world. But there is still some truth in this.
The fact is that economic inequality is caused by the fact that people have different attitudes towards the process of creating and accumulating wealth, as well as towards property. Some people pay more attention to their present life and want to get the maximum return in the present, while others save more money, and then skillfully invest it and get even more profit. Others simply receive money as an inheritance or as a result of a successful operation. In other words, there may be many reasons for inequality, but they do exist.
Personal qualities
Social stratification and social inequality are also caused by the fact that each person has his own individuality. This means that everyone has a personal set of qualities that are a union of advantages and disadvantages. But someone focuses on their disadvantages, thus becoming a little stuck on their life path. Others focus on their strengths, trying to solve the problem of their shortcomings, that is, somehow fight them or learn to exist peacefully. Such people achieve more because they know what their main weapon is.
Social inequality: the theory of social stratification
This theory comes from William Warner, who proposed the idea that stratification is based on the prestige of different segments of the population, as well as on what people think of each other. But he studied Western society, and identified 6 population groups that he discovered in the context of social division:
- Aristocrats.
- Self-made millionaires.
- Intellectual elite.
- Educated people.
- Workers.
- People without education, without own home, beggars and criminals.
M. Weber's theory of inequality
Max Weber believed that the main criterion of stratification, which determines a person’s position in the life hierarchy, is not his belonging to a certain group, but his personal qualities and status, which allow him to independently raise or lower himself on the social ladder. Max Weber considered the second important factor of stratification to be the respect and reputation that a person receives in the process of his activities. It is a good position in society that very often ensures a person’s rapid and high-quality advancement.
Social stratification, inequality, mobility - all this was considered by the researcher as factors that a person himself is able to influence if desired. He said that classifying people based on what class or caste they were was a thing of the past.
P. Sorokin's theory
The scientist outlined his thoughts in the work “Social Mobility,” written in 1927. Note that in sociology this work is considered classic. According to his definition, social differentiation is the division of people into certain groups within a certain hierarchical system. The essence is that everything is distributed unevenly - rights, privileges, responsibilities, power, etc. All this is never distributed in equal parts and in such a way that there is enough for everyone.
Three forms of differentiation
Also, a feature of Sorokin’s work is that he identified three main forms of differentiation, namely political, economic and professional. He considered the social group, social stratification, and social inequality only in the context of these three spheres of human life. At the same time, he noted that they are very intertwined, and it is on their basis that relationships in all other areas are built.
He also identified interprofessional and intraprofessional differentiation in professional stratification. In other words, he divided people according to the rank they held within their profession. That is, they are hired workers, entrepreneurs or senior employees. As for interprofessional stratification, he highlighted the importance of the profession for society as a whole and the level of intelligence that is necessary to engage in a particular activity.
To summarize the article, we note that social group, social stratification, social inequality are concepts with which life is closely intertwined modern man. However, the ideas of humanism are now so widespread that inequality is gradually fading into the background, which indicates positive changes in the life of society.
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
Representatives of the human race appear before us in all their diversity of properties - biological, psychological and social in nature, which already creates certain preconditions for the existence of inequality. Inequality itself has existed for a long time and objectively, and it is the most characteristic feature human society.
First of all, we will be interested in the problem social inequality.
This problem has haunted the minds of people for many centuries (and, above all, from the point of view of social justice); around it an atmosphere was formed for the manifestation of mass riots, social movements and even revolutions. But all attempts to eliminate this inequality led to the fact that on the basis of one destroyed inequality, a new one was invariably created, based on other characteristics. At the same time, people resisted with great tenacity the formation of complete social equality.
Social inequality – this is a specific form of social differentiation in which individuals, social groups, layers, classes are at different levels of the social hierarchy, and at the same time have unequal life chances and opportunities to meet their needs .
Social differentiation(from Latin differentia - difference, difference) is a broader concept meaning the difference between individuals or groups on many grounds.
Social inequality manifests itself as a result of complex processes of division of labor and corresponding social stratification, it can be associated with the concentration of a number of life advantages in certain individuals or groups, and can even lead to deprivation of the rest of the population (a state in which people feel disadvantaged, lack what they need). In this case, relations of inequality may have one or another degree of rigidity in their consolidation in special social institutions and the corresponding regulatory framework.
On the one hand, as practice has shown, social inequality is objectively necessary for society (for more effective development). On the other hand, when a large part of the population finds itself on the threshold (or beyond the threshold) of poverty and, in essence, does not have the opportunity for its development, this can lead to destruction and even death of society. Where should be that line, that measure of social inequality that is capable of ensuring social development?
As a global philosophical problem, the problem of inequality has worried thinkers since ancient times. Scientists and public figures, in attempts to understand it, first of all, asked questions about what can be considered the source of social inequality, and how this inequality should be assessed.
Within sociology, the explanation of the causes of inequality is reflected in two directions:
· FUNCTIONALISM- differentiation of functions performed by groups and the existence of different types of activities, valued differently in society.
· MARXISM- unequal treatment of property and means of production.
The first model of social inequality was created M. Weber, which explained the nature of inequality using three criteria (generators of inequality): wealth(income, property ownership), prestige(a person’s authority, determined by his professional activity, level of education), power(the ability to implement policies and influence social processes). It is these criteria that participate in the vertical stratification of society, creating a hierarchy.
And, indeed, they are the types of public goods that are most important to people. Material goods are necessary not only to satisfy the basic, universal needs of life, but are also determined by the culture of consumption (you can buy almost everything!). Possession power gives people a feeling of strength, advantages over others, as well as the opportunity to receive greater material benefits. Prestige evokes respect from the environment and allows a person to establish his own importance and increase self-esteem. It is easy to see that all three criteria are often combined.
The idea of the nature of social inequality was subsequently developed by P. Sorokin, who created coherent theories of social stratification (stratum - layer) and social mobility. Here he is already talking about the existence of not one, but several “social spaces”, structured in a certain way: economic, political And professional. At the same time, he notes that an individual can occupy different positions (statuses) in different social spaces, i.e., for example, having a high economic status (wealth), he can have a rather low official status.
Subsequently, this theory is developed within the framework of functionalism and in particular T. Parsons explains the hierarchical structure of society by the system of values existing in it, which forms an understanding of the significance of a particular function performed. In different societies and in different eras, different criteria could be significant: in primitive societies strength and dexterity were valued, in medieval Europe the status of the clergy and aristocracy was high; in bourgeois society, status began to be determined primarily by capital, etc.
The modern most influential theory of social stratification developed within the framework of functionalism is the theory K. Davis and W. Moore, in which inequality and status distribution in society are justified by the functional significance of statuses. In order to ensure social order, it defines the requirements for the performance of roles corresponding to statuses, and also proposes to identify difficult-to-fill, but socially significant statuses, for which society should develop higher rewards.
A certain contribution to understanding the nature of inequality was made by Marxism and, above all, by K. Marx, who created the theory of class construction of society, where the class itself was considered as a large social group. Class relations, according to Marx, are conflicting in nature, since they are determined by the appropriation of property, resources, surplus value by one of the classes. He builds a fairly coherent theory of socio-economic formations, where he shows that in different times existed various types property (slaves, land, capital). At the same time, he evaluates the conflict itself in a positive way - as a source of social development.
In sociology, the analysis of the vertical stratification of society is reflected in the formation of two classical theories:
1) theories of social stratification (functionalism)
2) theories of class construction of society (Marxism).
Theory of social stratification. Its author is P. Sorokin.
Social stratification – it is a hierarchically organized structure of social inequality in society.
In his work “Social stratification and mobility” (Man. Civilization. Society. - M., 1992, P. 302) P. Sorokin offers the following definition social stratification – this is the differentiation of a certain set of people into classes in a hierarchical rank, which finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its essence lies in the unequal distribution of rights and privileges, duties and responsibilities, the presence or absence of power and influence among members of the community. Those. the upper strata (minority of the population) have greater resources and opportunities to satisfy their interests and needs.
Sorokin points out that there can be three main forms of stratification in society:
Ø ECONOMIC- generated by property inequality.
Ø POLITICAL- caused by inequality in the possession of power.
Ø PROFESSIONAL- associated with division by type of activity and its prestige.
Based on the theory of social stratification, P. Sorokin develops his second theory social mobility, by which he means “any transition of an individual, social object or value created or modified through activity, from one social position to another.”
Social mobility – it is the movement of an individual or group in a system of social hierarchy.
Sorokin highlights:
Ø horizontal mobility, in which the movement occurs from one position to another, but lying on the same level (moving to another family, to a different faith, moving to another city). Those. the status remains the same.
Ø vertical mobility– with the transition of an individual or group from one social layer to another (with a change in status), within which the following may exist:
- ascending And
- descending social mobility.
Channels of social mobility for an individual in an open society can be:
Ø School (educational institutions)
Ø Church
Ø Trade unions
Ø Economic structures
Ø Political organizations
The availability of pathways for social mobility is defined as characteristics of society, so the ability of the individual himself.
The main obstacle to social mobility in stratified societies are specific “sieves”, as a mechanism of social testing, with the help of which selection and provision of opportunities for people for vertical movements are carried out.
If we are talking about the individual’s individual abilities, then subjective obstacles may stand in his way - in the form of some kind of sociocultural barrier. A new status level may require the individual to master certain status characteristics (a new material standard of living, the adoption of typical status behavior, a change in his social environment).
Vertical mobility can serve as an indicator of the openness of a society. Depending on the characteristics of society and the extent to which vertical movements are possible in them, the following are distinguished:
- closed societies, These include those where movement from lower to higher strata is prohibited or significantly difficult. This should include societies with such historical types of social stratification as: slavery, castes, estates;
- open societies(with class or stratification division), where movements from one stratum to another are not officially limited.
It should be noted that in modern societies, where they are largely interested in ensuring vertical mobility, in qualified and competent performers, in updating the intellectual elite, however, even in them there are social groups of a “closed” type (elite), getting into which can be extremely difficult.
The theory of class construction of society. The author is K. Marx.
Another approach to structuring society is its class construction. The first picture of the class structure of society was developed by K. Marx, who considered classes as large and conflict social groups divided along economic lines.
Within Marxist approach
- Class- this is a large social group of people, whose position in society (in the system of division of labor) is determined by its attitude to property, to the means of production, as well as by the method of obtaining income
It should be noted that Marx’s forecasts for the establishment as a result of the class struggle of the communist system on a global scale (as the highest stage primitive society) – did not come true. The basis of communist ideology was the principle of material equality (while maintaining other types of inequality), which was supposed to create the basis for ensuring social justice.
But... on the one hand, in particular - in our country the so-called. “equalization” led to a sharp decrease in labor motivation and economic recession, which required strengthening state power. On the other hand, rich people invariably began to appear, only in the context of the growth of the shadow economy, who partly found themselves fused with the authorities. The prestige of mental work turned out to be associated with the fact that the intelligentsia did not even deserve to be defined as a class, but only a layer between the class of workers and peasants.
Humanity chose to take a different path, preserving social inequality itself, but ensuring a greater degree of it justice and at the same time - sustainability society itself.
In foreign practice, this issue began to be resolved through the formation of the so-called middle class, quite numerous, with a high level of education, a stable economic situation and prestigious professions. The very idea of the importance of the middle class was put forward by one of the classics of sociology - G. Simmel, and to this day it successfully works in society.
Within the framework of the concept of the rule of law, in particular, an approach was formulated to create more equitable social inequality - providing people with equal starting opportunities so that the most worthy reach the finish line. Moreover, on this basis the concept was formed social state, allowing to more fully ensure the principle of social justice.
Currently, class theories are leaning towards social stratification, i.e. In addition to property remaining as the main feature, the basic class differences also include: official status (power), prestige. And the class itself is seen as an enlarged social status, which has its own subculture and privileges.
In a modern interpretation Class - is a group of people who consider themselves to have a certain position in a system of social hierarchy.
The position of an individual or group in the system of social stratification is determined by such concepts as:
§ social status - this is the relative position of an individual or group in the social structure of society, determined by certain social characteristics;
§ social role - behavior expected from a person occupying a certain status and implemented through a system of norms.
Each person can have a whole set of such statuses (with different ranks in different areas).
The status is determined by the following parameters :
· responsibilities
· functions
Statuses can be classified:
According to the degree of formalization
Ø formalized – (depending on the degree of formalization social system) - Doctor of Science, accountant;
Ø informal - captain of the neighborhood football team, the most popular singer.
According to the form of purchase.
Ø prescribed (obtained at birth) - citizenship, nationality, social origin...
Ø achieved - profession, title, academic degree...
Also distinguished main (integral) status – it is often caused by a person’s professional activity (president, plant director)
The social structure of modern Western society can be represented in the following form:
· Upper class (10%)
· Middle class (60-70%)
· Low class (20-30%)
Top class not numerous, and its role in the life of society is ambiguous. On the one hand, he has powerful means of influencing political power, and on the other hand, his interests (preserving and increasing wealth and power) begin to go beyond the limits of public interests. Therefore, it cannot serve as a guarantor of the sustainability of society.
Lower class, as a rule, has small incomes, not very prestigious professions, a low level of education and little power. His forces are aimed at survival and maintaining his position, so he is also unable to ensure social stability.
And finally middle class It is not only the most numerous, but also has a stable position, which it will strive to maintain in the future. It is his interests that largely coincide with public interests.
Signs Middle class members include the following:
· Availability of property (as property or as a source of income)
· High level of education (intellectual property)
· Income (at the rate of the national average)
· Professional activities(having high prestige)
In modern Russian society, attempts have also been made to build social stratification, although it is quite difficult to do this in a transitional society, since the layers and classes themselves have not yet been established.
It should be noted that the construction of social stratification in itself is a labor-intensive task, since it is associated with difficulties in determining the criteria for this division, their significance, as well as classifying people into one or another stratum. It requires collecting statistical data, conducting social surveys, and analyzing economic, political and social processes occurring in society. But at the same time, social stratification is extremely necessary - without it it is difficult to carry out social transformations, build public policy and generally ensure the stability of society.
One such model is social structure of modern Russian society (proposed by T.I. Zaslavskaya).
1. Top layer(elite - 7%)
2. Middle layer (20%)
3. Base layer (61%)
4. Lower layer (7%)
5. Social bottom (5%)
It should be noted that Zaslavskaya does not use the concept of class, but only “layer”, thereby showing the unformed nature of classes.
Top layer– elite and sub-elite, they occupy important positions in the system public administration, in economic and security structures. They are united by the fact of being in power and the ability to provide direct influence on the reform process. In fact, this is the main subject of Russian reforms.
Middle layer- the embryo of the middle class in the Western sense, since its representatives do not yet have sufficient capital to ensure the sustainability of their position, nor the level of professionalism, nor prestige. This includes entrepreneurs of medium-sized businesses, managers of small enterprises, middle levels of the bureaucracy, senior officers, and the most qualified specialists.
Base layer– this includes most of the intelligentsia (specialists), office workers, technical personnel, workers in mass professions, and the peasantry. Despite all the differences in their statuses and mentality, they are united by the desire to adapt to changing conditions and survive and, if possible, maintain their status.
Lower layer characterized by rather low activity potential and poor adaptation to changing conditions. It's not too healthy and strong people, often elderly, pensioners, unemployed, refugees, etc. They are united by a very low level of income, education, unskilled labor and/or lack of permanent work.
Main feature social bottom and the difference from the lower layer is isolation from the institutions of society, inclusion in criminal and semi-criminal institutions (alcoholics, drug addicts, homeless people...)
In modern Russian society, social polarization continues to develop based on property and other types of stratification, which creates serious threats to the preservation of the integrity of society. The most pressing problem is income inequality: the so-called decile coefficient (the ratio of the income of the richest 10% to the income of the poorest 10%) is approaching 17, while, according to world practice, its excess of 10 can give rise to social unrest. And even in the oil and gas industry, which is relatively prosperous in terms of earnings, according to Forbes experts, the difference in the level of income of top managers of Rosneft and Gazprom companies and the minimum tariff rate for a first-class worker is 8 thousand times.
In later years, a certain contribution to understanding the problem of social inequality from the point of view of social justice was made by the American scientist P. Blau, who proposed for use the system of parameters he developed that relate to both the individual and the social group: nominal and ranking parameters.
TO nominal The parameters included: gender, race, ethnicity, religion, language, place of residence, area of activity, political orientation. They characterize social differentiation and do not provide for ranking into higher and lower positions in society. If this happens, it should be assessed from the point of view of injustice and oppression.
TO ranked parameters: education, prestige, power, wealth (inheritance or accumulation), income (salary), origin, age, administrative position, intelligence. They are the ones who assume ranging and reflect social inequality.
Determining the criteria of inequality and social stratification is one of the most important methodological problems of the theory of stratification. Even before the emergence of sociology, attempts were made to describe the structure of society based on the position of various groups in relation to the state, power, authority, access to the distribution of life's goods, etc. The first to provide a deep and systematic substantiation of the criteria of social inequality K. Marx, with whose name the concepts of “class” and “class approach” are firmly associated in modern sociology and social knowledge.
K. Marx considered the division of labor, which determines the unequal position of individuals in social production, the difference in the roles they perform and the size of the share of social wealth they receive, to be the basis and main criterion of social inequality and social stratification. In the process of development of society, professional specialization took place, division into skilled and unskilled, executive and managerial, physical and mental labor. The emergence of private property is associated with a division into those who have it and those who are deprived of it and are in various forms of dependence on the owners. Thus, in a slave society, slaves are themselves the property of slave owners; in a feudal society, where the main factor of production is land, there is a division into land owners (feudal lords) and dependent peasants who are forced to pay rent for the use of the land. In bourgeois society, K. Marx contrasted the class of capitalist owners with hired workers, deprived of property and therefore forced to sell their labor. The specific historical classes depend on the mode of production underlying the social system.
Due to the common position in the system of social production, classes, according to K. Marx, have common economic interests, from which it follows that they have common political interests, etc. At the same time, the interests of classes whose positions are opposite (owners and those who are deprived of property) also have opposing interests. K. Marx and his followers called such classes antagonistic, i.e. irreconcilable. Therefore, classes are characterized by conflicting relationships with each other, and the struggle between classes is considered by Marxists as the main driving force of social development. However, classes do not always and do not immediately realize their interests. A class in its formation that has not yet realized the objective community of interests arising not from specific local circumstances, but from the unity of position in the economic mode of production, is called a class-in-itself. After a class develops a unified “class consciousness” and objective interests are realized, they are formalized into an ideology, political position and political organization, he becomes classes-for-yourself.
Many followers, as well as opponents, who recognized the great heuristic value of K. Marx’s class theory, criticized him for the lack of clear definitions, and tried to give their own interpretations of class. The definition given by V. I. Lenin in the work “The Great Initiative” (1918): “Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship ( mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, according to their role in public organization labor, and therefore, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from whom another can appropriate the labor of others, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy."
The class theory of social stratification proposed by K. Marx can be applied to any society in which there is a developed division of labor and private property. It does not deny other types of stratification, such as class, but shifts the focus of research interest to the analysis of relations of ownership of the means of production, explaining all other forms of inequality as secondary. At the same time, class theory in Marx’s interpretation examines the entire diversity of social groups and their relations through the prism of relations of ownership of the means of production. Then social groups whose status is not directly deducible from such relations (clergy, intelligentsia, bureaucracy, military, etc.) have to be considered as “secondary” in relation to the “main” classes: for example, the intelligentsia as a “stratum” in the bourgeois society, etc. This approach leads to schematization, a known simplification of the real social structure and makes us assume that as one or another method of production develops, the crystallization of the main classes occurs: in a capitalist society, small independent producers and artisans either go bankrupt and join the ranks of the proletariat, or get rich and become bourgeois.
M. Weber substantiated the theory of stratification based on pluralism of criteria. M. Weber classifies the bases of stratification as follows.
- 1. Inequality in the distribution of economic benefits and the realization of economic interests, which determines the division of society into classes. By classes, he, unlike K. Marx, understands sets of people united by the commonality of “chances” of obtaining a surplus product in the market of goods and services, as well as life experience and opportunities to “dispose of goods or qualifications in order to generate income within the framework of a given economic order.” . The most important factor the emergence of “chances” in a market economy is property - as we see, in this M. Weber agrees with K. Marx. Ownership determines the ability to engage entrepreneurial activity and successfully compete for the appropriation of surplus product. Those who are deprived of property (slaves, serfs, hired workers of various kinds) are divided into classes depending on their qualifications and ability to provide certain services on the market. Representatives of a class have many diverse interests determined by their “chances” within a given economic order, but these are not necessarily expressed in a single “class interest” that determines the joint actions of individuals belonging to the class. On the contrary, interests determined by “chances” in the market more often lead, according to M. Weber, to joint actions of representatives of different classes to realize their goals, for example, entrepreneurs and employees in a capitalist enterprise must agree among themselves to achieve their economic goals. The main contradictions that arise in relations between classes, according to M. Weber, are determined by the inequality of opportunities to realize one’s own “chances” in the market, for example, in creating an acceptable price for labor, ensuring access to credit, etc., and not on a fundamental issue presence or absence of property. Thus, class, according to M. Weber, reflects economic stratification, which is not the only one, and is complemented by other forms.
- 2. Correction of class situations by the relations of “status groups”, or strata, which are based on inequality of prestige, “honors” provided by society to one or another group, which M. Weber also calls “social assessment”. The German sociologist emphasizes that class and status do not necessarily coincide, and that the richest do not necessarily enjoy the greatest prestige. It often turns out that the same status group includes both haves and have-nots. M. Weber calls the main content of “honor” the commonality of lifestyle of those who belong to the same status group, for example, gentlemen visiting the same club. This community is the boundary of the status group, expressed in the refusal of relations with representatives of other groups, for example, from marriage. Social markers of belonging to a status group can be the privileges of using certain objects, goods, performing any actions: wearing costumes and jewelry, eating “special” foods and drinks, entertainment, arts, etc. Thus, status groups are associated with the isolation of various social circles, with the identification of “prestigious” and “non-prestigious”. M. Weber notes that in his contemporary society, “disqualified” groups include those associated with physical labor in one form or another, especially heavy and dirty work.
M. Weber calls “social status” “real claims to positive or negative privileges in relation to social prestige, if it is based on one or more the following criteria: a) lifestyle; b) formal education, consisting of practical or theoretical training and the adoption of an appropriate lifestyle; c) the prestige of birth and profession."
Thus, M. Weber practically identifies the concept social status with belonging to a stratum and distinguishes it from class membership as an expression of economic chances and interests. Stratum and class are not identical to each other, although they are interconnected by many different dependencies. Thus, the mere presence of property or a managerial position does not guarantee high status, although it may contribute to its acquisition. There are hereditary statuses determined by the inheritance of privileges and prestige.
3. Unequal distribution of power, resulting in division into " political parties "A party unites people of similar beliefs, which are not necessarily determined by class and status, and they are not necessarily focused on realizing the interests of certain classes or strata. However, parties arise only in societies (communities) that have a rational organization of power, and reflect the struggle for power within the community.
M. Weber’s three-dimensional model of social stratification underlies modern approaches, which involve taking into account many bases and criteria for dividing society into classes.
Another classic theory of stratification is the theory P. A. Sorokina, who was a consistent critic of the one-dimensional theory of K. Marx.
P. A. Sorokin identified three main forms of stratification:
- 1) economic, consisting in the uneven distribution of material wealth;
- 2) political, conditional uneven distribution authorities;
- 3) professional, based on the unequal value of different professions for society and on the inequality of their prestige and the amount of remuneration received.
All three forms of stratification have relative autonomy: a political leader is not necessarily the owner of huge capital, and a large entrepreneur, the owner of a multimillion-dollar fortune, is not necessarily directly involved in political life and takes high positions. However, the three forms of stratification are still interconnected: representatives of the highest political circles, as a rule, have high qualifications and a prestigious profession and have considerable wealth, and representatives big business, one way or another, also have political influence. And vice versa: the poor, as a rule, have low-prestige professions and do not occupy high positions in the political sphere.
P. A. Sorokin polemicized with K. Marx and his followers, insisting on the universality of social stratification, which he considered an irreducible and necessary attribute social life. Any social group is stratified in one form or another. No attempt to abolish economic, political or occupational stratification has ever succeeded in human history.
P. A. Sorokin’s idea of multidimensional stratification is also associated with the concept of “social space”, which he introduced, which in principle differs from geometric or geographical space. The master and slave may be physically close, but the social distance between them will be enormous. Movement in geographic space does not always lead to a change in social position, and conversely, a change in social position does not always lead to movement in geographic space.
Development of sociological theories of social stratification in the 20th century. moved in the direction of complicating the system of criteria that made it possible to describe the social structure of society more accurately and in detail.
Structural functionalism as a sociological paradigm
Structural functionalism is a direction of sociological thought,
sociological paradigm, the essence of which is to highlight
elements of social interaction, determining their role and place in
larger social system or society as a whole, as well as their social
Founders:
I. Alfred Radcliffe-Brown
Key ideas:
· Social order supported by social institutions Social institutions- norms of behavior – supported by constant practices. Practices should not interfere with each other. In some cases they support each other. A process of “co-adaptation” arises.
· Functionalism is a way of organizing practices to maintain stability in society.
· Social structure is a set of stable social relations. There is a “total social structure” that is reproduced by sustainable practices. Evolutionism vs. Diffusionism. How to study society?
It is necessary to compare practices in different types of societies
II. Bronislaw Malinowski
Key ideas:
v Participant surveillance
· It is necessary to study the worldview and culture of people in order to understand how society is possible
v Reciprocity, principle of reciprocity:
· -General
· -Symmetrical
· -Negative
v Social action can only be explained by means
· understanding people's needs. It is necessary to understand their culture,
· their values and the way to satisfy the needs in this
· culture.
III. Talcott Parsons
· The world is systemic, so you need to study it systematically
· The system is a holistic formation. Its aspects are structure and process.
· Systems exist in interaction with the environment with which they are in exchange relations.
· Structure is a set of standardized relationships between system elements.
· Element of the social system – active person(actor)
· Role is the expected behavior corresponding to the status and social position of the individual
Quantitative and qualitative methods in modern sociology
Methodology sociological research is a set of methods
sociological research, methods and approaches to their application.
All methods of sociological research can be divided into two:
1) data collection methods
2) methods of processing sociological data
Data collection methods in sociological research are divided into two
1) quantitative methods
2) qualitative methods of sociological research.
Therefore, there are such types of sociological research as
quantitative and qualitative.
Qualitative methods sociology allows the sociologist to understand the essence
any social phenomenon, and quantitative ones - to understand how much
is it a massive (frequently encountered) social phenomenon and how important is it?
for society.
Quantitative research methods include:
· - sociological survey
· - content analysis of documents
· - interview method
· - observation
· - experiment
Qualitative methods of sociology:
· - focus group
· - case study (“case study”)
· - ethnographic research
· - unstructured interviews.
K. Marx on the origin of inequality
According to Marx, classes arise and confront on the basis of different
positions and various roles performed by individuals in production
structure of society, that is, the basis for the formation of classes is
social division labor.
In turn, the struggle between antagonistic social classes
acts as a source social development.
1. The emergence of classes becomes possible only when growth
labor productivity leads to the emergence of a surplus product, and
common property on means of production is replaced by private
property.
2. With the advent of private property it becomes inevitable
wealth inequality within the community: individual clans and families
get richer, others become poor and find themselves economically dependent on
first. Elders, military leaders, priests and other persons forming
the clan nobility, using their position, enrich themselves at the expense of the community.
3. Development of production, growth of trade, increase in population destroy
the former unity of the clan and tribe. Thanks to the division of labor they grow
cities are centers of crafts and trade. On the ruins of the old, tribal system
arises class society, the characteristic feature of which is
antagonism between the exploiting and exploited classes.
4. The ruling classes being the owners of everyone or at least
the most important means of production, they have the opportunity to appropriate
the labor of the oppressed classes wholly or partially deprived of means
production.
5. Slavery, serfdom, wage labor form three successive
another method of exploitation, characterizing the three stages of class-
antagonistic society. With the first two methods of class
exploitation, the direct producer (slave, serf) was
legally powerless or lacking rights, personally dependent on the owner
means of production. In these societies “... class differences were recorded and
in the class division of the population, was accompanied by the establishment of a special
legal place in the state for each class... Division of society into
classes are inherent in slave, feudal, and bourgeois societies, but in
the first two there were classes-estates, and in the last there were classes
classless"
Thus, the basis of the inequality of society according to Marx is
economic development society. The more developed a society is economically
The more class inequality is felt.
Even a superficial look at the people around us gives reason to talk about their dissimilarity. People are different by gender, age, temperament, height, hair color, level of intelligence and many other characteristics. Nature endowed one with musical abilities, another with strength, a third with beauty, and for someone she prepared the fate of a frail and disabled person. Differences between people, due to their physiological and mental characteristics, are called natural.
Natural differences are far from harmless; they can become the basis for the emergence of unequal relationships between individuals. The strong force the weak, the cunning prevail over the simpletons. Inequality arising from natural differences is the first form of inequality, which appears in one form or another in some animal species. However, in the main human thing is social inequality, inextricably linked with social differences, social differentiation.
Social are called those differences, which generated social factors: way of life (urban and rural population), division of labor (intellectual and physical labor), social roles (father, doctor, politician) etc., which leads to differences in the degree of ownership of property, income received, power, achievement, prestige, education.
Different levels of social development are basis for social inequality, the emergence of rich and poor, stratification of society, its stratification (a stratum that includes people with the same income, power, education, prestige).
Income- sum cash receipts received by a person per unit of time. This may be labor, or it may be the ownership of property that “works.”
Education— a set of knowledge acquired in educational institutions. Its level is measured by the number of years of education. Let's say, junior high school is 9 years. The professor has more than 20 years of education behind him.
Power- the ability to impose your will on other people regardless of their wishes. It is measured by the number of people to whom it applies.
Prestige- this is an assessment of the position of an individual in society, established in public opinion.
Causes of social inequality
Can a society exist without social inequality?? Apparently, in order to answer the question posed, it is necessary to understand the reasons that give rise to the unequal position of people in society. In sociology there is no single universal explanation for this phenomenon. Various scientific and methodological schools and directions interpret it differently. Let us highlight the most interesting and noteworthy approaches.
Functionalism explains inequality based on the differentiation of social functions, performed by various layers, classes, communities. The functioning and development of society is possible only thanks to the division of labor, when each social group solves the corresponding tasks that are vital for the entire integrity: some are engaged in the production of material goods, others create spiritual values, others manage, etc. For the normal functioning of society necessary optimal combination all types of human activity. Some of them are more important, others less. So, based on the hierarchy of social functions, a corresponding hierarchy of classes and layers is formed executing them. Those who exercise general leadership and management of the country are invariably placed at the top of the social ladder, because only they can support and ensure the unity of society and create the necessary conditions for the successful performance of other functions.
The explanation of social inequality by the principle of functional utility is fraught with a serious danger of subjectivist interpretation. Indeed, why is this or that function considered more significant if society as an integral organism cannot exist without functional diversity? This approach does not allow us to explain such realities as the recognition of an individual as belonging to a higher stratum in the absence of his direct participation in management. That is why T. Parsons, considering social hierarchy as a necessary factor ensuring the viability of a social system, links its configuration with the system of dominant values in society. In his understanding, the location of social layers on the hierarchical ladder is determined by the ideas formed in society about the importance of each of them.
Observations of the actions and behavior of specific individuals gave impetus to the development status explanation of social inequality. Each person, occupying a certain place in society, acquires his own status. - this is inequality of status, arising both from the ability of individuals to fulfill one or another social role (for example, to be competent to manage, to have the appropriate knowledge and skills to be a doctor, lawyer, etc.), and from the capabilities that allow a person to achieve one or another position in society (ownership of property, capital, origin, membership in influential political forces).
Let's consider economic view to the problem. In accordance with this point of view, the root cause of social inequality lies in unequal treatment of property and distribution of material goods. Most brightly this approach manifested itself in Marxism. According to his version, it was the emergence of private property led to social stratification of society, the formation antagonistic classes. The exaggeration of the role of private property in the social stratification of society led Marx and his followers to the conclusion that it was possible to eliminate social inequality by establishing public ownership of the means of production.
The lack of a unified approach to explaining the origins of social inequality is due to the fact that it is always perceived at at least two levels. Firstly, as a property of society. Written history does not know societies without social inequality. The struggle of people, parties, groups, classes is a struggle for the possession of greater social opportunities, advantages and privileges. If inequality is an inherent property of society, therefore, it has a positive functional load. Society reproduces inequality because it needs it as a source of life support and development.
Secondly, inequality always perceived as unequal relationships between people, groups. Therefore, it becomes natural to strive to find the origins of this unequal position in the characteristics of a person’s position in society: in the possession of property, power, in the personal qualities of individuals. This approach is now widespread.
Inequality has many faces and manifests itself in various parts of a single social organism: in the family, in an institution, in an enterprise, in small and large social groups. It is a necessary condition organization of social life. Parents, having an advantage in experience, skills, and financial resources over their young children, have the opportunity to influence the latter, facilitating their socialization. The functioning of any enterprise is carried out on the basis of the division of labor into managerial and subordinate-executive. The appearance of a leader in a team helps to unite it and transform it into a sustainable entity, but at the same time it is accompanied by the provision leader of special rights.
Any organization strives to preserve inequalities seeing in him ordering principle, without which it is impossible reproduction of social connections and integration of the new. This is the same property inherent in society as a whole.
Ideas about social stratification
All societies famous stories, were organized in such a way that some social groups always had a privileged position over others, which was expressed in the unequal distribution of social benefits and powers. In other words, all societies without exception are characterized by social inequality. Even the ancient philosopher Plato argued that any city, no matter how small it may be, is actually divided into two halves - one for the poor, the other for the rich, and they are at enmity with each other.
Therefore, one of the basic concepts of modern sociology is “social stratification” (from the Latin stratum - layer + facio - I do). Thus, the Italian economist and sociologist V. Pareto believed that social stratification, changing in form, existed in all societies. At the same time, as the famous sociologist of the 20th century believed. P. Sorokin, in any society, at any time, there is a struggle between the forces of stratification and the forces of equalization.
The concept of “stratification” came to sociology from geology, where it refers to the arrangement of the Earth’s layers along a vertical line.
Under social stratification We will understand a vertical slice of the arrangement of individuals and groups along horizontal layers (strata) based on such characteristics as income inequality, access to education, amount of power and influence, and professional prestige.
In Russian, the analogue of this recognized concept is social stratification.
The basis of stratification is social differentiation - the process of emergence of functionally specialized institutions and division of labor. A highly developed society is characterized by a complex and differentiated structure, a diverse and rich status-role system. At the same time, inevitably some social statuses and roles are preferable and more productive for individuals, as a result of which they are more prestigious and desirable for them, while some are considered by the majority as somewhat humiliating, associated with a lack of social prestige and a low standard of living in general. It does not follow from this that all statuses that have arisen as a product of social differentiation are located in a hierarchical order; Some of them, for example those based on age, do not contain grounds for social inequality. Thus, the status of a young child and the status of an infant are not unequal, they are simply different.
Inequality between people exists in any society. This is quite natural and logical, given that people differ in their abilities, interests, life preferences, value orientations, etc. In every society there are poor and rich, educated and uneducated, enterprising and non-entrepreneurial, those with power and those without it. In this regard, the problem of the origin of social inequality, attitudes towards it and ways to eliminate it has always aroused increased interest, not only among thinkers and politicians, but also among ordinary people who view social inequality as injustice.
In the history of social thought, the inequality of people has been explained in different ways: by the original inequality of souls, by divine providence, by the imperfection of human nature, by functional necessity by analogy with the organism.
German economist K. Marx linked social inequality with the emergence of private property and the struggle of interests various classes and social groups.
German sociologist R. Dahrendorf also believed that economic and status inequality, which underlies the ongoing conflict of groups and classes and the struggle for the redistribution of power and status, is formed as a result of the action of the market mechanism for regulating supply and demand.
Russian-American sociologist P. Sorokin explained the inevitability of social inequality by the following factors: internal biopsychic differences of people; environment(natural and social), objectively placing individuals in an unequal position; the joint collective life of individuals, which requires the organization of relationships and behavior, which leads to the stratification of society into the governed and the managers.
American sociologist T. Pearson explained the existence of social inequality in every society by the presence of a hierarchical system of values. For example, in American society, success in business and career is considered the main social value, therefore technological scientists, plant directors, etc. have higher status and income, while in Europe the dominant value is “preservation of cultural patterns”, due to what society gives special prestige to intellectuals in the humanities, clergy, and university professors.
Social inequality, being inevitable and necessary, manifests itself in all societies at all stages of historical development; Only the forms and degrees of social inequality change historically. Otherwise, individuals would lose the incentive to engage in complex and labor-intensive, dangerous or uninteresting activities and improve their skills. With the help of inequality in income and prestige, society encourages individuals to engage in necessary but difficult and unpleasant professions, rewards the more educated and talented, etc.
The problem of social inequality is one of the most acute and pressing in modern Russia. A feature of the social structure of Russian society is strong social polarization - the division of the population into poor and rich in the absence of a significant middle layer, which serves as the basis of an economically stable and developed state. The strong social stratification characteristic of modern Russian society reproduces a system of inequality and injustice, in which the opportunities for independent self-realization and improvement of social status are limited for a fairly large part of the Russian population.
