Functionalism vs. Conflict Theories Handout



Functionalism vs. Conflict Theories HandoutSOC760: Social InequalityDavis & Moore SummaryThis article attempts to show a relationship between stratification and the rest of the social order. In addition, it attempts to explain a uniform prestige between major types of positions in society. With this, there are two lines analysis that must be used: understanding the universal feature of stratification and understanding the variable features of stratification. Davis & Moore (1945) describe stratification as a functional necessity; stating that society places individuals in certain positions and expects them to fulfill the requirements of said positions. This is done by society instilling proper desire to fulfill these roles and proper desire to perform the duties of said roles. Two determinants of rank that are noted are “Differential Functional Importance” and “Differential Scarcity of Personnel”. Functional importance basically measures up to: if a position is easily filled, it need not be heavily rewarded. This relates to the fact that the more intense positions that are essential are overpowering compared to the positions with little essential input to society. Scarcity of personnel deals with the need for rare individuals with high levels of talents that are needed to fulfill positions that require such rigor. This means that the positions should offer greater social scale and reward. Religion, Government, Wealth/Poverty/Labor, and Technical Knowledge are listed as societal functions through which stratification is possible (Davis & Moore 1945). Religion is heavily discussed due to higher positioned people within said religion holding the power to increase their own prestige as interpreters of religious elements. Government is compared to religion, but ultimately differs as its focus is not on unity and values, but on enforcement of norms, arbitration of conflicting interests, and overall planning and direction. Wealth, poverty, and labor is entirely economic based and is focused on talent and labor rewards. Technical knowledge is noted for values that members of society have for common knowledge and displays of intellect. Davis & Moore (1945) state that in society, certain positions are more important and functional than others. In addition, only a limited number of individuals in any society have the talent or ability to fulfill these positions. Conversion of talents to skills applicable for these positions takes time and sacrifice. In order to motivate members of society to take on this sacrifice, positions must be rewarding and offer prestige. These rewards should offer sustenance and comfort, humor and diversion, and/or self-respect and ego expansion. The positions should also offer opportunity to gain more control and security in their positioning. In conclusion, Davis and Moore (1945) state that inequality among different strata is inevitable, but functional. With that in mind, when comparing across societies, one must keep in mind the cultural development, situation with respect to other societies, and the size of the society observed. Tumin SummaryTumin (1953) begins this article by stating that the ubiquity and antiquity of inequality has led to the idea of it being both inevitable and functional, but that he does not believe this is the case based on the assumptions of Davis & Moore (1945). The first critique is that the idea of position functionality is highly based on assumptions that are not ways of measuring. One example of this would be the method of measuring long/short-range consequences of greater or lesser functionality. The second critique is that societies have alternative means of finding talents within individuals that are not always noticeable. These means often come in the form of hidden or built-into society obstacles. Tumin (1953) also notes that unequal distribution in one generation often leads to unequal distribution of motivations in the following generation. Critique three follows the logic that differential rewards are not necessary to motivate individuals to seek out functionally important positions. Tumin (1953) explains that this is assisted by the fact that the families often make sacrifices for the individuals, the sacrifice during training is not impactful, and that prestige during training is higher than many assume. Critique four attacks the concepts of the rewards fulfilling one of three categories: sustenance and comfort, humor and diversion, and/or self-respect and ego expansion. Alternative motivators, such as joy in work, social duty, and social service are never discussed or considered. Critiques five and six focus on societal differences in praise and desire making concepts in the article less universal. Also, it is noted that society will give reward to those who follow norms. There also needs to be more exploration of the power inequality that exists between age cohorts and/or generations. The final critique explores the focusses of society. Tumin (1953) suggests that it is focused on a society where all individuals are worthy.Tumin (1953) concludes his article by giving a list of dysfunctional traits of stratification. They are listed as so: 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. Composite ReviewUltimately, these articles flow well together as one is a list of assumptions over the brighter side of inequality and stratification while the other article is a strict critique of the assumptions made from the first. The overall question that still lingers after reading these pieces is: Is inequality/stratification good or bad? It is a question that is not simply answered with a short answer, but to be explored knowing that making assumptions may give us a quicker answer, but it may be less applicable in real life. Both pieces made excellent points regarding the positives and negatives of inequality and stratification, but the only true point that the authors can agree on is that stratification does dramatically affect the people within a society. Obviously, the piece by Tumin (1953) addresses specific concepts within the article by Davis & Moore (1945), but there is much more to the original thoughts by the later authors. They focus heavily on defending the concept of inequality as a necessity to keep society functional. In short, without inequality, there would be less motivation to achieve greater positions or fulfill necessary occupations. Take being a medical doctor for instance: this is a profession that requires an extreme amount of sacrifice and dedication to obtain. Most individuals must dedicate years of their lives to the study and practice of medicine, just to get a chance at becoming a medical doctor. When you consider that many individuals go through this process during the “peak time of their lives”, it is no mystery as to how much sacrifice is required. However, tales of riches and a lavished life fuel many individuals to obtain this goal. Our society rewards well-mannered, successful medical practitioners with high rates of pay, high social status, desire, and more. Alternatively, society does not place a significant amount of desire around positions that fall short of pay and fame. An example of this work would be a plumber. This job is not desired and does not require a vast amount of training, sacrifice, or talent. (Though some could argue that it does take a significant amount of time to fully learn the trade) Therefore, individuals need not be selective when hiring for these positions and can offer the job to a larger number of people. This then means that the job can be easily filled and does not require a high rate of pay or special treatment from the society. These are the main concepts that Davis & Moore (1945) were striving to summarize.In response to their article, Tumin (1953), posed questions about alternative explanations that resulted in claims that Davis & Moore made these points based on weak assumptions. These alternative assumptions included people taking pride in their work, a feeling of social obligation to do specific tasks, and the desire to give back through social service. This, personally, made a lot of sense to me. What about the individuals who enjoy what they do and feel the need to do it for the sake of the greater good? Many professors work hard on a daily basis to educate college students, but rarely receive public fame or praise for their hard work and dedication. On an even more extreme level, elementary and high school teachers are paid very little, often having to buy their own supplies. They receive little, if any, praise and are even ridiculed for not being able to achieve a better profession. Yet, many people still choose to be teachers, professors, etc. because they love what they do and many even see their jobs as helping to make a better tomorrow for their society. Tumin (1953) does have a couple points that seem to be short assumptions of their own. One that stood out more than others was during the critique of point three from Davis & Moore (1945): differential rewards are necessary to induce individuals to qualify for important positions. Tumin (1953) stated that prestige during training of important positions is often high. Are we to assume he is focusing on later stage training or training overall? If later stage training, it is understandable as medical doctor students in their last two years are given praise; same for PhD candidates. But, “pre-med major” bachelor students, who have begun sacrificing and committing to this path are often given much less praise and reward. This is a point I would like to have seen clarified much more. Discussion Questions from Readings Could religion be seen as an obsolete form of stratification regulation as technology and dropping numbers of followers has become more prevalent?Could a more or less corrupt government system change the level of inequality seen in the United States today? How so?Are those “in training” really seen as having a high prestige? If so, compared to whom?What are some societies/Cultures that do not follow the assumptions of Davis and Moore?Do you agree with Tumin’s critiques of the first article?What are potential factors, besides those listed by Tumin, which may affect the universality of the assumptions of Davis and Moore?What are other professions, besides those discussed earlier, which do not fall into the necessity/reward model?How would you rank the Societal Functional elements of stratification (religion, government, etc.) from most influential to least influential?Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. 1945. “Some Principles of Stratification.” Amer-ican Sociological Review 10:242-49.Tumin, Melvin. 1953. “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis.” Ameri-can Sociological Review 18:387-394. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download