home › Apartments for rent › Parameters of social stratification. What is the social stratification of society

Parameters of social stratification. What is the social stratification of society

Social inequality (social differentiation) refers to the differences generated by social factors: division of labor, way of life, characteristics of the profession, and so on. But society is not only differentiated and consists of many social groups, but also hierarchized (a hierarchy is made up of these groups). Hierarchies according to various characteristics (grounds) form the basis of social stratification. Social stratification is the differentiation of a set of people in a hierarchical order within a certain basis (economic, political, professional, etc.). There are many bases of social stratification. Social stratification involves more or less free movement of individuals from one social group to another. This movement is called social mobility.

The study of social inequality is one of the important areas of sociology. In sociology, there are various methodological approaches to solving questions about the essence, origins and prospects for the development of social stratification: functional, conflict and evolutionary.

functional approach

Representatives functional approach K. Davis and W. Moore believe that social structure society is represented by a certain set of positions that can be achieved. Every society is faced with the problem of how to induce individuals to take up these positions and how to motivate individuals to fulfill the duties of these positions qualitatively. Davis and Moore, beginning with an analysis of these positions, emphasize:

In order for individuals to fill positions, certain abilities are needed.
These positions are not equally important for the survival of society. In order for individuals to aspire to occupy these positions, they must be rewarded. Among the awards, they highlight the benefits of everyday life and comfort, entertainment and leisure activities.

Societies are only as stratified as positions are unequal. The main statements of K. Davis and W. Moore boil down to the fact that certain positions in any society are functionally more important than others and require special qualifications for execution. A limited number of individuals have the talent that must be developed to fill such a position. Acquiring a qualification requires a long period of learning, during which those who learn make sacrifices. In order to induce talented individuals to make sacrifices and undergo training, their future positions must provide rewards in the form of access to scarce goods. These scarce goods are the rights and privileges that are inherent in positions and satisfy the needs of a comfortable existence, entertainment and recreation, self-respect and self-realization.

Differentiated access to rewards leads to differentiation in the prestige and respect enjoyed by executions (a set of objects of stratification). According to the rights and privileges, social inequality is affirmed. Social inequality between strata is positively functional and inevitable in any society. Stratification ensures the optimal functioning of society. Davis and Moore draw attention to the importance of the external conditions of stratification, among which they highlight the following:

stage cultural development(accumulation of patterns of behavior);
relations with other societies (a state of war increases the importance of military positions);
the factor of the size of society (it is easier for a large country to maintain stratification).

Functional approach fails to explain dysfunctions when individual roles are rewarded by no means in proportion to their relative weight, significance for society. For example, remuneration of persons serving the elite. Critics of functionalism emphasize that the conclusion about the usefulness of hierarchical construction contradicts the historical facts of skirmishes, conflicts between strata, which led to difficult situations, explosions and sometimes threw society back.

Conflict Approach

The second direction of the analysis of social stratification can be called a conflict approach, the starting positions of which were formulated by K. Marx, who linked social inequality with the different position of groups of people in the system of material production, their attitude to property.

The conflict approach was developed by M. Weber (1864-1920), who saw the basis of stratification in the division of labor. Weber said that inequality exists because there are three resources over which people fight: wealth (property inequality), power, honor and glory (status inequality). These resources are scarce by nature and cannot be divided equally. In any society, people are unequal both in terms of each individual resource and in terms of their sum. Separate communities and groups are formed according to each resource. Depending on how power is distributed, political parties are formed. According to the gradation of honor and glory - status groups. Behind how wealth is distributed are classes. Weber believed that there are no non-stratified societies, and economic inequality is the main type of inequality in modern society.

The idea of multidimensional stratification was also developed by P. Sorokin (1889-1968), who identified three main forms of stratification and, accordingly, three types of criteria: economic, political and professional. According to Sorokin, social stratification is the differentiation of a certain set of people (population) into classes according to ranks. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibility and duty, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community. Weber emphasized such a basis (type) of social stratification as prestige. A number of other grounds (types) of social stratification were also proposed: ethnic, religious, lifestyle, and others.

As a rule, these three forms (economic, political and professional) are closely intertwined. People who belong to the highest stratum in one respect belong to the same stratum in other respects, and vice versa. Representatives of the highest economic strata simultaneously belong to the highest political and professional strata. Takovo general rule although there are many exceptions. For example, the richest are not always at the top of the political or professional pyramid, and vice versa.

evolutionary approach

In the 1970s and 1980s it became popular trend of synthesis of functional and conflict approaches. It found its most complete expression in the works of American scientists Gerhard and Jean Lensky, who formulated an evolutionary approach to the analysis of social stratification. They developed a model of the socio-cultural evolution of society and showed that stratification was not always necessary and useful. In the early stages of development, there is practically no hierarchy. It later appeared as a result of natural needs, partly based on the conflict that arises from the distribution of surplus product. In an industrial society, it is based mainly on the consensus of the values of officials and ordinary members of society. In this regard, remuneration is both fair and unfair, and stratification can help or hinder development, depending on specific historical conditions and situations.

If the economic status of members of a certain community is not the same, if there are rich and poor among them, then such a society is characterized by the presence of economic stratification, regardless of whether it is organized on communist or capitalist principles, whether it is defined as a "society of equals" or not. The reality of the fact of economic inequality is expressed in differences in incomes, living standards, in the existence of rich and poor segments of the population. If within certain group there are various ranks of authority and prestige, ranks, if there are managers and subordinates, then this means that such a group is politically differentiated, no matter what it proclaims in its constitution or declaration. If the members of a certain society are divided into different groups according to the nature of their activities, and some professions are considered more prestigious in comparison with others, if the members of one or another professional group are divided into managers and subordinates, then such a group is professionally differentiated, regardless of whether managers are elected or appointed, whether they receive leadership positions heredity or due to their personal qualities.

Various social groups occupy different position in society. This position is determined by unequal rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, property and income, attitudes towards power and influence among members of their community.

Social differentiation (from lat. differentia - difference) is the division of society into various social groups that occupy different positions in it.

Inequality is the uneven distribution of the scarce resources of society - money, power, education and prestige - between different strata and strata of the population.

Social inequality is an internal characteristic of any social group and society as a whole, otherwise their existence as a system would be impossible. The factor of inequality determines the development and dynamics of a social group.

In the early stages of social development, such individual characteristics as gender, age, and kinship are socially significant. The objective inequality that really exists here is interpreted as the natural order of things, that is, as the absence of social inequality.

In a traditional society based on the division of labor, a class structure is emerging: peasants, artisans, nobility. However, in this society, objective inequality is recognized as a manifestation of the Divine order, and not as social inequality.

In modern society, objective inequality is already recognized as a manifestation of social inequality, that is, it is interpreted from the point of view of equality.

The difference between groups according to the principle of inequality is expressed in the formation of social strata.

Under the stratum (from the Latin stratum - layer, flooring) in sociology is understood a real, empirically fixed community, a social layer, a group of people united by some common social sign(property, professional, level of education, power, prestige, etc.). The reason for inequality is the heterogeneity of labor, which results in the appropriation of power and property by some people, the uneven distribution of rewards and incentives. The concentration of power, property and other resources in the elite contributes to the emergence of social conflicts.

Inequality can be represented as a scale, on one pole of which there will be those who own the largest (rich), and on the other - the smallest (poor) amount of goods. Money is a universal measure of inequality in modern society. To describe the inequality of different social groups, there is the concept of " social stratification"X.

Social stratification (from Latin stratum - layer, flooring and facege - to do) is a system that includes many social formations, whose representatives differ among themselves in an unequal amount of power and material wealth, rights and obligations, privileges and prestige.

The term "stratification" came to sociology from geology, where it refers to the vertical arrangement of the Earth's layers.

According to the theory of stratification modern society is layered, multilevel, outwardly resembling geological layers. The following stratification criteria are distinguished: income; power; education; prestige.

Stratification has two essential characteristics that distinguish it from a simple bundle:

1. The upper strata are in a more privileged position (with respect to the possession of resources or opportunities to receive rewards) in relation to the lower strata.

2. The upper layers are much smaller than the lower ones in terms of the number of members of society included in them.

Social stratification in various theoretical systems is understood differently. There are three classical strands of stratification theories:

1. Marxism - the main type of stratification - class (from Latin classis - group, category) stratification, which is based on economic forces, primarily property relations. A person's attitude to property determines his position in society and his place on the stratification scale.

2. Functionalism - social stratification associated with the professional division of labor. Unequal remuneration is a necessary mechanism by which society ensures that the most important places in society are filled by the most qualified people.

This concept was introduced into scientific circulation by the Russian-American sociologist and culturologist P. A. Sorokin (1889-1968).

3. The theory based on the views of M. Weber - the basis of any stratification is the distribution of power and authority, which are not directly determined by property relations. The most important relatively independent hierarchical structures are economic, sociocultural, and political. Accordingly, the social groups that stand out in these structures are class, status, party.

Types of stratification systems:

1) Physical-genetic - based on the ranking of people according to natural characteristics: gender, age, the presence of certain physical qualities - strength, dexterity, beauty, etc.

2) Etatocratic (from French etat - state) - differentiation between groups is carried out according to their position in the power-state hierarchies (political, military, administrative and economic), according to the possibilities of mobilizing and distributing resources, as well as according to the privileges that these groups have depending on their rank in the power structures.

3) Socio-professional - groups are divided according to the content and working conditions; ranking here is carried out with the help of certificates (diplomas, grades, licenses, patents, etc.), which fix the level of qualification and ability to perform certain types of activities (rank grid in the public sector of industry, the system of certificates and diplomas of education received, the system for assigning scientific degrees and titles, etc.).

4) Cultural-symbolic - arises from differences in access to socially significant information, unequal opportunities to select, store and interpret it [pre-industrial societies are characterized by theocratic (from gr. theos - god and kratos - power) manipulation of information, for industrial - partocratic (from lat. pars (partis) - part, group and gr. kratos - power), for post-industrial - technocratic (from gr. techno - skill, craft and kratos - power).

5) Cultural and normative - differentiation is built on differences in respect and prestige that arise as a result of comparing existing norms and lifestyles inherent in certain social groups (attitude towards physical and mental labor, consumer standards, tastes, ways of communication, professional terminology, local dialect, etc.).

6) Socio-territorial - is formed due to the unequal distribution of resources between regions, differences in access to jobs, housing, quality goods and services, educational and cultural institutions, etc.

In reality, these stratification systems are closely intertwined and complement each other. For example, the socio-professional hierarchy in the form of an officially fixed division of labor not only performs important independent functions for maintaining the life of society, but also has a significant impact on the structure of any stratification system.

In modern sociology, the most common are two main approaches to the analysis of the social structure of society: stratification and class, which are based on the concepts of "stratum" and "class".

The stratum is distinguished by:
income level;
the main features of the lifestyle;
inclusion in power structures;
property relations;
social prestige;
self-assessment of one's position in society.

The class is distinguished by:
place in the system social production;
relation to the means of production;
roles in the social organization of labor;
methods and amounts of wealth.

The main difference between the stratification and class approaches is that within the framework of the latter, economic factors are dominant, all other criteria are their derivatives. The stratification approach proceeds from taking into account not only economic, but also political, actually social, as well as socio-psychological factors. This implies that there is not always a rigid connection between them: a high position in one position can be combined with a low position in another.

Stratification and class approaches to the analysis of the social structure of society

Stratification approach:

1) Accounting, first of all, for the value of one or another attribute (income, education, access to power).

2) The basis for the allocation of strata is a set of features, among which access to wealth plays an important role.

3) Taking into account not only the factor of conflict, but also solidarity, complementarity of various social strata.

Class approach in the Marxist sense:

1) Aligning groups on a scale of inequality, depending on the presence or absence of a leading feature.

2) The basis for the allocation of classes is the possession of private property, which makes it possible to appropriate profits.

3) The division of society into conflict groups.

Social stratification performs two functions - it is a method of identifying the social strata of a given society and gives an idea of the social portrait of a given society.

Social stratification is distinguished by a certain stability within a particular historical stage.

It is the most accurate structural indicator of social inequality. Thus, the stratification of society is its division into various levels, or strata.

Terminology

It is believed that the term social stratification was first used by the American social scientist Pitirim Sorokin, who has Russian roots. He also developed this theory, based on strata as a phenomenon in society.

The word has the following definition: "a structured hierarchy

Reasons for P. Sorokin

Pitirim Sorokin was inclined to single out such reasons why society is "stratified":

First of all, these are rights and privileges. Because, as we know, the noble idea of just communism does not work in reality.
Secondly, it is duties and responsibilities. After all, in the end it turns out that there are individuals who are able to take them on themselves and cope with what others will call a "burden" and which, most likely, they will try to avoid at an opportunity.
Thirdly, it is social wealth and need. Different people need different things, and the results of their work are at different levels.
The fourth point is power and influence. And here it is appropriate to recall Fromm's theory of wolves and sheep: no matter how you talk about equality, people are divided into those who are born to command, and those who are used to living in obedience. This in no way means slavery, which mankind has already passed as a stage in its development. But at the subconscious level, the leaders and the followers remain. The former subsequently become leaders who "move, roll" the world, but what about the latter? They run side by side and wonder where he, in fact, is heading.

Modern reasons for the stratification of society

To this day, stratification in social science is actual problem society. Experts identify the following reasons for its occurrence:

Separation by gender. The problem of "man" and "woman" was acute at all times. Now in society there is another wave of feminism, which requires equality between the sexes, since the system of social stratification is based on the same.
Differences in the level of biological abilities. Someone is given to be a technician, someone - a humanist, someone - an expert in the natural sciences. But the problem of society also lies in the fact that these abilities in some people can be so obvious that they will be geniuses of their time, while in others they will practically not appear at all.
class division. The most important reason (according to Karl Marx), which will be discussed in detail below.
Privileges, rights and benefits related to the economy, politics and social sphere.
A system of values based on which certain types of activity are deliberately placed above others.

Stratification in social science is the subject of discussion and reasoning of great pundits. Sorokin presented it in his own way, Weber, developing the theory, deduced his own conclusions, as well as Marx, who eventually reduced everything to class inequality.

Ideology of Marx

The conflict of classes, in his opinion, is a source of changes in society and directly causes such a phenomenon as the stratification of society.

So, according to K. Marx, antagonistic classes are distinguished according to two objective criteria:

commonality of the state of the economy and relationships based on the means of production;
powers of authority and their manifestation in public administration.

Weber's opinion

Max Weber made such an important contribution to the development of the theory of social inequality that when considering the topic: "The concept of" stratification ", its origin and essence" it is impossible not to mention this name.

The scientist did not quite agree with Marx, but did not contradict him either. He relegated property rights as reasons for stratification to the background. Prestige and power were brought to the first place.

Levels of social stratification

Based on the prevailing factors, Weber identified three levels of social stratification:

the first of them - the lowest - related to property and determined the classes of stratification;
the second - middle - relied on prestige and was responsible for status in society or, using another definition, social strata;
the third - the highest - was the "top", in which, as you know, there is always a struggle for power, and it is expressed in society in the form of the existence of political parties.

Features of social stratification

The structure of stratification has distinctive features. The stratification primarily occurs by ranks, all depending on the reasons for which it occurred. As a result, privileged members of society are at the top, and the lower "caste" is content with little.

The upper layers are always quantitatively smaller than the lower and middle ones. But the proportion of the last two to each other can vary and, in addition, characterize the current state of society, "highlighting" the position of one or another of its spheres.

Types of social stratification

Developing his theory, Pitirim Sorokin also deduced three main types of social stratification, relying on the factors that cause it:

based on the criterion of wealth - economic;
on the basis of power, degree of influence - political;
based on social roles and their performance, status, etc. - professional stratification.

social mobility

The so-called "movement" in society is called It can be horizontal and vertical.

In the first case, this is the acquisition of a new role that does not involve moving up the social ladder. For example, if another child is born in the family, the existing one will receive the status of "brother" or "sister" and will no longer be the only child.

Vertical mobility is movement along social levels. The system of social stratification (at least the modern one) assumes that one can "climb" or "descend" along it. The clarification was given, given that such a structure in Ancient India (castes) did not imply any mobility. But the stratification of modern society, fortunately, does not set such a framework.

Linking mobility to stratification in society

How is mobility related to stratification? Sorokin said that stratification in social science is a reflection of the vertical sequence of layers of society.

Marx, Weber, and Sorokin himself gave various reasons for this phenomenon, based on the reasons for stratification discussed above. In the modern interpretation of the theory, the multidimensionality and equivalence of the positions proposed by scientists are recognized and a constant search for new ones is carried out.

Historical forms of stratification

The concept of stratification is not new. This phenomenon as a stable system has been known for a long time, but in different times had various forms. Which ones, we will consider below:

The slave-owning form was based on the forcible subordination of one group of society to another. There was a lack of any rights, let alone privileges. If we recall private property, then the slaves did not have it, moreover, they themselves were it.
Caste form (already mentioned in this article). This stratification in social science is a vivid and illustrative example of stratified inequality with clear and precise edges, frames drawn between castes. It was impossible to move up this system, so if a person "descended", he could forever say goodbye to his former status. The stable structure was based on religion - people accepted who they were because they believed that in the next life they would rise above, and therefore they were obliged to play their current role with honor and humility.
Estate form, which has one main feature - legal division. All these imperial and royal statuses, the nobility and other aristocracy are manifestations of this type of stratification. Belonging to the estate was inherited, a little boy in one family was already a prince and heir to the crown, and in another - an ordinary peasant. The economic situation was a consequence legal status. This form of stratification was relatively closed, because there were few ways to move from one class to another, and it was difficult to do this - you could only rely on luck and chance, and then one in a million.
The class form is also inherent in modern society. This is a stratification at the level of income and prestige, which is determined in some almost unconscious and intuitive way. At one point or another, in-demand professions come to the fore, the payment of which corresponds to their status and the product produced. Now it is the IT sphere, a few years ago it was economics, even earlier it was jurisprudence. The influence of the class on modern society can be described with the simplest example: to the question "who are you" a person names his profession (teacher / doctor / firefighter), and the questioner immediately draws the appropriate conclusions from this for himself. The class form of stratification is characterized by ensuring the political and legal freedom of citizens.

Types according to Nemirovsky

At one time, Nemirovsky supplemented the above list with several more forms of dividing society into layers:

physical-genetic, including gender, other biological characteristics, qualities inherent in the personality;
ethnocratic, dominated by powerful social hierarchies and their respective powers;
socio-professional, in which knowledge and the ability to apply them in practice are important;
cultural and symbolic, based on information and the fact that it "rules the world";
cultural and normative, presented as a tribute to morality, traditions and norms.

There is a part social system, which acts as a set of the most stable elements and their connections that ensure the functioning and reproduction of the system. It expresses the objective division of society into classes, layers, pointing to the different position of people in relation to each other. The social structure forms the framework of the social system and largely determines the stability of society and its qualitative characteristics as a social organism.

The concept of stratification (from lat. stratum- layer, layer) denotes the stratification of society, differences in the social status of its members. social stratificationis a system of social inequality, consisting of hierarchically arranged social strata (strata). All people belonging to a particular stratum occupy approximately the same position and have common status features.

Different sociologists explain the causes of social inequality and, consequently, social stratification in different ways. Yes, according to Marxist school of sociology, inequality is based on property relations, the nature, degree and form of ownership of the means of production. According to the functionalists (K. Davis, W. Moore), the distribution of individuals according to social strata depends on their importance. professional activity and contribution which they contribute by their labor to the achievement of the goals of society. Supporters exchange theories(J. Homans) believe that inequality in society arises due to unequal exchange of results of human activity.

A number of classic sociologists considered the problem of stratification more broadly. For example, M. Weber, in addition to economic (attitude to property and level of income), proposed in addition such criteria as social prestige(inherited and acquired status) and belonging to certain political circles, hence - power, authority and influence.

One of creators P. Sorokin identified three types of stratification structures:

economic(according to the criteria of income and wealth);
political(according to the criteria of influence and power);
professional(according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance social roles).

Founder structural functionalism T. Parsons proposed three groups of differentiating features:

qualitative characteristics of people that they possess from birth (ethnicity, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities and abilities);
role characteristics determined by a set of roles performed by an individual in society (education, position, different kinds professional and labor activity);
characteristics due to the possession of material and spiritual values (wealth, property, privileges, the ability to influence and manage other people, etc.).

In modern sociology, it is customary to distinguish the following main social stratification criteria:

income - the amount of cash receipts for a certain period (month, year);
wealth - accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or embodied money (in the second case, they act in the form of movable or immovable property);
power - the ability and ability to exercise one's will, to exert a decisive influence on the activities of other people through various means (authority, law, violence, etc.). Power is measured by the number of people it extends to;
education - a set of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the learning process. The level of education is measured by the number of years of education;
prestige- public assessment of the attractiveness, significance of a particular profession, position, a certain type of occupation.

Despite the diversity various models social stratification currently existing in sociology, most scientists distinguish three main classes: high, middle and low. At the same time, the share of the upper class in industrialized societies is approximately 5-7%; middle - 60-80% and lower - 13-35%.

In a number of cases, sociologists make a certain division within each class. Thus, the American sociologist W.L. Warner(1898-1970) identified six classes in his famous Yankee City study:

top-top class(representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties with significant resources of power, wealth and prestige);
lower-higher class("new rich" - bankers, politicians who do not have a noble origin and did not have time to create powerful role-playing clans);
upper-middle class(successful businessmen, lawyers, entrepreneurs, scientists, managers, doctors, engineers, journalists, cultural and art figures);
lower-middle class(employees - engineers, clerks, secretaries, employees and other categories, which are commonly called "white collars");
upper-lower class(workers engaged mainly in physical labor);
lower-lower class(poor, unemployed, homeless, foreign workers, declassed elements).

There are other schemes of social stratification. But they all boil down to the following: non-basic classes arise by adding strata and layers that are inside one of the main classes - rich, wealthy and poor.

Thus, social stratification is based on natural and social inequality between people, which is manifested in their social life and is hierarchical. It is sustainably maintained and regulated by various social institutions, is constantly reproduced and modified, which is an important condition for the functioning and development of any society.

1. INTRODUCTION

Social stratification - central theme sociology. She explains social stratification on the poor, the wealthy and the rich.

Considering the subject of sociology, we found a close connection between the three fundamental concepts of sociology - social structure, social composition and social stratification. We expressed the structure in terms of a set of statuses and likened it to empty cells of a honeycomb. It is located, as it were, in a horizontal plane, but is created by the social division of labor. In a primitive society there are few statuses and a low level of division of labor, in a modern society there are many statuses and a high level of organization of the division of labor.

But no matter how many statuses there are, in the social structure they are equal and functionally related to each other. But now we have filled the empty cells with people, each status has turned into a large social group. The totality of statuses gave us a new concept - the social composition of the population. And here the groups are equal to each other, they are also located horizontally. Indeed, in terms of social composition, all Russians, women, engineers, non-party people and housewives are equal.

However, we know that in real life the inequality of people plays a huge role. Inequality is the criterion by which we can place some groups above or below others. Social composition turns into social stratification - a set of vertically arranged social strata, in particular, the poor, the wealthy, the rich. If we resort to a physical analogy, then the social composition is a disorderly collection of iron filings. But then they put a magnet, and they all lined up in a clear order. Stratification is a certain way "oriented" composition of the population.

What "orients" large social groups? It turns out that there is an unequal assessment by society of the meaning and role of each status or group. A plumber or a janitor is valued below a lawyer and a minister. Consequently, high statuses and people occupying them are better rewarded, they have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should also be higher. Here we got four main dimensions of stratification - income, power, education, prestige. And that's it, there are no others. Why? But because they exhaust the range of social benefits that people strive for. More precisely, not the goods themselves (there may just be many of them), but access channels to them. A home abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a vacation in the Canary Islands, etc. - social benefits that are always in short supply (i.e. highly respected and inaccessible to the majority) and are acquired through access to money and power, which in turn are achieved through high education and personal qualities.

Thus, social structure arises from the social division of labor, and social stratification arises from the social distribution of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits.

And it's always uneven. So there is an arrangement of social strata according to the criterion of unequal access to power, wealth, education and prestige.

2. MEASURING STRATIFICATION

Imagine a social space in which vertical and horizontal distances are not equal. P. Sorokin, the man who was the first in the world to give a complete theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, and who confirmed his theory with the help of a huge empirical material stretching throughout human history, thought this way or something like this.

Points in space are social statuses. The distance between the turner and the miller is one, it is horizontal, and the distance between the worker and the master is different, it is vertical. The master is the boss, the worker is the subordinate. They have different social ranks. Although the case can be presented in such a way that the master and worker will be located at an equal distance from each other. This will happen if we consider both of them not as a boss and a subordinate, but only as workers performing different labor functions. But then we will move from the vertical to the horizontal plane.

Curious fact

Among the Alans, the deformation of the skull served as a sure indicator of the social differentiation of society: among the leaders of the tribes, the elders of the clans and the priesthood, it was elongated.

The inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. She has four measuring rulers, or axes coordinates. All of them arranged vertically and next to each other:

income,

power,

education,

prestige.

Income is measured in rubles or dollars that an individual receives (individual income) or family (family income) over a specified period of time, say one month or one year.

On the coordinate axis, we plot equal intervals, for example, up to $5,000, from $5,001 to $10,000, from $10,001 to $15,000, and so on. up to $75,000 and above.

Education is measured by the number of years of study at a public or private school or university.

Let's say Primary School means 4 years, incomplete secondary - 9 years, complete secondary - 11, college - 4 years, university - 5 years, graduate school - 3 years, doctoral studies - 3 years. Thus, a professor has more than 20 years of formal education behind him, while a plumber may not have eight.

power is measured by the number of people affected by the decision you make (power- opportunity

Rice. Four dimensions of social stratification. People occupying the same positions in all dimensions constitute one stratum (the figure shows an example of one of the strata).

impose their will or decisions on other people, regardless of their desire).

The decisions of the President of Russia apply to 150 million people (whether they are implemented is another question, although it also concerns the issue of power), and the decisions of the brigadier - to 7-10 people. Three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars, years, people. Prestige is outside this range, as it is a subjective indicator.

Prestige - respect for status, prevailing in public opinion.

Since 1947 National Research Center public opinion The United States periodically conducts a survey of ordinary Americans, selected in a national sample, in order to determine the social prestige of various professions. Respondents are asked to rate each of 90 professions (occupations) on a 5-point scale: excellent (best),

Note: the scale has from 100 (the highest score) to 1 (the lowest score) points. The second column "points" shows the average score received by this type of occupation in the sample.

good, average, slightly worse than average, the worst occupation. List II included almost all occupations from the supreme judge, minister and doctor to plumber and janitor. Having calculated the average for each occupation, the sociologists obtained a public assessment of the prestige of each type of work in points. Arranging them in a hierarchical order from the most respected to the most unprestigious, they received a rating, or a scale of professional prestige. Unfortunately, periodic representative surveys of the population about professional prestige have never been conducted in our country. Therefore, we will have to use American data (see table).

Comparison of data for different years (1949, 1964, 1972, 1982) shows the stability of the prestige scale. The same types of occupations enjoyed the greatest, average and least prestige in these years. Lawyer, doctor, teacher, scientist, banker, pilot, engineer received invariably high marks. Their position on the scale changed slightly: the doctor in 1964 was in second place, and in 1982 - in first place, the minister, respectively, occupied 10th and 11th places.

If the upper part of the scale is occupied by representatives of creative, intellectual labor, then the lower part is occupied by representatives of predominantly physical low-skilled: a driver, a welder, a carpenter, a plumber, a janitor. They have the least status respect. People occupying the same positions on the four dimensions of stratification constitute one stratum.

For each status or individual, you can find a place on any scale.

A classic example is the comparison between a police officer and a college professor. On the scales of education and prestige, the professor ranks higher than the policeman, and on the scales of income and power, the policeman ranks higher than the professor. Indeed, the professor has less power, the income is somewhat lower than that of a policeman, but the professor has more prestige and years of study. Noting both with points on each scale and connecting their lines, we get a stratification profile.

Each scale can be considered separately and denoted by an independent concept.

In sociology, there are three basic types of stratification:

economic (income),

political (power)

professional (prestige)

and many non-basic, for example, cultural and speech and age.

Rice. Stratified profile of a college professor and police officer.

3. BELONGING TO A STRATE

Affiliation measured by subjective and objective indicators:

subjective indicator - feeling of belonging to this group, identification with it;

objective indicators - income, power, education, prestige.

So, a large fortune, high education, great power and high professional prestige - the necessary conditions so that you can be attributed to the highest stratum of society.

A stratum is a social stratum of people who have similar objective indicators on four scales of stratification.

concept stratification (stratum- layer, facio- do) came to sociology from geology, where it denotes the vertical arrangement of layers of various rocks. If we make a cut of the earth's crust at a certain distance, it will be found that under the layer of chernozem there is a layer of clay, then sand, etc. Each layer consists of homogeneous elements. So is the stratum - it includes people with the same income, education, power and prestige. There is no stratum that includes highly educated people in power and powerless poor people in low-prestige jobs. The rich are in the same stratum with the rich, and the average with the average.

In a civilized country, a big mafioso cannot belong to the highest stratum. Although he has a very high income, perhaps a high education and strong power, his occupation does not enjoy high prestige among citizens. It is condemned. Subjectively, he may consider himself a member of the upper class and even fit the objective criteria. However, he lacks the main thing - the recognition of "significant others."

Under "significant others" are two large social groups: members of the upper class and the general population. The highest stratum will never recognize him as "their" because he compromises the entire group as a whole. The population will never recognize mafia activity as a socially approved occupation, as it contradicts the mores, traditions and ideals of this society.

Let's conclude: belonging to a stratum has two components - subjective (psychological identification with a certain layer) and objective (social entry into a certain layer).

Social entry has undergone a certain historical evolution. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. With the emergence of slavery, it suddenly intensified. slavery- a form of the most rigid fixing of people in unprivileged strata. castes- lifelong assignment of an individual to his (but not necessarily unprivileged) stratum. IN medieval Europe lifetime.affiliation is weakened. Estates imply legal attachment to the stratum. Rich merchants bought noble titles and thus moved to a higher class. Estates were replaced by classes - open to all strata, not implying any legitimate (legal) way of securing one stratum.

4. HISTORICAL TYPES OF STRATIFICATION

Known in sociology four main types of stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies and the last type is open.

Closed is a society where social movements from lower to higher strata are either completely prohibited, either significantly limited.

open called a society where movement from one stratum to another is not officially restricted in any way.

Slavery- an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and an extreme degree of inequality.

Slavery has historically evolved. There are two forms of it.

At patriarchal slavery (primitive form) a slave had all the rights of a younger member of the family: he lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married the free, inherited the property of the owner. It was forbidden to kill him.

At classic bondage (mature form) the slave was finally enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and had no family. He was allowed to be killed. He did not own property, but he himself was considered the property of the owner ("talking tool").

Antique slavery in ancient Greece and plantation slavery in the United States before 1865 is closer to the second form, and servitude to the Geese of the 10th-12th centuries is closer to the first. The sources of slavery differ: the ancient was replenished mainly through conquests, and servitude was debt, or bonded slavery. The third source is criminals. In medieval China and in the Soviet GULAG (non-legal slavery), criminals were in the position of slaves.

At a mature stage slavery turns into slavery. When talking about slavery historical type stratification, imply its highest stage. Slavery - the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the property of another, and when the lower stratum is deprived of all rights and freedoms. There is no such thing in castes and estates, not to mention classes.

caste system not as ancient as the slave system, and less common. If almost all countries went through slavery, of course, to varying degrees, then castes were found only in India and partly in Africa. India is a classic example of a caste society. It arose on the ruins of the slaveholding in the first centuries of the new era.

Castoycalled a social group (stratum), membership in which a person owes solely to his birth.

He cannot move from his caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. The caste position is fixed by the Hindu religion (now it is clear why castes are not widespread). According to its canons, people live more than one life. Each person falls into the appropriate caste, depending on what his behavior was in a previous life. If bad, then after the next birth he should fall into a lower caste, and vice versa.

In India 4 main castes: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), Shudras (workers and peasants) and about 5 thousand minor castes and podcasts. The untouchables are especially worthy - they are not included in any caste and occupy the lowest position. In the course of industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is becoming more and more class-based, while the village, in which 7/10 of the population lives, remains caste-based.

Estates precede classes and characterize the feudal societies that existed in Europe from the 4th to the 14th centuries.

estate- a social group that has fixed custom or legal law and inherited rights and obligations.

The estate system, which includes several strata, is characterized by a hierarchy, expressed in the inequality of position and privileges. Europe was a classic example of a class organization, where at the turn of the 14th-15th centuries society was divided into upper classes(nobility and clergy) and unprivileged third estate(artisans, merchants, peasants). In the X-XIII centuries there were three main estates: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia, from the second half of the 18th century, it was established class division on the nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistinism (middle urban strata). Estates were based on landed property.

The rights and obligations of each estate were determined by legal law and consecrated by religious doctrine. Membership in the estate was determined inheritance. Social barriers between classes were quite rigid, therefore social mobility existed not so much between as within the estates. Each estate included many layers, ranks, levels, professions, ranks. So, public service could only be done by the nobility. The aristocracy was considered a military estate (chivalry).

The higher in the social hierarchy an estate stood, the higher was its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were quite allowed. Sometimes individual mobility was allowed. A simple person could become a knight by purchasing a special permit from the ruler. As a relic, this practice has survived in modern England.

5. Social stratification and prospects for civil society in Russia

Russia in its history has experienced more than one wave of restructuring of the social space, when the old social structure collapsed, the world of values changed, guidelines, patterns and norms of behavior were formed, entire layers perished, new communities were born. On the threshold of the XXI century. Russia is once again going through a complex and controversial process of renewal.

In order to understand the ongoing changes, it is first necessary to consider the foundations on which the social structure of Soviet society was built before the reforms of the second half of the 1980s.

The nature of the social structure of Soviet Russia can be revealed by analyzing Russian society as a combination of various stratification systems.

In the stratification of Soviet society, permeated with administrative and political control, the etacratic system played a key role. The place of social groups in the party-state hierarchy predetermined the volume of distributive rights, the level of decision-making and the scope of opportunities in all areas. The stability of the political system was ensured by the stability of the position of the ruling elite (“the nomenklatura”), in which the key positions were occupied by the political and military elites, and the economic and cultural elite occupied a subordinate place.

A etacratic society is characterized by a fusion of power and property; the predominance of state property; state-monopoly mode of production; dominance of centralized distribution; militarization of the economy; class-layer stratification of a hierarchical type, in which the positions of individuals and social groups are determined by their place in the structure state power, extending to the vast majority of material, labor, information resources; social mobility in the form of organized from above selection of the most obedient and loyal people to the system.

A distinctive characteristic of the social structure of a Soviet-type society was that it was not class-based, although in terms of the parameters of professional structure and economic differentiation it remained outwardly similar to the stratification of Western societies. As a result of the elimination of the basis of class division - private ownership of the means of production - the classes gradually destructured.

The monopoly of state property cannot, in principle, class society, since all citizens are employees of the state, differing only in the amount of authority delegated to them. Distinctive features of social groups in the USSR were special functions, formalized as a legal inequality of these groups. Such inequality led to the isolation of these groups, the destruction of "social lifts" that serve for upward social mobility. Accordingly, the life and consumption of elite groups acquired an increasingly significant character, reminiscent of a phenomenon called “prestigious consumption”. All these signs form a picture of a class society.

Class stratification is inherent in a society in which economic relations are rudimentary and do not play a differentiating role, and the main mechanism of social regulation is the state, which divides people into legally unequal estates.

From the first years of Soviet power, for example, the peasantry was formed into a special estate: its political rights were limited until 1936. The inequality of the rights of workers and peasants manifested itself for many years (attachment to collective farms through the system of a passportless regime, privileges for workers in obtaining education and promotion, propiska system, etc.). In fact, employees of the party and state apparatus have become a special class with a whole range of special rights and privileges. The social status of the mass and heterogeneous class of prisoners was fixed in the legal and administrative order.

In the 60-70s. in conditions of chronic shortages and limited purchasing power of money, the process of leveling wages is intensifying, while the consumer market is simultaneously split into closed “special sectors” and the role of privileges is growing. Improved material and social status groups involved in distribution processes in the field of trade, supply, and transport. social impact of these groups increased as the shortage of goods and services worsened. During this period, shadow socio-economic ties and associations arise and develop. A more open type is being formed public relations: in the economy, the bureaucracy acquires the ability to achieve the most favorable results for itself; the spirit of entrepreneurship also covers the lower social strata - numerous groups of private traders, manufacturers of "left" products, builders - "shabashniks" are being formed. Thus, there is a doubling of the social structure, when fundamentally different social groups coexist in a bizarre way within its framework.

Important social changes that took place in the Soviet Union in 1965 - 1985 are associated with the development scientific and technological revolution, urbanization and, accordingly, an increase in the general level of education.

From the early 60s to the mid 80s. More than 35 million people migrated to the city. However, urbanization in our country had a clearly deformed character: mass movements of rural migrants to the city were not accompanied by a corresponding deployment of social infrastructure. A huge mass of superfluous people, social outsiders, has appeared. Having lost contact with the rural subculture and unable to join the urban one, the migrants created a typically marginal subculture.

The figure of a migrant from the countryside to the city is a classic model of the marginal: no longer a peasant, not yet a worker; the norms of the rural subculture have been undermined, the urban subculture has not yet been assimilated. The main sign of marginalization is the rupture of social, economic, and spiritual ties.

The economic reasons for marginalization were the extensive development of the Soviet economy, the dominance of outdated technologies and primitive forms of labor, the discrepancy between the education system and the real needs of production, etc. This is closely related to the social causes of marginalization - the hypertrophy of the accumulation fund to the detriment of the consumption fund, which gave rise to an extremely low standard of living and a shortage of goods. Among the political and legal reasons for the marginalization of society, the main one is that during the Soviet period, the country experienced the destruction of any kind of social connections"horizontally". The state strove for global dominance over all spheres of public life, deforming civil society, minimizing the autonomy and independence of individuals and social groups.

In the 60-80s. an increase in the general level of education, the development of an urban subculture gave rise to a more complex and differentiated social structure. In the early 80s. specialists who received higher or secondary specialized education already accounted for 40% of the urban population.

By the beginning of the 90s. in terms of their educational level and professional positions, the Soviet middle stratum was not inferior to the Western “new middle class”. In this regard, the English political scientist R. Sakwa noted: “The communist regime gave rise to a kind of paradox: millions of people were bourgeois in their culture and aspirations, but were included in the socio-economic system that denied these aspirations.”

Under the influence of socio-economic and political reforms in the second half of the 80s. big changes have taken place in Russia. Compared to Soviet times, the structure of Russian society has undergone significant changes, although it retains many of its former features. The transformation of the institutions of Russian society has seriously affected its social structure: property and power relations have changed and continue to change, new social groups are emerging, the level and quality of life of each social group is changing, and the mechanism of social stratification is being rebuilt.

As an initial multivariate stratification model modern Russia Let's take four main parameters: power, prestige of professions, level of income and level of education.

Power is the most important dimension of social stratification. Power is necessary for the sustainable existence of any socio-political system; the most important public interests intersect in it. The system of power bodies of post-Soviet Russia has been substantially restructured - some of them have been liquidated, others have only been organized, some have changed their functions, their personal composition has been updated. The previously closed upper stratum of society opened up to people from other groups.

The place of the monolith of the nomenklatura pyramid was occupied by numerous elite groupings that are in competition with each other. The elite has lost a significant part of the levers of power inherent in the old ruling class. This led to a gradual transition from political and ideological methods of management to economic ones. Instead of a stable ruling class with strong vertical ties between its floors, many elite groups have been created, between which horizontal ties have intensified.

sphere management activities where the role of political power has increased is the redistribution of accumulated wealth. Direct or indirect involvement in the redistribution of state property is in modern Russia the most important factor determining the social status of management groups.

In the social structure of modern Russia, the features of the former etacratic society, built on power hierarchies, are preserved. However, at the same time, the revival of economic classes on the basis of privatized state property begins. There is a transition from stratification based on the basis of power (appropriation through privileges, distribution in accordance with the place of the individual in the party-state hierarchy) to stratification of the proprietary type (appropriation by profit and market-valued labor). Next to the power hierarchies, an "entrepreneurial structure" appears, which includes the following main groups: 1) large and medium-sized entrepreneurs; 2) small entrepreneurs (owners and managers of firms with minimal use of hired labor); 3) independent workers; 4) employees.

There is a tendency for the formation of new social groups claiming high places in the hierarchy of social prestige.

The prestige of professions is the second important dimension of social stratification. We can talk about a number of fundamentally new trends in professional structure associated with the emergence of new prestigious social roles. The set of professions is becoming more complex, their comparative attractiveness is changing in favor of those that provide more substantial and faster material rewards. As a result, assessments of social prestige are changing. different types activities where physically or ethically "dirty" work is still considered attractive in terms of monetary reward.

The newly emerged and therefore "deficient" in terms of personnel, the financial sector, business, and commerce are filled with a large number of semi- and non-professionals. Entire professional strata are lowered to the "bottom" of social rating scales - their special training turned out to be unclaimed and the income from it is negligible.

The role of the intelligentsia in society has changed. As a result of the reduction state support science, education, culture and art, there was a drop in prestige and social status knowledge workers.

IN modern conditions In Russia, there has been a tendency to form a number of social strata belonging to the middle class - these are entrepreneurs, managers, separate categories intellectuals, highly skilled workers. But this trend is contradictory, since the common interests of various social strata, potentially forming the middle class, are not supported by the processes of their convergence on such important criteria as the prestige of the profession and the level of income.

The level of income of various groups is the third essential parameter of social stratification. Economic status is the most important indicator of social stratification, because the level of income affects such aspects of social status as the type of consumption and lifestyle, the opportunity to do business, advance in the service, give children a good education, etc.

In 1997, the income received by the top 10% of Russians was almost 27 times higher than the income of the bottom 10%. The 20% of the wealthiest strata accounted for 47.5% of total cash income, while the 20% of the poorest received only 5.4%. 4% of Russians are super-wealthy - their income is approximately 300 times higher than the income of the bulk of the population.

The most acute problem in the social sphere today is the problem of mass poverty - the beggarly existence of almost 1/3 of the country's population is being conserved. Of particular concern is the change in the composition of the poor: today they include not only the traditionally low-income (disabled, pensioners, large families), the ranks of the poor have been joined by the unemployed and employed, whose wages (and this is a quarter of all those employed in enterprises) are below the subsistence level. Almost 64% of the population has incomes below the average (average income is considered to be 8-10 times the minimum wage per person) (see: Zaslavskaya T.I. The social structure of modern and certain society // Social sciences and modernity. 1997 No. 2. S. 17).

One of the manifestations of the declining standard of living of a significant part of the population was the growing need for secondary employment. However, it is not possible to determine the real scale of secondary employment and additional earnings (bringing even higher income than the main job). The criteria used today in Russia give only a conditional characterization of the income structure of the population, the data obtained are often limited and incomplete. Nevertheless, social stratification on an economic basis testifies to the ongoing process of restructuring of Russian society with great intensity. He was artificially limited in Soviet time and openly develops

The deepening of the processes of social differentiation of income groups is beginning to have a noticeable impact on the education system.

The level of education is another important criterion for stratification; education is one of the main channels of vertical mobility. During the Soviet period, receiving higher education was accessible to many segments of the population, and secondary education was compulsory. However, this education system was ineffective, graduate School prepared specialists without taking into account the real needs of society.

In modern Russia, the breadth of educational offerings is becoming a new differentiating factor.

In the new high-status groups, receiving a scarce and high-quality education is considered not only prestigious, but also functionally important.

Newly emerging professions require more qualifications and better training, and are better paid. As a consequence, education becomes an increasingly important entry factor into the professional hierarchy. The result is increased social mobility. It is less and less dependent on social characteristics family and is largely determined by the personal qualities and education of the individual.

An analysis of the changes taking place in the system of social stratification according to four main parameters speaks of the depth and inconsistency of the transformation process experienced by Russia and allows us to conclude that today it continues to retain the old pyramidal form (characteristic of pre-industrial society), although the content characteristics of its constituent layers have changed significantly.

In the social structure of modern Russia, six layers can be distinguished: 1) the upper one - the economic, political and power elite; 2) upper middle - medium and large entrepreneurs; 3) medium - small entrepreneurs, managers production area, the highest intelligentsia, the working elite, military personnel; 4) basic - the mass intelligentsia, the main part of the working class, peasants, trade and service workers; 5) lower - unskilled workers, long-term unemployed, single pensioners; 6) "social bottom" - the homeless, released from places of detention, etc.

At the same time, a number of significant clarifications should be made related to the processes of changing the stratification system in the process of reforms:

Most social formations are mutually transitional in nature, have fuzzy, vague boundaries;

There is no internal unity of the newly emerging social groups;

There is a total marginalization of almost all social groups;

The new Russian state does not ensure the safety of citizens and does not facilitate them economic situation. In turn, these dysfunctions of the state deform the social structure of society, give it a criminal character;

The criminal nature of class formation gives rise to a growing property polarization of society;

The current level of income cannot stimulate labor and business activity the bulk of the economically active population;

Russia retains a stratum of the population that can be called a potential resource for the middle class. Today, about 15% of those employed in national economy can be attributed to this layer, but its maturation to the "critical mass" will require a lot of time. So far, in Russia, the socio-economic priorities characteristic of the "classical" middle class can only be observed in the upper strata of the social hierarchy.

A significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, which requires the transformation of the institutions of property and power, is a long process. Meanwhile, the stratification of society will continue to lose rigidity and unambiguity, taking the form of a blurred system in which layer and class structures are intertwined.

Undoubtedly, the formation of a civil society should become the guarantor of the renewal of Russia.

The problem of civil society in our country is of particular theoretical and practical interest. In terms of the nature of the dominant role of the state, Russia was initially closer to the eastern type of societies, but in our country this role was even more pronounced. According to A. Gramsci, "in Russia, the state represents everything, and civil society is primitive and vague."

In contrast to the West, a different type of social system has developed in Russia, based on the efficiency of power, and not the efficiency of property. One should also take into account the fact that for a long time in Russia there were practically no public organizations and such values as the inviolability of the individual and private property, legal thinking, which constitute the context of civil society in the West, remained undeveloped, the social initiative belonged not to associations of individuals, but to the bureaucracy.

From the second half of the XIX century. the problem of civil society began to be developed in Russian social and scientific thought (B.N. Chicherin, E.N. Trubetskoy, S.L., Frank, etc.). The formation of civil society in Russia begins during the reign of Alexander I. It was at this time that separate spheres of civil life appeared that were not related to military and court officials - salons, clubs, etc. As a result of the reforms of Alexander II, zemstvos, various unions of entrepreneurs, charity institutions, and cultural societies arose. However, the process of formation of civil society was interrupted by the revolution of 1917. Totalitarianism blocked the very possibility of the emergence and development of civil society.

The era of totalitarianism led to a grandiose leveling of all members of society before the all-powerful state, washing out any groups pursuing private interests. The totalitarian state significantly narrowed the autonomy of sociality and civil society, securing control over all spheres of public life.

The peculiarity of the current situation in Russia is that the elements of civil society will have to be created largely anew. Let us single out the most fundamental directions of the formation of civil society in modern Russia:

Formation and development of new economic relations including pluralism of forms of ownership and the market, as well as the open social structure of society caused by them;

The emergence of a system of real interests adequate to this structure, uniting individuals, social groups and strata into a single community;

The emergence of various forms of labor associations, social and cultural associations, socio-political movements that make up the main institutions of civil society;

Renewal of the relationship between social groups and communities (national, professional, regional, sex and age, etc.);

Creation of economic, social and spiritual prerequisites for the creative self-realization of the individual;

Formation and deployment of mechanisms of social self-regulation and self-government at all levels of the social organism.

The ideas of civil society found themselves in post-communist Russia in that peculiar context that distinguishes our country both from Western states (with their strongest mechanisms of rational legal relations) and from Eastern countries (with their specifics of traditional primary groups). Unlike Western countries, the modern Russian state does not deal with a structured society, but, on the one hand, with rapidly emerging elite groups, and on the other, with an amorphous, atomized society dominated by individual consumer interests. Today, civil society in Russia is not developed, many of its elements have been forced out or "blocked", although during the years of reform there have been significant changes in the direction of its formation.

Modern Russian society is quasi-civil, its structures and institutions have many formal features of civil society formations. There are up to 50 thousand voluntary associations in the country - consumer associations, trade unions, environmental groups, political clubs, etc. However, many of them, having survived at the turn of the 80-90s. a short period of rapid growth, in recent years they have become bureaucratic, weakened, and lost their activity. The average Russian underestimates group self-organization, and the most common social type became an individual, closed in his aspirations for himself and his family. In overcoming such a state, due to the process of transformation, lies the specificity of modern stage development.

1. Social stratification - a system of social inequality, consisting of a set of interconnected and hierarchically organized social strata (strata). The stratification system is formed on the basis of such characteristics as the prestige of professions, the amount of power, income level and education level.

2. The theory of stratification makes it possible to model the political pyramid of society, identify and take into account the interests of individual social groups, determine the level of their political activity, the degree of influence on political decision-making.

3. The main purpose of civil society is to reach consensus among various social groups and interests. Civil society is a set of social formations united specifically by economic, ethnic, cultural, etc. interests realized outside the sphere of state activity.

4. The formation of civil society in Russia is associated with significant changes in the social structure. The new social hierarchy differs in many ways from the one that existed in the Soviet era and is characterized by extreme instability. The mechanisms of stratification are being rebuilt, social mobility is increasing, and many marginal groups with an indefinite status are emerging. Objective possibilities for the formation of a middle class are beginning to take shape. For a significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, it is necessary to transform the institutions of property and power, accompanied by a blurring of the boundaries between groups, a change in group interests and social interactions.

Literature

1. Sorokin P. A. Man, civilization, society. - M., 1992.

2. Zharova L. N., Mishina I. A. The history of homeland. - M., 1992.

3. HessIN., Markgon E., Stein P. sociology. V.4., 1991.

4. Vselensky M.S. Nomenclature. - M., 1991.

5. Ilyin V.I. The main contours of the system of social stratification of society / / Frontier. 1991. No. 1. P. 96-108.

6. Smelzer N. Sociology. - M., 1994.

7. Komarov M.S. Social stratification and social structure // Sotsiol. research 1992. No. 7.

8. Giddens E. Stratification and class structure// Sociol. research 1992. No. 11.

9. Political science, ed. Prof. M.A. Vasilika M., 1999

9. A.I. Kravchenko Sociology - Yekaterinburg, 2000.

Popular in category: