Home › Taxes › The volume of power as a criterion of social stratification. Social stratification: concept, criteria and types. Historical types of stratification

The volume of power as a criterion of social stratification. Social stratification: concept, criteria and types. Historical types of stratification

Marxist tradition in class analysis

Concept Class used in different scientific disciplines to denote any set consisting of elements, each of which has at least one property common to all. The term social classification (from lat. classis– rank, class, and facio– I do) means unified system large groups of people arranged in a hierarchical series, together forming society as a whole.

The concept of “social class” was introduced into scientific vocabulary at the beginning of the 19th century by the French historians Thierry and Guizot, putting into it a mainly political meaning, showing the opposition of interests of different community groups and the inevitability of their collision. Somewhat later, a number of English economists, including Ricardo and Smith, made the first attempts to reveal the “anatomy” of classes, i.e. their internal structure.

Despite the fact that social class is one of the central concepts in sociology, scientists still do not have a common point of view regarding the content of this concept. For the first time we find a detailed picture of class society in the works of K. Marx. Most of Marx's works are related to the topic of stratification and, above all, to the concept social class, although, oddly enough, he did not provide a systematic analysis of this concept.

We can say that Marx's social classes are economically determined and genetically conflicting groups. The basis for division into groups is the presence or absence of property. Feudal lord and serf in feudal society, bourgeois and proletarian in capitalist society- these are antagonistic classes that inevitably appear in any society that has a complex hierarchical structure based on inequality. Marx also admitted the existence of small social groups in society that could influence class conflicts. In studying the nature of social classes, Marx made the following assumptions:

1. Every society produces a surplus of food, shelter, clothing and other resources. Class differences arise when one of the population groups appropriates resources that are not immediately consumed and are not currently needed. Such resources are considered as private property.

2. Classes are determined based on the fact of ownership or non-ownership of produced property.

3. Class relations involve the exploitation of one class by another, i.e. one class appropriates the results of the labor of another class, exploits and suppresses it. This kind of relationship constantly reproduces class conflict, which is the basis of social changes occurring in society.

4. There are objective (for example, possession of resources) and subjective signs of class (a sense of class belonging).

Despite the revision, from the point of view of modern society, of many provisions of the class theory of K. Marx, some of his ideas remain relevant in relation to those currently existing social structures. This primarily applies to situations of inter-class conflicts, clashes and class struggle to change the conditions for the distribution of resources. In this regard, Marx's doctrine of class struggle currently has large number followers among sociologists and political scientists in many countries of the world.

The most influential alternative to Marxist theory of social classes is the work of Max Weber. Weber, in principle, recognized the correctness of dividing the population into classes based on the presence or absence of ownership of capital and the means of production. However, he considered this division to be too crude and simplistic. Weber believed that social stratification has three different measures of inequality.

First - economic inequality, which Weber called the position of class. The second indicator is status, or social prestige, and the third - power.

Weber interprets class as a group of people who have the same life opportunities. Weber considers the attitude towards power (political parties) and prestige as one of the most important features social class. Each of these dimensions is a separate aspect social gradation. However, for the most part, these three dimensions are interrelated; they feed and support each other, but may still not coincide.

Thus, individual prostitutes and criminals have great economic opportunities, but do not have prestige and power. University teaching staff and clergy enjoy high prestige, but are usually ranked relatively low in terms of wealth and power. Some officials may have considerable power and yet receive little pay and little prestige.

Thus, Weber for the first time lays the basis for class division in the system of stratification that exists in a given society.

In modern Western sociology, Marxism is opposed by the theory of social stratification.

Classification or stratification? Representatives of the theory of stratification argue that the concept of class is not applicable to modern post-industrial society. This is due to the uncertainty of the concept of “private property”: due to widespread corporatization, as well as the exclusion of the main shareholders from the sphere of production management and their replacement by hired managers, property relations were blurred and lost their definition. Therefore, the concept of “class” should be replaced by the concept of “stratum” or the concept social group, and the theory of social class structure of society should be replaced by theories of social stratification. However, classification and stratification are not mutually exclusive approaches. The concept of “class,” which is convenient and appropriate in a macro approach, turns out to be clearly insufficient when we try to consider the structure that interests us in more detail. With a deep and comprehensive study of the structure of society, the economic dimension alone, which the Marxist class approach offers, is clearly not enough. Stratification dimension- This is a fairly fine gradation of layers within a class, allowing for a more in-depth detailed analysis of the social structure.

Most researchers believe that social stratification- a hierarchically organized structure of social (status) inequality that exists in a certain society, in a certain historical period of time. The hierarchically organized structure of social inequality can be imagined as a division of the entire society into strata. A layered, multi-level society in this case can be compared to geological layers of soil. In modern sociology there are four main criteria of social inequality:

ü Income measured in rubles or dollars that an individual or family receives over a certain period of time, say one month or year.

ü Education measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university.

ü Power measured by the number of people who are affected by the decision you make (power - the ability to impose your will or decisions on other people, regardless of their desire).

ü Prestige- respect for status that has developed in public opinion.

The criteria for social stratification listed above are the most universal for all modern societies. However, a person’s social position in society is also influenced by some other criteria that determine, first of all, his “ starting opportunities." These include:

ü Social background. The family introduces the individual into social system, largely determining his education, profession and income. Poor parents produce potentially poor children, which is determined by their health, education, and qualifications received. Children from poor families are 3 times more likely to die due to neglect, disease, accidents and violence in the first years of life than children from rich families.

ü Gender. Today in Russia there is an intensive process of feminization of poverty. Despite the fact that men and women live in families belonging to different social levels, the income, wealth of women and the prestige of their professions are usually lower than those of men.

ü Race and ethnicity. So, in the USA white people get better education and have higher occupational status than African Americans. Ethnicity also affects social status.

ü Religion. In American society, the highest social positions are occupied by members of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, as well as Jews. Lutherans and Baptists occupy a lower position.

Significant Contribution Pitirim Sorokin contributed to the study of status inequality. To determine the totality of all social statuses of society, he introduced the concept social space.

In his work " Social mobility» 1927 P. Sorokin, first of all, emphasized the impossibility of combining or even comparing such concepts as “geometric space” and “social space”. According to him, a person of a lower class may come into physical contact with a noble person, but this circumstance will not in any way reduce the economic, prestige or power differences between them, i.e. will not reduce existing social distance. Thus, two people between whom there are significant property, family, official or other social differences cannot be in the same social space, even if they are hugging each other.

According to Sorokin, social space is three-dimensional. It is described by three coordinate axes - economic status, political status, professional status. Thus, the social position (general or integral status) of each individual who is integral part given social space, is described using three coordinates ( x, y, z). Note that this system coordinates describes exclusively social, and not personal statuses of the individual.

The situation when an individual, having a high status along one of the coordinate axes, at the same time has a low status level along the other axis, is called status incompatibility.

For example, individuals with a high level of acquired education, which provides high social status along the occupational dimension of stratification, may occupy poorly paid positions and therefore have low economic status. Most sociologists rightly believe that the presence of status incompatibility contributes to the growth of resentment among such people, and they will support radical social changes aimed at changing stratification. And vice versa, using the example of “new Russians” who strive to get into politics: they clearly realize that the high level they have achieved economic level unreliable without compatibility with equally high political status. Similarly, a poor person who has received a fairly high political status as a State Duma deputy inevitably begins to use his acquired position to correspondingly “pull up” his economic status.

IN different times There were different approaches to determining the causes of social inequality and social stratification.

The Marxist school of sociology indicates that social inequality is based on property relations, the degree, form, and nature of ownership of the means of production.

Functionalists (W. Moore, K. Davis) believe that the distribution of people into strata depends on the contribution made by their labor to achieving the goals of society and the significance of their professional activities.

Representatives of the exchange theory (J. Homans) showed that the emergence of social inequality in society is influenced by the unequal exchange of the results of human activity.

M. Weber proposed identifying the following criteria for social stratification: economic (income level, attitude towards property), social prestige (acquired or inherited status), belonging to certain political circles.

P. Sorokin distinguished political (according to the criteria of power and influence), economic (according to the criteria of income and wealth) and professional (according to the criteria of professional skills, mastery, successful performance social roles) stratification structures.

T. Parsons, the founder of structural functionalism, proposed groups of differentiating characteristics: qualitative characteristics attributed to people from birth (sex and age characteristics, family ties, ethnicity, personal abilities); role characteristics (education, professional and labor activity, position); characteristics showing ownership of material and spiritual values (property, wealth, privileges, etc.)

Basic criteria of social stratification

In modern sociology, the following criteria of social stratification are identified, according to which the population is divided into strata:

Power is the ability to dictate your decisions and will to other people, regardless of their desire; measured by the number of people to whom it applies.
Education is a set of skills, knowledge, skills acquired during training; measured by the number of years of education in public or private schools/universities.
Income - depends on the amount of cash received by an individual or family over the course of certain period time, for example one year or month.
Wealth is accumulated income (cash or materialized money).
Prestige is respect, public assessment of the significance of a position, profession, status, which has developed in the public imagination.

Note 1

The above criteria for social stratification are the most universal for all current societies.

Additional criteria for social stratification

There are certain, specific criteria that influence an individual’s position in society and determine, first of all, his “starting capabilities.” Additional criteria for social stratification include:

Social background. It is the family that introduces the individual into the system of society, while largely determining his income, profession and education. Insolvent parents probably produce poor children, which is determined by their education, health, and acquired qualifications. Children from disadvantaged families are three times more likely to die due to neglect, disease, violence and accidents than children from wealthy families.
Gender. Today in Russian Federation an intensified process of feminization of poverty can be observed. Regardless of the fact that women and men live in families that belong to different social levels, the wealth, income of women and the prestige of their professions are often less than that of men.
Ethnicity and race. For example, in the United States of America, people with white skin color earn more quality education and have higher occupational status than African Americans. Ethnicity also has its influence on social status.
Religion. For example, in American society, members of the Presbyterian and Episcopal churches and Jews occupy the highest social positions. Baptists and Lutherans are at a lower level.

Social space

P. Sorokin made a significant contribution to the study of status inequality. To determine the sum of all social statuses, he introduced such a concept as social space.

Note 2

In his work “Social Mobility” (1927), P. Sorokin pointed out the impossibility of mixing or comparing theses such as “social space” and “geometric space”. A person of a lower class may come into contact with a wealthy person on a physical level, but this circumstance will in no way reduce the prestige, economic or power differences that exist between them, that is, it will not in any way reduce the existing social distance. Consequently, two people between whom there are tangible official, family, property or other social differences do not have the opportunity to reside in the same social space.

Sorokin's social space has a three-dimensional model. It is characterized by three coordinate axes - political status, professional status, economic status. The social position (general or integral status) of any individual who is an integral part of this social space is represented using three coordinates (x, y, z).

Status incompatibility is a situation in which an individual, having a high status along one of the coordinate axes, at the same moment has a low status level along the other axis.

Individuals who have a high level of education attained, providing high social status relative to the occupational dimension of stratification, may occupy poorly paid positions, and, as a result, will have a lower economic status.

The existence of status incompatibility favors the growth of discontent among people, as a result of which they will contribute to radical social changes aimed at changing stratification.

Social stratification is the main theme of sociology. It describes how layers of society are divided by their lifestyle, by income level, and by whether they have any privileges or not. Sociologists “borrowed” this term from geologists. There it indicates how the layers of the Earth are located in a vertical section. Sociologists, too, like the structure of the Earth, have arranged strata - social layers - vertically. The criteria in a simplified version are limited to one scale - income level. At the bottom are the poor, at the middle are the wealthy, and at the top are the richest. Each stratum includes people whose income, prestige, power and education are approximately the same.

There are the following criteria for social stratification, according to which the population is divided into strata: power, education, income and prestige. They are located vertically on the coordinate axis and are inextricably linked with each other. Also, all of the listed criteria for social stratification have their own distinctive dimension.

Income is the amount of money that a family or individual receives for a specific time period. This amount of money can be received in the form of a pension, salary, allowance, fee, alimony, or interest on profits. Income is measured in national currency or dollars.

When income exceeds living expenses, it gradually accumulates and turns into wealth. As a rule, it remains to the heirs. The difference between income and inheritance is that only working people receive it, while non-working people can also receive an inheritance. Accumulated movable or immovable property is the main sign of the upper class. The rich may not work, while the lower and middle classes, on the contrary, will not be able to live without a salary. Uneven wealth also determines economic inequality in society.

The next criterion of social stratification is education. It is measured by the years devoted to studying at school and university.

The third criterion is power. Whether a person has it can be judged by the number of people to whom the decision he makes applies. The essence of power is the ability to impose your will on others, without taking into account their wishes. Whether it will be implemented is the second question. For example, the decision of the president applies to several million people, and the decision of the director of a small school - to several hundred. In modern society, power is protected by tradition and law. She has access to many social benefits and privileges.

People with power (economic, political, religious) constitute the elite of society. It determines the policy within the state, its relations with other countries in a way that is beneficial to it. Other classes do not have this option.

These criteria for social stratification have quite tangible units of measurement: people, years, dollars. But prestige is a subjective indicator. It depends on what profession or is respected in society. If the country does not conduct research on this topic using special methods, then the prestige of the position held is determined approximately.

The criteria of social stratification in a complex determine a person, that is, his social status. And status, in turn, determines whether one belongs to a closed society or to an open one. In the first case, it is impossible to move from stratum to stratum. This includes castes and classes. IN open society moving up the social ladder is not prohibited (it doesn’t matter whether it’s up or down). Classes belong to this system. These are historically established types of social stratification.

Inequality – characteristic feature any society when some individuals, groups or layers have greater opportunities or resources (financial, power, etc.) than others.

To describe the system of inequality in sociology, the concept is used "social stratification" . The word itself "stratification" borrowed from geology, where "strata" means geological formation. This concept quite accurately conveys the content social differentiation, when social groups are lined up in social space in a hierarchically organized, vertically sequential series according to some measurement criterion.

In Western sociology, there are several concepts of stratification. West German sociologist R. Dahrendorf proposed to base social stratification on political concept "authority" , which, in his opinion, most accurately characterizes power relations and the struggle between social groups for power. Based on this approach R. Dahrendorf represented the structure of society, consisting of managers and governed. He, in turn, divided the former into managing owners and managing non-owners, or bureaucratic managers. He also divided the latter into two subgroups: the higher, or labor aristocracy, and the lower, low-skilled workers. Between these two main groups he placed the so-called "new middle class" .

American sociologist L. Warner identified as defining features of stratification four parameters :

Prestige of the profession;

Education;

Ethnicity.

Thus he determined six main classes :

upper-highest class included rich people. But the main criterion for their selection was “noble origin”;

IN lower upper class also included people of high income, but they did not come from aristocratic families. Many of them had only recently become rich, boasted of it and were eager to flaunt their luxurious clothes, jewelry and luxury cars;

upper middle class consisted of highly educated people engaged in intellectual work, and business people, lawyers, capital owners;

lower middle class represented mainly clerical workers and other “white collar” workers (secretaries, bank tellers, clerks);

upper stratum of the lower class consisted of “blue collar” workers - factory workers and other manual workers;

Finally, lower class included the poorest and most marginalized members of society.

Another American sociologist B. Barber carried out stratification according to six indicators :

Prestige, profession, power and might;

Income level;

Level of education;

Degree of religiosity;

Position of relatives;

Ethnicity.

French sociologist A. Touraine believed that all these criteria were already outdated, and proposed defining groups based on access to information. The dominant position, in his opinion, is occupied by those people who have access to the greatest amount of information.

P. Sorokin singled out three criteria stratification:

Income level (rich and poor);

Political status (those with power and those without);

Professional roles (teachers, engineers, doctors, etc.).

T. Parsons supplemented these signs with new ones criteria :

quality characteristics characteristics inherent in people from birth (nationality, gender, family ties);

role characteristics (position, level of knowledge; vocational training etc.);

"characteristics of possession" (availability of property, material and spiritual values, privileges, etc.).

In modern post-industrial society it is customary to distinguish four main stratification variables :

Income level;

Attitude to authority;

Prestige of the profession;

Level of education.

Income– the amount of cash receipts of an individual or family for a certain period of time (month, year). Income is the amount of money received in the form of wages, pensions, benefits, alimony, fees, and deductions from profits. Income is measured in rubles or dollars that an individual receives (individual income) or family (family income). Income is most often spent on maintaining life, but if it is very high, it accumulates and turns into wealth.

Wealth– accumulated income, that is, the amount of cash or materialized money. In the second case, they are called movable (car, yacht, securities, etc.) and immovable (house, works of art, treasures) property. Wealth is usually inherited , which can be received by both working and non-working heirs, and income - only by working ones. The main asset of the upper class is not income, but accumulated property. The salary share is small. For the middle and lower classes, the main source of existence is income, since in the first case, if there is wealth, it is insignificant, and in the second there is none at all. Wealth allows you not to work, but its absence forces you to work for a salary.

Wealth and income are distributed unevenly and represent economic inequality. Sociologists interpret it as an indicator that different groups of the population have unequal life chances. They buy different quantities and qualities of food, clothing, housing, etc. But in addition to obvious economic advantages, the wealthy strata have hidden privileges. The poor have shorter lives (even if they enjoy all the benefits of medicine), less educated children (even if they go to the same public schools), etc.

Education measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university.

Power measured by the number of people affected by the decision. The essence of power is the ability to impose your will against the wishes of other people. IN complex society power is institutionalized , that is, it is protected by laws and tradition, surrounded by privileges and wide access to social benefits, allows decisions vital for society to be made, including laws that are usually beneficial to the upper class. In all societies, people who have some form of power - political, economic or religious - constitute an institutionalized elite . It defines the internal and foreign policy state, directing it in a direction beneficial to itself, which other classes are deprived of.

Three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars, years, people. Prestige stands outside this series, since it is a subjective indicator. Prestige - the respect that a particular profession, position, or occupation enjoys in public opinion.

Generalization of these criteria allows us to represent the process of social stratification as a multifaceted stratification of people and groups in society on the basis of ownership (or non-ownership) of property, power, certain levels of education and professional training, ethnic characteristics, gender and age characteristics, sociocultural criteria, political positions, social statuses and roles.

You can select nine types of historical stratification systems , which can be used to describe any social organism, namely:

Physico-genetic,

Slaveholding,

Caste,

Estate,

Etacratic,

Social-professional,

Class,

Cultural-symbolic,

Cultural-normative.

All nine types of stratification systems are nothing more than “ideal types”. Any real society is a complex mixture and combination of them. In reality, stratification types are intertwined and complement each other.

based on the first type - physical-genetic stratification system – lies the differentiation of social groups according to “natural” socio-demographic characteristics. Here, the attitude towards a person or group is determined by gender, age and the presence of certain physical qualities - strength, beauty, dexterity. Accordingly, the weaker and those with physical disabilities are considered defective and occupy a lower social position. Inequality is asserted in this case by the existence of the threat of physical violence or its actual use, and then is reinforced in customs and rituals. This “natural” stratification system dominated the primitive community, but continues to be reproduced to this day. It manifests itself especially strongly in communities struggling for physical survival or expansion of their living space.

Second stratification system – slaveholding – also based on direct violence. But inequality here is determined not by physical, but by military-legal coercion. Social groups differ in the presence or absence of civil rights and property rights. Certain social groups are completely deprived of these rights and, moreover, along with things, they are turned into an object of private property. Moreover, this position is most often inherited and thus consolidated through generations. Examples of slave systems are very diverse. This is ancient slavery, where the number of slaves sometimes exceeded the number of free citizens, and servility in Rus' during the “Russian Truth”, and plantation slavery in the south of the North American United States before the Civil War of 1861-1865, and finally, the work of prisoners of war and deportees on German private farms during the Second World War.

The third type of stratification system is caste . It is based on ethnic differences, which, in turn, are reinforced by religious order and religious rituals. Each caste is a closed, as far as possible, endogamous group, which is assigned a strictly defined place in the social hierarchy. This place appears as a result of the isolation of the functions of each caste in the system of division of labor. There is a clear list of occupations that members of a particular caste can engage in: priestly, military, agricultural. Because position in the caste system is hereditary, opportunities for social mobility are extremely limited. And the more pronounced casteism is, the more closed a given society turns out to be. India is rightfully considered a classic example of a society dominated by a caste system (legally, this system was abolished here only in 1950). There were 4 main castes in India : brahmins (priests) kshatriyas (warriors), vaishyas (merchants), Shudras (workers and peasants) and about 5 thousand minor castes And podcast . Special attention was given to the untouchables, who were not included in the castes and occupied the lowest social position. Today, although in a more relaxed form, the caste system is reproduced not only in India, but, for example, in the clan system of Central Asian states.

The fourth type is represented class stratification system . In this system the groups are distinguished legal rights, which, in turn, are strictly related to their responsibilities and are directly dependent on these responsibilities. Moreover, the latter imply obligations to the state, enshrined in law. Some classes are required to perform military or bureaucratic service, while others are required to carry out “taxes” in the form of taxes or labor obligations. Examples of developed class systems are feudal Western European societies or feudal Russia. So, class division- This is, first of all, a legal, and not an ethnic-religious or economic division. It is also important that belonging to a class is inherited, contributing to the relative closedness of this system.

Some similarities with the class system are observed in the fifth type of etacratic system (from French and Greek - “state power”). In it, differentiation between groups occurs, first of all, according to their position in power-state hierarchies (political, military, economic), according to the possibilities of mobilization and distribution of resources, as well as the privileges that these groups are able to derive from their positions of power. The degree of material well-being, the lifestyle of social groups, as well as the prestige they perceive, are associated here with the formal ranks that these groups occupy in the corresponding power hierarchies. All other differences - demographic and religious-ethnic, economic and cultural - play a derivative role. The scale and nature of differentiation (volumes of power) in an ethacratic system are under the control of the state bureaucracy. At the same time, hierarchies can be formally and legally established - through bureaucratic tables of ranks, military regulations, assignment of categories government agencies, – or may remain outside the scope of state legislation ( a clear example The system of the Soviet party nomenklatura, the principles of which are not spelled out in any laws, can serve). The formal freedom of members of society (with the exception of dependence on the state), the absence of automatic inheritance of positions of power are also distinguished ethacratic system from the class system. Etacratic system is revealed with greater force, the more authoritarian the state government takes on.

In accordance with socio-professional stratification system groups are divided according to the content and conditions of their work. Special role perform qualification requirements requirements for a particular professional role - possession of relevant experience, skills and abilities. The approval and maintenance of hierarchical orders in this system is carried out with the help of certificates (diplomas, ranks, licenses, patents), fixing the level of qualifications and the ability to perform certain types of activities. The validity of qualification certificates is supported by the power of the state or some other fairly powerful corporation (professional workshop). Moreover, these certificates are most often not inherited, although there are exceptions in history. Socio-professional division is one of the basic stratification systems, various examples of which can be found in any society with any developed division of labor. This is a structure of craft workshops medieval city and bit grid in modern state industry, a system of certificates and diplomas of education, a system of scientific degrees and titles that open the way to more prestigious jobs.

The seventh type is represented by the most popular class system . The class approach is often contrasted with the stratification approach. But class division is only special case social stratification. In the socio-economic interpretation, classes represent social groups of politically and legally free citizens. The differences between these groups lie in the nature and extent of ownership of the means of production and the product produced, as well as in the level of income received and personal material well-being. Unlike many previous types, belonging to classes - bourgeois, proletarians, independent farmers, etc. – is not regulated by higher authorities, is not established by law and is not inherited (property and capital are transferred, but not the status itself). IN pure form class system does not contain any internal formal partitions at all (economic success automatically moves you into a higher group).

Another stratification system can be conditionally called cultural-symbolic . Differentiation arises here from differences in access to socially significant information, unequal opportunities to filter and interpret this information, and the ability to be a bearer of sacred knowledge (mystical or scientific). In ancient times, this role was assigned to priests, magicians and shamans, in the Middle Ages - to church ministers, interpreters of sacred texts, who made up the bulk of the literate population, in modern times - to scientists, technocrats and party ideologists. Claims to communicate with divine powers, to possess the truth, to express state interest have always existed everywhere. And a higher position in this regard is occupied by those who have better opportunities to manipulate the consciousness and actions of other members of society, who can better prove their rights to true understanding than others, and who own the best symbolic capital.

Finally, the last, ninth type of stratification system should be called cultural-normative . Here, differentiation is built on differences in respect and prestige that arise from comparisons of the lifestyle and norms of behavior followed by a given person or group. Attitudes towards physical and mental work, consumer tastes and habits, communication manners and etiquette, a special language (professional terminology, local dialect, criminal jargon) - all this forms the basis of social division. Moreover, there is not only a distinction between “us” and “outsiders”, but also a ranking of groups (“noble - ignoble”, “decent - dishonest”, “elite - ordinary people- bottom").

The concept of stratification (from Latin stratum - layer, layer) denotes the stratification of society, differences in social status its members. Social stratification is a system of social inequality consisting of hierarchically located social strata(strata). All people included in a particular stratum occupy approximately the same position and have common status characteristics.

Stratification criteria

Different sociologists explain the causes of social inequality and, consequently, social stratification in different ways. Thus, according to the Marxist school of sociology, inequality is based on property relations, the nature, degree and form of ownership of the means of production. According to functionalists (K. Davis, W. Moore), the distribution of individuals into social strata depends on the importance of their professional activities and the contribution they make with their work to achieving the goals of society. Proponents of the exchange theory (J. Homans) believe that inequality in society arises due to unequal exchange of the results of human activity.

A number of classics of sociology took a broader view of the problem of stratification. For example, M. Weber, in addition to the economic (attitude to property and income level), 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 the creators of the theory of stratification, P. Sorokin, identified three types of stratification structures:

§ economic (based on income and wealth criteria);

§ political (according to the criteria of influence and power);

§ professional (according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).

The founder of structural functionalism T. Parsons proposed three groups of differentiating characteristics:

§ qualitative characteristics of people that they possess from birth (ethnicity, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities and abilities);

§ role characteristics determined by the set of roles performed by an individual in society (education, position, various types professional and labor activity);

§ characteristics determined by 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 criteria of social stratification:

§ income - the amount of cash receipts for a certain period (month, year);

§ wealth - accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or materialized money (in the second case they act in the form of movable or real estate);

§ power - the ability and opportunity 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 is a set of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the learning process. Educational attainment is measured by the number of years of schooling;

§ prestige is a public assessment of the attractiveness and significance of a particular profession, position, or certain type of occupation.

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

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

§ upper-upper class (representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties with significant resources of power, wealth and prestige);

§ lower-upper 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 artistic figures);

§ lower-middle class (hired workers - engineers, clerks, secretaries, office workers and other categories, which are usually called “white collar”);

§ upper-lower class (workers engaged primarily in manual labor);

§ lower-lower class (beggars, unemployed, homeless, foreign workers, declassed elements).

There are other schemes of social stratification. But they all boil down to the following: non-main classes arise through the addition of strata and layers located within one of the main classes - rich, wealthy and poor.

Thus, the basis of social stratification is natural and social inequality between people, which is manifested in their social life and is hierarchical in nature. It is stably 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.

In modern Western sociology, Marxism is opposed by the theory of social stratification.

Classification or stratification? Representatives of the theory of stratification argue that the concept of class is not applicable to modern post-industrial society. This is due to the uncertainty of the concept of “private property”: due to widespread corporatization, as well as the exclusion of the main shareholders from the sphere of production management and their replacement by hired managers, property relations were blurred and lost their definition. Therefore, the concept of “class” should be replaced by the concept of “stratum” or the concept of social group, and the theory of social class structure of society should be replaced by theories of social stratification. However, classification and stratification are not mutually exclusive approaches. The concept of “class,” which is convenient and appropriate in a macro approach, turns out to be clearly insufficient when we try to consider the structure that interests us in more detail. With a deep and comprehensive study of the structure of society, the economic dimension alone, which the Marxist class approach offers, is clearly not enough. Stratification dimension- This is a fairly fine gradation of layers within a class, allowing for a more in-depth detailed analysis of the social structure.

ü Income measured in rubles or dollars that an individual or family receives over a certain period of time, say one month or year.

ü Education measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university.

ü Power measured by the number of people who are affected by the decision you make (power - the ability to impose your will or decisions on other people, regardless of their desire).

ü Prestige- respect for status established in public opinion.

ü Social background. The family introduces an individual into the social system, largely determining his education, profession and income. Poor parents produce potentially poor children, which is determined by their health, education, and qualifications received. Children from poor families are 3 times more likely to die due to neglect, disease, accidents and violence in the first years of life than children from rich families.

ü Race and ethnicity. Thus, in the United States, white people receive better education and have higher professional status than African Americans. Ethnicity also affects social status.

ü Religion. In American society, the highest social positions are occupied by members of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, as well as Jews. Lutherans and Baptists occupy a lower position.

Pitirim Sorokin made a significant contribution to the study of status inequality. To determine the totality of all social statuses of society, he introduced the concept social space.

In his work “Social Mobility” of 1927, P. Sorokin, first of all, emphasized the impossibility of combining or even comparing such concepts as “geometric space” and “social space”. According to him, a person of a lower class may come into physical contact with a noble person, but this circumstance will not in any way reduce the economic, prestige or power differences between them, i.e. will not reduce existing social distance. Thus, two people between whom there are significant property, family, official or other social differences cannot be in the same social space, even if they are hugging each other.

According to Sorokin, social space is three-dimensional. It is described by three coordinate axes - economic status, political status, professional status. Thus, the social position (general or integral status) of each individual who is an integral part of a given social space is described using three coordinates ( x, y, z). Note that this coordinate system describes exclusively the social, and not the personal, status of the individual.

The situation when an individual, having a high status along one of the coordinate axes, at the same time has a low status level along the other axis, is called status incompatibility.

For example, individuals with a high level of acquired education, which provides high social status along the occupational dimension of stratification, may occupy poorly paid positions and therefore have low economic status. Most sociologists rightly believe that the presence of status incompatibility contributes to the growth of resentment among such people, and they will support radical social changes aimed at changing stratification. And vice versa, in the example of “new Russians” who strive to get into politics: they clearly realize that the high economic level they have achieved is unreliable without compatibility with an equally high political status. Similarly, a poor person who has received a fairly high political status as a State Duma deputy inevitably begins to use his acquired position to correspondingly “pull up” his economic status.

Popular in the category: