JohnMark Buckler
Rick Coulter
SOC 210-21
October 5, 2017
Theoretical Approaches to Social Stratification
Trying to understand social stratification is a difficult task. Not only are there may approaches of understanding, but those approaches are inherently divisive. In this paper, I will try to analyze social stratification using three main approaches: Structural Functionalism, Conflict Theory, and Symbolic Interactionism.
A functionalist approach to stratification says that for necessary or important jobs to be filled and executed, there must be incentives for those roles. These incentives, which come in different varieties, create status separation between occupations. For example, a doctor and a store cashier are two jobs with considerably different social statuses attached to them. As a doctor, a person would have gone through many years of education and training to reach his MD status, plus the money to do so. The functionalist would say that because of the amount of effort and dedication required to master that field, the incentive should be much greater than that of a store cashier. This uneven pay distribution is then very functional, because the incentives for essential or important jobs make people want those jobs.
Although people may strive for a higher-paying job or a job with more benefits, the lower-end jobs still need people working in them. Because most of the jobs on the lower end of the social status spectrum are accessible, the people who don’t have the skills needed for a higher social status job have more to choose from. This accessibility means more people can and do work at more jobs, albeit lower-class. Instead of going to college for four years, getting a degree, going back to college to get another degree, and then having to intern for years, a person can apply having little to no experience but still qualify for the job.
The issue in the functionalist approach arises when discussing the value of jobs. As stated earlier, a functionalist views higher paying jobs as more valuable or important. This value placed on certain jobs creates confusion, especially in the eyes of a conflict theorist. Instead of a job inherently holding value based on necessity or skill, the job is important based solely on its incentives. In other words, are jobs important because they have higher wages, or do they have higher wages because they are important?
A conflict theorist would approach the concept of stratification in a much different way than a functionalist would. Instead of viewing it as a necessary aspect to distributing our labor force, they view it as a method for keeping the status quo. This status quo refers to the division of workers and jobs based on their social status. Marx segmented workers into two main groups: the bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production, and the proletariat, who only owned their labor. He felt this division occurred due to the rise in large corporations and enterprises during the Industrial Revolution. These corporations not only owned the factories people worked for, but also owned the land where they lived. In Marx’s eyes, the bourgeoisie had total control over the labor force. This separation was so distinct in his mind that he predicted an eventual revolution would occur. He believed the proletariat would develop class consciousness and upheave the social order. However, this revolution never happened. As increasingly more jobs grew and developed, more people could make more money. This boom of jobs not only generated more money, but also created a sense of security. Instead of worrying about the people running corporations, they could work toward a raise, or a better-paying job, or maybe a new home. This idea of revolution, that Marx predicted, faded away as consumerism became the norm.
This isn’t to say that the conflict theorist’s approach to stratification is incorrect, though. Marx’s ideas of a controlling upper class were accurate then and accurate now. The key difference between contemporary conflict theorists and conflict theorists of Marx’s time is the idea that the upper-class status is only acquired by owning the means of production. This idea is only partially true. Max Weber spoke of how a person’s social status is also affected by their wealth and prestige. Marx would have said that these terms co-inside with the bourgeoisie, but that’s not necessarily true. The bourgeoisie became so powerful because of owning those corporations and enterprises, but what Weber argued is that it’s possible and more common for wealth and prestige to come first and then the power over people to come later. This idea of working your way up to achieve power is embodied in the American Dream. As someone grows up in the United States, they are conditioned to think that hard work equals success, and thus poor people are viewed as lazy. A conflict theorist would ask critical questions like, “Why is it assumed that if people are living in poverty, they aren’t working hard enough?” or “Does a person’s position of power necessarily equate to hard work in that field?” These questions point out flaws and inconsistencies that arise when using only the social conflict approach to stratification.
The symbolic interactionist approach uses some aspects of functionalism to try to explain stratification. Instead of trying to explain all facets of stratification with symbolic interactions alone, they use the structured categories of social inequality. In other words, they use structure as a means of explaining how symbolic interactions shape our reality. If someone interacts with people in the same social status, the social structure is strengthened and so are the relationships between the individuals. This symbiosis is key to the preservation and development of society. Structure shapes interaction, and interaction generates structure (Ferris).
If a person is in public and interacting with others, they tend to build stronger bonds and get along better with people of the same social status. For instance, at a gym you may notice the clothes someone’s wearing, the car they’re driving, or maybe the color of their skin. Those details, that you pick up on subconsciously or consciously, guide you toward or away from that individual. These micro-judgements happen every time we interact with someone. This “class meter” rings whenever you interact with someone that doesn’t feel “right”. Even though they could be the nicest person in the world, your brain still tells you what it thinks is worthy of your time. This meter is tweaked and shifted through early childhood interactions, parental guidance, and day-to-day social interactions.
Growing up in the United States, I am no stranger to capitalism. The approach that best fits the capitalist view would be functionalism for obvious reasons. The idea that the people at the top are there due to more essential or beneficial jobs encourages that America Dream. Although it corresponds well with how America exists today, functionalism creates too much confusion between levels of the hierarchy. The next approach, conflict theory, tries demonizing functionalism by saying it’s only purpose is to keep the status quo. This status quo being the bourgeoisie controlling the proletariat. This approach made much more sense back in Marx’s time, because of the industrial revolution. But now that corporations are made up of many individuals with different ranks and roles, rather than absolute rule by the bourgeoisie, this approach is not practical. The third approach, symbolic interactionism, deals with people on the micro level. This focus on interactions and relationships tosses the big picture ideas to the side.
Which approach then, should be used to analyze stratification? All of them. If you want a full analysis and understanding, all approaches must be utilized. As stated, each approach has weaknesses and flaws. However, most of those weaknesses are restored by a different approach. When performing any science, especially a social science, different techniques and innovations must be used to obtain the best data.
Works Cited
Ferris, Kerry, and Jill Stein. The real world an introduction to sociology. New York, W.W. Norton, 2016.