Social Stratification and Its Principals

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The issue of the social stratification is a significant one because it implies that in the society, some groups and individuals are not equal. The present study aims to understand the notion of the social stratification and its principals through the review of Tumin’s work “Some Principle of Stratification: A Critical Analysis.” Tumin’s study is a response to the assumption made by Davis and Moore that the several social positions are more important the others because they lead to more efficient functioning of the society.

The social stratification deals with the idea of a place but not an individual who occupies a particular position. Davis and Moore address two primary questions: why some fields are more attractive and distinguished than the others; and how the individuals acquire these occupations.

The necessity of stratification within the positions originates from the operating principles of these occupation fields. Some spaces require the specific knowledge or talents. For example, a doctor in a hospital is vital in comparison with the administrative or unskilled staff. Thus, these kinds of positions such as doctor or engineer are functionally important, and demand particular expertise and responsibilities from the individual and their duties have to be performed “with the diligence that their importance requires” (Tumin 185).

Society, on the other hand, provides the system of rewards associated with the specific occupations. As an illustration, the individuals who hold the doctor position have some “rights” and privileges such as respect and competitive salary. Since some positions have more significant assets then the others, the social stratification contributes to the creation of inequality. Moreover, the status of a job as functional depends on the deficiency of properly trained and talented personnel. Davis and Moore come to the conclusion that the functional necessity of social stratification is irresistible and leads to positive outcomes for the whole society.

Tumin’s assumption refuses the beneficial effects of the stratification on society. Tumin argues that consideration of some positions as more important than the others is unnecessary. From Tumin’s perspective, the previous example of a doctor is inadequate because the functioning of a hospital as a whole system depends on the administration and maintenance personnel as well. Without organized cleaning, lighting, electric and many other systems, patients are in the equal danger as without doctors.

Considering the issue of the talented individuals who represents the limited number of population, Tumin claims that the system of stratified society blocks the process of finding of many talented individuals. According to the author, the phenomenon can be traced in the societies where the new generation depends on the resources of “the parent generation” (Tumin 188). For example, if the education system is not public or merit based, the significant number of the population does not have a chance to reveal their talents.

The sacrifices for a training period and rewards guaranteed by the certain position to the qualified employees are regarded as irrelevant by Tumin. The author does not recognize a trainee period as a sacrifice, but emphasize the privileges which training and education provides for individuals who are in schools in comparison with their peers who have to work and do not have such an opportunity of self-development.

The prestige and privileges that the society ascribes to the specific jobs and individuals who occupy them derive from the inherently one-sided point of view prevailed in the society. Thus, many other positions that are wrongly considered as less attractive and not functional remain underestimated by the society and individuals as well. Tumin’s response to David and Moore’s assumption highlights the unbalance nature of the social stratification and its harmful outcomes for the society.

Work Cited

Tumin, Melvin M. “Some principles of stratification: A critical analysis.” American Sociological Review 18.4 (1953): 387-393.

Click Here To Order Now!

Work Cited

Related