Davis and Moore’s functionalist perspective of social stratification

Social stratification is a process by which a societyarranges its members into categories based on their economic, social, and political standing. Davis and Moore argue that social stratification is a necessary function of any society. In this blog post, we will explore Davis and Moore’s functionalist perspective of social stratification. We will discuss how they believe that social stratification is necessary for the functioning of society, as well as the criticisms of their theory.

What is social stratification?

In sociological terms, social stratification is the separation of people into layers based on their economic productivity. The concept was first proposed by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore in 1945, who saw it as a necessary function of societies. They argued that stratification allows for the most productive members of society to be rewarded for their contributions, which in turn incentivizes others to work hard and be productive. This theory is based on the functionalist perspective, which sees society as a system of interdependent parts that work together to maintain stability.

While Davis and Moore’s theory has been critiqued by other sociologists, it still provides a useful framework for understanding how and why social stratification exists.

The Davis and Moore perspective

The Davis and Moore perspective of social stratification is that it is a necessary part of society. They argue that stratification is needed in order to motivate people to do the jobs that are essential to society. Without motivation, people would not do the jobs that are necessary for society to function. The Davis and Moore perspective is that social stratification is a good thing because it motivates people to do the jobs that are essential to society.

How does this perspective explain social stratification?

The functionalist perspective of social stratification, as put forth by sociologists Davis and Moore, posits that social stratification is a necessary part of any society. They argue that stratification exists in all societies because it is functional, or beneficial, to both the individuals within those societies and the society as a whole.

According to Davis and Moore, social stratification is functional because it motivates individuals to achieve higher levels of education and training, which in turn leads to a more productive and efficient society. Additionally, they argue that stratification provides a way for society to allocate its resources in a way that is most beneficial to the collective good. For example, highly skilled jobs that are essential to the functioning of society (such as doctors and engineers) will typically be rewarded with higher salaries than less essential jobs (such as janitors or fast food workers).

While the functionalist perspective of social stratification has been criticized by some for its lack of attention to inequalities within societies, it remains a widely accepted theory among sociologists.

Are there any criticisms of this perspective?

There are several criticisms of Davis and Moore’s functionalist perspective of social stratification. First, the theory does not explain why some occupations are more highly valued than others. Second, the theory does not explain why there is inequality within occupations (e.g., why some people are paid more than others). Third, the theory does not explain why some groups are disadvantaged in the labor market (e.g., women, people of color). Finally, the theory does not explain how social stratification can be changed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Davis and Moore’s functionalist perspective of social stratification is a theory that suggests that inequality is necessary in order to motivate people to perform important tasks in society. While the theory has been critiqued for its lack of attention to power relations and its overly-simplistic view of human motivation, it nonetheless provides a useful framework for understanding how social stratification can serve as a means of promoting social cohesion and stability.