Functionalist Stratification the Theory of

Functionalist Stratification The theory of functionalist stratification is so ingrained in modern Western society that it seems hardly separable from common sense. The idea that different levels of talent, intelligence, and ambition deserve different rewards is intrinsic to the theory of capitalism, and arguably to democracy. Davis in particular argues that stratification is inevitable in any but a strictly agrarian society simply because differences between individuals cannot be abolished (Wrong, 1959).

or, to use Davis and Moore's own words, "as a functioning mechanism a society must somehow distribute its members in social positions and induce them to perform the duties of these positions...some positions are inherently more agreeable than others...some require special talents or training and some are functionally more important than others" (Davis and Moore, 1945). According to these two authors' thesis, this positional differentiation is stratification, and is necessary to the functioning of a society that meets or hopes to meet more than its most basic needs.

Increasing the inevitability of stratification are the rewards issued for occupying certain positions in society. As inevitable as it is that these positions be filled, it is inevitable that they carry unequal rewards. Some of this inequality is intrinsic to the positions themselves, as in the "more agreeable" positions (Davis and Moore, 1945). Other rewards are extrinsic, such as increased rewards for performance of a more important function, or as a reward for time spent receiving special training.

The inequality of rewards for unequal positions serves to increase stratification, yet is the only efficient mechanism to ensure the correct placement of individuals into societal positions that best utilize their talents, ambitions, training, and knowledge, while at the same time providing the best tool to society as well. Melvin Tumin finds many points of argument in Davis and Moore's thesis.

His first major concern is their contention that certain societal positions are "more functionally important than others" -- this assertion is vague, Tumin claims, and there is no reliable and objective way to determine the relative functional importance of individual societal positions (Tumin, 1953). Using an example of engineers vs.

unskilled laborers at a factory, Tumin asserts that while the unskilled laborers might appear more dispensable, over time their functions are just as vital to the operation of the factory, reducing Davis and Moore's claim to a fantasy world removed from the realities of forward-moving time (Tumin, 1953).

The main problem with such a justification, however, is that functional importance is determined by the society after stratification, and the system will necessarily uphold its already present system of stratification and assigned importance values, thus perpetuating the status quo regardless of societal benefit (Tumin, 1953). Tumin goes on to point out other flaws with the functional stratification theory, but the main flaw he sees is its perpetuation of the status quo without real consideration (Tumin, 1953). The theory of functional stratification is closely linked to that of meritocracy.

John Andersen claims that meritocracy, a system whereby reward is based solely on performance, is an elusive aim of the functional stratification theory that is in fact totally unrelated to the growing power elite in the world (Andersen, 1999). Ostensibly, functional stratification operates as an automatic meritocracy, giving more rewards to those with more.