Theories of Stratification

Social stratification refers to the hierarchical arrangement of individuals and groups in society according to factors such as wealth, income, status, and power. Every known society exhibits some form of stratification, but sociologists disagree profoundly about its causes, consequences, and whether it is inevitable. The AQA A-Level Sociology specification requires you to understand and evaluate functionalist, Marxist, Weberian, and feminist theories of stratification, and to apply them to contemporary UK society.

Key Definition: Social stratification is the division of society into a hierarchy of layers, with the most privileged at the top and the least privileged at the bottom. It is a structured, patterned inequality that persists across generations.

Functionalism: Davis and Moore

Functionalist sociologists argue that social stratification is both universal and necessary. The most influential functionalist theory of stratification was developed by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945) in their essay "Some Principles of Stratification."

The Davis-Moore Thesis

Davis and Moore argued that stratification exists because every society must ensure that the most important positions are filled by the most qualified people. They proposed the following logic:

Functional importance: Some positions in society are more important than others for the survival and efficient functioning of the social system — for example, surgeons are more functionally important than refuse collectors.
Talent is scarce: Only a limited number of individuals have the talent and ability to fill these important roles.
Training requires sacrifice: Those who train for demanding positions must defer gratification — spending years in education while others earn money.
Differential rewards: To motivate talented people to undergo the sacrifice of lengthy training, society must offer unequal rewards — higher pay, greater prestige, and more power.
Stratification is inevitable and functional: The result is a meritocratic hierarchy that benefits the whole of society by ensuring the best people fill the most important roles.

Exam Tip: The Davis-Moore thesis is the single most frequently examined functionalist argument on stratification. You must be able to state it precisely and evaluate it from multiple perspectives.

Evaluation of Davis and Moore

Strengths:

The theory offers a clear explanation of why inequality exists in all known societies.
It highlights the role of incentives in motivating individuals — consistent with human capital theory in economics.
Parsons (1951) supported the view that shared values about the importance of certain roles help integrate society through value consensus.

Criticisms:

Tumin (1953) asked how we determine "functional importance." Many low-paid jobs — nurses, bin collectors, teachers — are arguably more essential to daily survival than highly paid roles in finance or entertainment.
The theory assumes a meritocracy, but inherited wealth, private education, and social networks mean that access to top positions is far from equal. The Social Mobility Commission (2019) showed that those from affluent backgrounds are disproportionately represented in elite professions.
Marxists argue that high rewards do not reflect functional importance but rather the ability of powerful groups to exploit others.
The theory ignores the dysfunctions of stratification — poverty, crime, mental illness, and social exclusion are consequences of inequality, not evidence that it works.
It fails to explain why women and ethnic minorities are systematically under-rewarded, even when they hold the same positions as white men.

Marxism: Class Conflict and Exploitation

Karl Marx (1818–1883) offered a radically different theory of stratification. For Marx, inequality is not functional or inevitable — it is the product of exploitation within a specific economic system.

Key Concepts

Infrastructure and superstructure: The economic base (infrastructure) — comprising the forces of production (technology, raw materials) and the relations of production (who owns what) — determines the superstructure (law, politics, education, religion, media). The ruling class shapes the superstructure to serve its own interests.
Class: Marx defined class in terms of the ownership of the means of production. In capitalist society, there are two main classes:
- Bourgeoisie (ruling class): own the factories, land, and capital.
- Proletariat (working class): own only their labour power, which they must sell to survive.
Surplus value: Workers produce goods worth more than they are paid. The difference — surplus value — is taken by the bourgeoisie as profit. This is the mechanism of exploitation.
Alienation: Workers are alienated from the product of their labour, the process of production, their fellow workers, and their own human potential (species-being).

Class Conflict

Marx argued that the interests of the bourgeoisie and proletariat are fundamentally opposed. The bourgeoisie seek to maximise profit by keeping wages low; the proletariat seek higher wages and better conditions. This creates an inherent class conflict that drives historical change.

Marx predicted that capitalism would produce:

Polarisation: The middle class would shrink as small businesses are absorbed by large corporations. Society would divide into two hostile camps — a tiny bourgeoisie and a vast proletariat.
Proletarianisation: White-collar workers would be de-skilled and pushed down into the working class.
Immiseration: The working class would become increasingly impoverished.
Revolution: Eventually, the proletariat would develop class consciousness — an awareness of their exploitation — and overthrow the bourgeoisie, establishing a communist society without private ownership of the means of production.

Evaluation of Marx

Strengths:

Marx correctly identified that economic power translates into political and social power. Wealthy individuals and corporations wield enormous influence over government policy.
His theory draws attention to exploitation — a concept that remains highly relevant in an era of zero-hours contracts, precarious employment, and the gig economy.
The concept of ideology (false consciousness) remains useful for understanding how inequalities are legitimised through media, education, and culture.

Criticisms:

The predicted revolution has not occurred in advanced capitalist societies. Instead, the welfare state, trade unions, and rising living standards have moderated class conflict.
Weber argued that Marx's model was too simplistic — status and political power cannot be reduced to economic class alone.
The working class has not been homogenised; instead, new class fractions have emerged (see Savage et al., 2013).
Postmodernists such as Pakulski and Waters (1996) argue that class has become less important as an identity — people now define themselves through consumption, lifestyle, and culture rather than their position in the relations of production.
Feminists criticise Marx for ignoring gender. The exploitation of women's unpaid domestic labour is not adequately addressed in classical Marxist theory.

Neo-Marxism: Braverman and Proletarianisation

Harry Braverman (1974) revived Marx's proletarianisation thesis in Labor and Monopoly Capital. Braverman argued that deskilling — the process by which management breaks complex tasks into simple, repetitive operations — had extended from manual work to white-collar occupations. Clerical, secretarial, and even professional roles were being routinised and cheapened, effectively pushing their holders into the working class.

Evaluation:

Braverman's thesis is supported by evidence of automation replacing skilled work in banking, retail, and administration.
However, critics such as Gallie (1991) point out that some occupations have been upskilled — the growth of IT, management, and professional services has created new skilled jobs.

Weber: Class, Status, and Party

Max Weber (1864–1920) agreed with Marx that economic factors are crucial to stratification but argued that Marx's model was incomplete. Weber identified three dimensions of stratification:

1. Class (Economic)

Weber defined class as a group of people who share a similar market situation — their ability to sell their skills and labour on the open market. Unlike Marx, Weber recognised multiple classes, not just two:

Property owners
Professionals and managers (with marketable skills and credentials)
Manual workers (with limited skills)
The underclass (with no skills or property)

Weber's concept of life chances is central: your class position determines your access to material goods, education, healthcare, and other resources that shape the quality and length of your life.

2. Status (Social Prestige)

Status refers to the social honour or prestige attached to a group. Status groups share a common lifestyle, level of social esteem, and patterns of consumption. Crucially, status does not always correspond to class:

A university professor may have high status but relatively low income.
A successful plumber may earn more than a teacher but enjoy less social prestige.
Ethnic and religious groups may be given low status regardless of their economic position.

Weber noted that status can cut across class lines — members of a high-status ethnic group may feel solidarity with one another regardless of economic differences.

3. Party (Political Power)

Party refers to the organised pursuit of power. Political parties, pressure groups, trade unions, and social movements are all examples. Power can be exercised independently of class and status — a charismatic political leader from a working-class background can wield enormous influence.

Evaluation of Weber

Strengths:

Weber's multi-dimensional model is more nuanced than Marx's two-class model. It can explain situations where economic class, social status, and political power do not align.
The concept of market situation remains central to contemporary class analysis (see Goldthorpe's class scheme).
The distinction between class and status helps explain phenomena such as racism (where low status is ascribed regardless of class) and the influence of cultural capital.

Criticisms:

Marxists argue that by separating class, status, and party, Weber obscures the fundamental importance of economic exploitation. Status and political power are ultimately derived from economic relationships.
Weber's model can be seen as overly descriptive — it tells us what stratification looks like but not why it exists or how it might be changed.
Some argue that in practice, class, status, and party overlap so heavily that treating them as independent dimensions is artificial.

Feminist Perspectives on Stratification

Feminist sociologists argue that traditional theories of stratification — whether functionalist, Marxist, or Weberian — have been malestream: developed by men, focused on men's experiences, and blind to gender inequality.

Key Arguments

Oakley (1974): The conventional class scheme classified women by their husband's occupation, rendering women's own class position invisible. A woman working as a cleaner was classified as middle-class if her husband was an accountant.
Walby (1990): Identified six structures of patriarchy that create gender-based stratification: paid employment, household production, culture, sexuality, violence, and the state. These structures operate independently of economic class and affect women across all social positions.
Stanworth (1984): Demonstrated that women's class position could not be derived from their male partner's occupation. Women with identical qualifications to men earned less, had fewer promotion opportunities, and experienced a dual burden of paid work and unpaid domestic labour.

Marxist Feminism

Marxist feminists argue that women's oppression is rooted in capitalism. Women serve capitalism by:

Reproducing the labour force — bearing and raising the next generation of workers, unpaid.
Providing emotional support — acting as a "safety valve" for men's frustrations with alienating work.
Constituting a reserve army of labour — drawn into the workforce during periods of expansion and pushed back into the home during recessions.

Benston (1969) argued that women's unpaid domestic labour produces surplus value for capitalism because it reduces the cost of reproducing the labour force.

Intersectional Feminism

Contemporary feminists argue that gender cannot be understood in isolation. Crenshaw (1989) introduced the concept of intersectionality to show how gender, race, class, sexuality, and disability interact to produce unique patterns of disadvantage. A working-class Black woman faces qualitatively different barriers from those experienced by a middle-class white woman — her oppression cannot be understood by simply "adding up" gender and race.

Exam Tip: The AQA specification increasingly rewards answers that demonstrate awareness of intersectionality. When discussing any form of inequality, consider how multiple dimensions of stratification interact.

Summary Table

Theory	Key Thinker(s)	Basis of Stratification	Key Concepts	View of Inequality
Functionalism	Davis & Moore, Parsons	Functional importance, talent	Meritocracy, value consensus	Inevitable and beneficial
Marxism	Marx, Braverman	Ownership of means of production	Exploitation, surplus value, alienation	Product of capitalism; can be abolished
Weberianism	Weber	Market situation, status, power	Class, status, party; life chances	Multi-dimensional; complex
Feminism	Walby, Oakley, Crenshaw	Patriarchy, gender	Six structures, intersectionality	Gender inequality is structural

Key Terms for Revision

Social stratification — hierarchical ranking of groups in society.
Meritocracy — the idea that rewards are based on ability and effort.
Bourgeoisie / Proletariat — Marx's two main classes.
Surplus value — the difference between the value workers produce and the wages they receive.
Class consciousness — awareness of one's class position and interests.
Life chances — Weber's term for access to resources and opportunities.
Patriarchy — a system in which men dominate women.
Intersectionality — the interaction of multiple forms of inequality.