Introduction
Society is always studied in a certain historical period and within specific territorial boundaries. In all societies, of any type, there is always inequality. The uneven allocation of society’s limited resources, such as money, power, education, and status among its various social classes, is known as inequality. The causes of inequality can be age, gender, physical and intellectual differences, abilities, talent, rights, and freedoms. However, David-Moore considers only unequal access to the good due to the occupied status, without paying attention to the inequality within the status itself.
Class Inequality Existence Explanation
The core tenet of the inequality theory, which was first published in 1954 by Kingsley Davis and Wilbur Moore, is that inequality enables society to create conditions where the most important tasks are carried out by the most skilled members of the population (Conerly 451). In primitive societies, warriors and healers usually have the highest status. In more complex societies, engineers and doctors tend to be highly valued. The most important activities vary depending on the characteristics of the social system.
Positions that are essential in one society may be unnecessary for another. A hunter who hunts fur-bearing animals is highly valued among the peoples living in the Arctic latitudes, but he would be out of work in a tribe living near the tropics (Conerly 537). However, some functions remain essential for all societies. These include religion, governance, and, in more complex societies, technology.
Religious activity is the leading one, because common beliefs and values are formed on its basis. Religious leaders develop a moral code that people adhere to to obtain salvation, helping people to understand the purpose of life and death (Conerly 224). Since this function is crucial, religious figures are usually rewarded to a greater extent than ordinary members of society. Given that many clergy members or religious orders do not get substantial financial compensation, scholars are not necessarily referring to cash compensation; respect and recognition are social rewards.
Management is another key social function. Rulers have much more power than those they rule. Strengthening authority rewards the ruling class, but they frequently also get a larger share of the riches, elevating their status above that of the people (Conerly 333). Technology is another leading field of activity. Technicians work in specialized fields, such as developing agricultural and military equipment. Society should offer technical professionals significant cash incentives to encourage people to make efforts in this direction because this type of endeavor necessitates extensive and meticulous preparation.
Reasons for Disagreement
Some disagree with the Davis and Moore thesis because they claim that inequality is a source of social energy. This energy gives impetus to society’s development since people’s desire to increase their social status and gain power stimulates their social activity (Conerly 467). At the same time, inequality creates stability within the entire social structure. However, many scientists consider inequality a negative phenomenon that restricts people’s rights and hinders mankind’s development (Agozino 128). A positive or negative assessment of social stratification is the main reason for disagreement.
Critique of Davis & Moore Thesis
The existence of racial and gender stratification offers a critique of the Davis and Moore thesis. The authors mention only stratification by income and social status. However, they do not divide these elements of social stratification into smaller ones. Davis and Moore do not track that, for example, religious ministers who are representatives of minorities receive less than white clergy (Schoenherr and Palmeri 67). They also do not consider that among technicians, women’s income is less than men’s.
The Davis and Moore structural-functional approach to stratification has been heavily criticized. In particular, critics argue that a person occupies a privileged or unprivileged position from birth: a person’s place in society largely depends on which family he was born into. Thus, almost two-thirds of managers in 245 large American companies grew up in upper-middle-class or upper-class families (Agozino 131).
In addition, critics note that many of the most responsible positions in the United States – in government, science, technology, and education – are not paid very highly (Agozino 129). For example, employees of large corporations earn much more than the President of the United States, the Cabinet of Ministers, and Supreme Court judges (Kiniorska 23). Based on these and similar data, proponents of conflict theory argue that society is organized in such a way that individuals maintain a rank that is determined by birth and does not depend on their abilities.
Conclusion
Thus, the question of why there are social inequalities and differences occupies a central place in sociology. There are two strikingly divergent answers to it. The first was made by David and Moore, who claimed that society’s primary problems can be solved by using the unequal distribution of social advantages as a tool. Contrarily, its detractors harshly condemn the current social structure and hold that social disparity is a form of exploitation linked to the competition for valued and scarce products and services. In a broad sense, contemporary conceptions of inequality fall under either the first or the second category.
Works Cited
Agozino, Biko. “Property, Institutions, and Social Stratification in Africa.” Contributions to Political Economy, vol. 40, no. 1, 2016, pp. 127–131. Web.
Kiniorska, Iwona. “Social Inequalities – Theoretical Considerations from an Interdisciplinary Perspective.” Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, vol. 11, no. 3, 2021, pp. 14–29. Web.
Conerly, Tonja, et al. Introduction to Sociology. OpenStax, 2021.
Schoenherr, Jordan, and Raelyne Dopko. “Heterarchical Social Organizations and Relational Models: Understanding Gender Biases in Psychological Science.” Theoretical Psychology, vol. 29, no. 2, 2021, pp. 66–68. Web.