Long before our society had entered the new century, social scientists have been conducting research and were trying to explain some significant large-scale changes. Now there are several ways in which sociologists could try to make sense of these changes that could be summarized by words like “restructuring”, “globalization”, or “the new economy”, however old sociological concepts, such as “inequality” are still much more relevant concerning the understanding of today’s society (Moen, Dempster-Mcclain, & Walker, 1999). The modern world possesses such aspects of inequality as non-equal distribution of incomes, jobs, and wealth. Many jobs are only part-time, and the lion’s share of them are low wage. This situation is accompanied by the fact that many people are dependant on the benefits of welfare, and furthermore, they are poorly informed about social facts and ideas, as many tend to relate themselves to an amorphous middle class (Berberoglu, 1994).
Prominent sociologists of the 20th century Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, created a theory called the “Davis-Moore hypothesis”. This hypothesis claims that it is vital for society to be socially stratified and socially unequal. According to this theory, the importance of such stratification consists in certain occupations and positions being more essential to the society’s survival than other occupations and positions; in other words, some jobs are of greater importance than others. This leads us to a conclusion that such jobs must be held by the most talented people, in other words, “the best” in the field (Lopreato & Hazelrigg, 1972). Consequently, in order for such professionals to be attracted to take these positions, the jobs must offer greater rewards: better salaries, greater prestige, and more power compared to other occupations. The aforesaid makes our society unequal. It is rational to summarize this hypothesis by stating that such social unfairness is not simply unavoidable, but it is inherent for society’s proper functioning. The inefficiency of an egalitarian society would be caused by talented people not being encouraged to excel. According to Davis and Moore, human society has always been a meritocracy with the domination of inequality, where the personal social position is proportional to one’s capabilities and efforts.
Another well-known sociologist Herbert Gans has a somewhat different approach on this issue. In his work, entitled “The Positive Functions of Poverty”, written over twenty years ago, he was the first one to turn his attention to the fact that poverty obliges people to engage in certain types of occupations, as they have no other alternatives left (O’connor, 2000). This condition relieves the richer part of the population from having to occupy these jobs or provides them with a few advantages that otherwise would not be available. According to Herbert Gans, social inequality exists because society (the people) are benefiting from it, as it performs various functions. For example, because of social inequality, the poor population category is willing to be involved in jobs where unpleasant tasks are performed (Glassner & Hertz, 2003). Because they receive low income, they are willing to make purchases of things not wanted by the richer individuals. Another important function of the poor is that they constantly remind others about the importance of working hard (Donaldson, 1969). They are also playing a role of the “drudge of a household” for most of our social problems, as well as create work for the other little more “moneyed” part of the population (e.g., doctors and lawyers of lower qualification, pawnshop owners, social workers).
If one were to compare the two social inequality theories discussed above, one could say that they both accentuate the usefulness of social stratification. However, according to the Davis and Moore theory, inequality assists the inefficient society functioning, whereas according to Herbert Gans, the existence of poverty is explained by many benefiting because of it, as “the existence of poverty ensures that society’s dirty work will be done” (Gans 1971). The thesis of Davis and More has a few weak spots that can not stand criticism. For example, the authors claim that some positions are more important than others and more important ones are rewarded accordingly. The question is, according to which criteria it is possible to measure the essentiality of a position (Dennis 1976)? The theory also states that the importance of a position is always rewarded accordingly; however, this suggestion is not always true, as there is a wide array of jobs that are of much essence but do not offer much prestige or income. The profession of medical doctor subscribes to this theory, as it is an important, prestigious occupation with corresponding rewards, high salary, much power, but nursing is just as vital to the society offers far less prestige, power, and income, compared to the previous occupation. On the other hand, there are high prestige and high-income jobs which are of little relevance to society’s survival (Szmatka, Lovaglia, & Wysienska, 2002). Examples of such occupations could be movie stars, professional sportsmen, popular musicians, and many others. This leads to a conclusion that is opposing this theory, many positions are not being awarded based on merit, explaining why our society is not a meritocracy. The term “underclass” used by Davis and Moore is being criticized by Gans, as he initiates a more complex concept of how America’s most disenfranchised category of the population is being made sense of by the wealthier, more privileged Americans (Young, 2007). Herbert Gans helps to establish a better interpretation of the poor, inviting a more accurate assessment and investigation of poverty. He states that underclass people play more complex roles, comparing to simply not being able to qualify to more prestigious jobs (Davis and Moore), and are much more sophisticated beings than suggested by the underclass label.
References
Berberoglu, B 1994 Class Structure and Social Transformation, Harper Perennial, Westport.
Dennis, H. 1976, Wrong, Skeptical Sociology Columbia University Press, New York.
Donaldson, S. 1969, The Suburban Myth, Columbia University Press, New York.
Gans, H. 1971. ‘The Uses of Poverty: The Poor Pay All’. Social Policy. pp. 20-24.
Glassner, & Hertz, eds. 2003. Our Studies, Ourselves: Sociologists’ Lives and Work, Oxford University Press, New York
Lopreato & Hazelrigg. 1972, Class, Conflict, and Mobility: Theories and Studies of Class Structure, Chandler Publishing, SF.
Moen, Dempster-Mcclain, & Walker, eds. 1999. A Nation Divided: Diversity, Inequality, and Community in American Society. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
O’connor, A. 2000. Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century U.S. History, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Szmatka, Lovaglia, & Wysienska, eds., 2002, The Growth of Social Knowledge: Theory, Simulation, and Empirical Research in Group Processes, Praeger, Westport.
Young, A. 2007 ‘Herbert Gans and the Politics of Urban Ethnography Age of the Underclass”. City & Community, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 7-20