Theories of social stratification and social mobility. The subjective criterion of social stratification is

Social stratification is the main theme of sociology. It describes how layers of society are divided by their lifestyle, by income level, and by whether they have any privileges or not. Sociologists “borrowed” this term from geologists. There it indicates how the layers of the Earth are located in a vertical section. Sociologists, too, like the structure of the Earth, have arranged strata - social layers - vertically. The criteria in a simplified version are limited to one scale - income level. At the bottom are the poor, at the middle are the wealthy, and at the top are the richest. Each stratum includes people whose income, prestige, power and education are approximately the same.

The following criteria exist social stratification, according to which the population is divided into strata: power, education, income and prestige. They are located vertically on the coordinate axis and are inextricably linked with each other. Also, all of the listed criteria for social stratification have their own distinctive dimension.

Income is the amount of money that a family or individual receives for a specific time period. This amount of money can be received in the form of a pension, salary, allowance, fee, alimony, or interest on profits. Income is measured in national currency or dollars.

When income exceeds living expenses, it gradually accumulates and turns into wealth. As a rule, it remains to the heirs. The difference between income and inheritance is that only working people receive it, while non-working people can also receive an inheritance. Accumulated movable or immovable property is main feature upper class. The rich may not work, while the lower and middle classes, on the contrary, will not be able to live without a salary. Uneven wealth also determines economic inequality in society.

The next criterion of social stratification is education. It is measured by the years devoted to studying at school and university.

The third criterion is power. Whether a person has it can be judged by the number of people to whom the decision he makes applies. The essence of power is the ability to impose your will on others, without taking into account their wishes. Whether it will be implemented is the second question. For example, the decision of the president applies to several million people, and the decision of the director of a small school - to several hundred. IN modern society power is protected by tradition and law. She has access to many social benefits and privileges.

People with power (economic, political, religious) constitute the elite of society. It determines the policy within the state, its relations with other countries in a way that is beneficial to it. Other classes do not have this option.

These criteria for social stratification have quite tangible units of measurement: people, years, dollars. But prestige is a subjective indicator. It depends on what profession or is respected in society. If the country does not conduct research on this topic special methods, then the prestige of the position held is determined approximately.

The criteria of social stratification collectively determine a person, that is, his social position. And status, in turn, determines whether one belongs to a closed society or to an open one. In the first case, it is impossible to move from stratum to stratum. This includes castes and classes. In an open society, moving up the social ladder is not prohibited (it doesn’t matter whether it’s up or down). Classes belong to this system. These are historically established types of social stratification.

Stratification criteria

The first to try to explain the nature of social stratification within the framework of social science were Karl Marx and Max Weber. Marx believed that in capitalist societies the cause of social stratification is the division between those who own and control the most important means production, - class the capitalist oppressors, or the bourgeoisie, and those who can only sell their labor, the oppressed working class, or the proletariat. According to Marx, these two groups and their divergent interests form the basis of stratification. Thus, for Marx, social stratification existed only in one dimension. Believing that Marx had oversimplified the picture of stratification, Weber argued that there are other dividing lines in society that do not depend on class or economic status, and he proposed a multidimensional approach to stratification, identifying three dimensions: class (economic status), status ( prestige) and party (power). Each of these dimensions is a separate aspect of social gradation. However, for the most part, these three dimensions are interrelated; they feed and support each other, but may still not coincide. Thus, individual prostitutes and criminals have great economic opportunities, but do not have prestige and power. University teaching staff and clergy enjoy high prestige, but are usually ranked relatively low in terms of wealth and power. Some officials may have significant power and at the same time receive little wages and have no prestige.

Economic situation. The economic dimension of stratification is determined by wealth and income. Wealth is what people own. Income is understood simply as the amount of money people receive. For example, a person may own huge property and receive little profit from it; These people include those who collect rare coins, gems, works of art, etc.

Prestige is authority, influence, respect in society, the degree of which corresponds to a certain social status. Prestige is an intangible phenomenon, something implied. However, in Everyday life a person usually strives to make prestige tangible - he assigns titles, observes rituals of respect, issues honorary degrees, demonstrates his “ability to live.” These actions and objects serve as symbols of prestige to which we assign social significance. Our interactions with others necessarily involve negotiations regarding the degree of respect and deference we should give and receive. The most different ways we show respect to a person of higher rank.

Thus, in dating rituals, symbolic actions are used - bows, compliments. In avoidance rituals, the same goal is achieved by maintaining an “appropriate distance” in relation to prestigious figures.

Prestige of the majority modern people determined generally by income, occupation and lifestyle, and origin and wealth matter less than they did 100 years ago. At the same time, a person’s personality and sociability are very important. Although many still believe that money is most important, the lifestyle and values ​​that a person professes now play the most significant role in determining their prestige.

Power determines which people or groups will be able to translate their preferences into reality social life. Power is the ability of individuals and social groups to impose their will on others and to mobilize available resources to achieve a goal. Sociologist Amos Holy noted: “Every social act is an exercise of power, every social relationship is an equation of power, and every social group or system is an organization of power.”

The bases of power are divided into three categories of resources. First, there is coercion - resources that allow the party with these resources to introduce new restrictions into some situation. People usually treat restrictions as punishment, since the result of restrictions is damage to property, body, and soul. Secondly, there are incentives - resources that allow one side to add new advantages to the situation. Individuals typically consider incentives to be rewards because they involve the transfer of socially recognized good things—material objects, services, or social status—in exchange for the fulfillment of a will power structures. Third, there is the power of persuasion - resources that enable one party to change the views of others without introducing disadvantages or advantages to any situation. Under the influence of beliefs based on reputation, wisdom, personal charm, or control over others, individuals or social groups begin to advocate for the same goals that are preferred by the person in power.

Thus, master important resources- means to gain dominance over people. To control key resources means to place yourself (or your group) between people and the means that provide people with the satisfaction of their biological, psychological and social needs.

Social status is the relative rank, with all the ensuing rights, responsibilities and lifestyles, that an individual occupies in the social hierarchy. Status can be assigned to individuals at birth, regardless of the individual’s qualities, and also on the basis of gender, age, family relationships, origin, or can be achieved in competition, which requires special personal qualities and one’s own efforts.

The achieved status can be based on education, profession, advantageous marriage, etc. In most Western industrial societies, attributes such as prestigious profession, possession of material goods, appearance and style of clothing, manners, acquired more weight in defining personal social status than origin. Life status presupposes the presence of social stratification along a vertical scale. Thus, they say about a person that he occupies high position if he has the ability to control the behavior of other people, by command or through influence; if the basis of his prestige is important post occupied by him; if through his actions he has earned the respect of his colleagues. Relative status is the main factor that determines the behavior of people towards each other. The struggle for status can be considered the primary goal of people. An individual's status tends to change depending on the social context.

The most striking manifestations of status groups are found in the caste system of India. Indian villages are typically populated by members of several small endogamous groups based on traditional occupations, with contact with a person of a lower caste (e.g., food or drink accepted from his hands, bodily contact) contaminating members of the higher caste and requiring ritual purification.

The age grading system found in many traditional East African societies also resembles a system of status groups.

To get started, watch the video tutorial on social stratification:

The concept of social stratification

Social stratification is the process of arranging individuals and social groups into horizontal layers (strata). This process is connected primarily with both economic and human reasons. The economic reasons for social stratification are that resources are limited. And because of this, they must be managed rationally. That is why there is a dominant class - it owns resources, and an exploited class - it is subordinate to the ruling class.

Among universal human reasons social stratification are distinguished:

Psychological reasons. People are not equal in their inclinations and abilities. Some people can concentrate on something for long hours: reading, watching movies, creating something new. Others don't need anything and aren't interested. Some people can go to their goal through all obstacles, and failures only spur them on. Others give up at the first opportunity - it’s easier for them to moan and whine that everything is bad.

Biological reasons. People are also not equal from birth: some are born with two arms and legs, others are disabled from birth. It is clear that it is extremely difficult to achieve anything if you are disabled, especially in Russia.

Objective reasons social stratification. These include, for example, place of birth. If you were born in a more or less normal country, where you will be taught to read and write for free and there are at least some social guarantees, that’s good. You have a good chance of succeeding. So, if you were born in Russia, even in the most remote village, and you are a boy, at least you can join the army, and then remain to serve under a contract. Then you may be sent to a military school. This is better than drinking moonshine with your fellow villagers, and then dying in a drunken fight by the age of 30.

Well, if you were born in some country in which there really is no statehood, and the local princelings show up in your village with machine guns at the ready and kill anyone, and take anyone into slavery - then your life is lost, and together your future is with her.

Criteria for social stratification

The criteria for social stratification include: power, education, income and prestige. Let's look at each criterion separately.

Power. People are not equal in terms of power. The level of power is measured by (1) the number of people who are subordinate to you, and also (2) the extent of your authority. But the presence of this one criterion (even the greatest power) does not mean that you are in the highest stratum. For example, a teacher has more than enough power, but his income is poor.

Education. The higher the level of education, the more opportunities. If you have a higher education, this opens up certain horizons for your development. At first glance, it seems that this is not the case in Russia. But that's just how it seems. Because the majority of graduates are dependent - they must be hired. They don't understand what's wrong with theirs higher education they may well open their own business and increase their third criterion of social stratification - income.

Income is the third criterion of social stratification. It is thanks to this defining criterion that one can judge what social class a person belongs to. If the income is from 500 thousand rubles per capita and above per month - then to the highest level; if from 50 thousand to 500 thousand rubles (per capita), then you belong to the middle class. If from 2000 rubles to 30 thousand, then your class is basic. And also further.

Prestige is people's subjective perception of your , is a criterion of social stratification. Previously, it was believed that prestige was expressed solely in income, since if you have enough money, you can dress more beautifully and with better quality, and in society, as you know, people are greeted by their clothes... But 100 years ago, sociologists realized that prestige can be expressed in the prestige of the profession (professional status).

Types of social stratification

Types of social stratification can be distinguished, for example, by spheres of society. Over the course of his life, a person can make a career in (become famous politician), in cultural (to become a recognizable cultural figure), in social sphere(become, for example, an honorary citizen).

In addition, types of social stratification can be distinguished on the basis of one or another type of stratification system. The criterion for identifying such systems is the presence or absence social mobility.

There are several such systems: caste, clan, slave, estate, class, etc. Some of them are discussed above in the video on social stratification.

You must understand that this topic is extremely large, and it is impossible to cover it in one video lesson and in one article. Therefore, we suggest that you purchase a video course that already contains all the nuances on the topic of social stratification, social mobility and other related topics:

Best regards, Andrey Puchkov

1. Social stratification modern Russian society

   Abstract >> Sociology

   In Russia; - find out the features social stratification modern Russian society, its comparative importance criteria, directions of events in this area...

2. Social structure Russian society (2)

   Report >> Sociology

   Previously, the main differentiating factor criterion was a place in... V.V. Real Russia: Social stratification modern Russian society. M., 2006. 3. Golenkova Z. T. Social stratification Russian society M., 2003. 4. Marginalization as...

3. Social stratification (10)

   Coursework >> Sociology

   ... social stratification, and also sets out criteria estimates modern Russian society and inherent in it stratification. The purpose of the work is to determine the essence stratification ...

4. Social stratification (7)

   Coursework >> Sociology

   ... modern Russian society criteria ... legal norms society. Concepts given social stratification modern Russian society don't exhaust...

5. Social stratification (8)

   Test >> Sociology

   ... modern Russian society the formulation of the stratification system occurs on an economic basis, when the main criteria...legal standards society. Concepts given social stratification modern Russian society don't exhaust...

The term “stratification” comes from “stratum” (Latin) - layer and “facio” (Latin) - do. Stratification– this is not just differentiation, listing the differences between separate layers, strata in society. The task of stratification is to identify the vertical sequence of positions of social layers, their hierarchy.

The theory of social stratification is one of the most developed parts social theory. Its foundations were laid by M. Weber, K. Marx, P. Sorokin, T. Parsons. The basis of the stratification structure is the natural and social inequality of people.

In the English Dictionary of Social Sciences, stratification is understood as a process as a result of which families and individuals are not equal to each other and are grouped into hierarchically located strata with different prestige, property and power.

All criteria for social stratification must comply with the following principles (according to M. Weber and E. Durkheim):

• 1) all social strata of a given society should be studied without exception;
• 2) it is necessary to compare and compare groups using the same criteria;
• 3) there should be no less criteria than required for sufficient full description each layer.

P. Sorokin defined social stratification as “the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community”?5?. Stratification model of society ( pyramid divided into strata) was borrowed by P. Sorokin from geology. However, unlike the structure of rocks, in society:

the lower layers are always much wider than the higher ones,

the number of layers is not strictly defined: it all depends on how many stratification criteria are taken into account,

the thickness of the layer is not constant, since people can move from one layer to another (social mobility processes).

There are two main ways to stratify society, depending on the number of underlying characteristics:

• 1. Univariate stratification. It is based on one-dimensional strata, i.e. strata identified according to any one social sign. This approach assumes the stratification of society according to the following groups of characteristics:
• 1) gender and age;
• 2) national-linguistic;
• 3) professional;
• 4) educational;
• 5) religious;
• 6) by settlement.

Some researchers also use other characteristics as the basis for classification.

2. Multivariate stratification. At the same time, stratification is based on several characteristics.

The second method of stratification involves dividing society into:

• 1) socio-territorial communities (population of a city, village, region);
• 2) ethnic communities (tribe, nationality, nation);
• 3) the system of slavery (economic, social and legal form consolidation of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality);
• 4) castes (social groups to which a person is obliged to belong by birth);
• 5) estates (social groups supported by established customs or laws, and in which rights and responsibilities are inherited);
• 6) public classes.

Modern English researcher E. Giddens offers a number of differences between the class system and the slave, caste and estate system:

• 1. Classes are not formed on the basis of religious beliefs. Belonging to a class is not determined by adherence to certain customs, traditions and mores. The class system is more fluid than other types of stratification. The basis of class division is labor.
• 2. A person’s belonging to a particular class is often achieved by himself, and is not given from birth.
• 3. An economic characteristic is the basis for classifying an individual into a particular class.
• 4. In other types social structure inequality expresses mainly the personal dependence of one individual on another. The class structure of society, on the contrary, is characterized by the personal independence of individuals from each other?6?.

In sociology, there are several main approaches to stratification structure.

• 1. Economic approach, whose supporters (K. Marx, E. Durkheim, etc.) considered the division of labor as main reason social differentiation. K. Marx was the first to develop the theory of the economic basis of classes. He associated the existence of classes only with certain historical forms of development of production, where ownership of the means of production is distributed evenly between different layers of the population, as a result of which some exploit others, and struggle between them is inevitable.
• 2. Political approach to stratification. Its founders are L. Gumplowicz, G. Mosca, V. Pareto, M. Weber. Political stratification is the differences between politically dominant groups and masses, in which the very vertical of the political hierarchy is built through the prism of belonging to certain political forces, and the main criterion for identifying a particular political stratum is the level of possession of political power. L. Gumplowicz believed that the nature of class differences is a reflection of differences in power, which also determine the subsequent division of labor and the distribution of social responsibilities. G. Mosca and V. Pareto considered inequality and mobility as related aspects of the same phenomenon, the movement of people between ruling class, the elite and the lower class - passive subordinates.
• 3. Functionalist concept social stratification, which is based on the ideas of T. Parsons, K. Davis, W. Moore. T. Parsons considers stratification an aspect of any social system. He proceeds from the fact that any action is inevitably associated with choice and evaluation. Commonly accepted rating standards allow positions to be ranked as superior or inferior. Since the desired positions are not enough, the preservation of the system requires the institutionalization of inequality, allowing interactions to proceed without conflict. The generality and generally accepted nature of the rating scale implies coverage of all types of rewards, of which “respect” is considered the most important.

Each given person, according to Parsons, actually enjoys respect correlated with a graded hierarchy; his relative respect in an ordered total system of differentiated evaluation is prestige, which means comparative evaluation. In turn, differentiated prestige is the basis of stratification.

Davis and Moore rightly believe that some positions in social system functionally more important than others and require special skills for their implementation. However, the number of individuals with these abilities is limited. Therefore, these positions should be given stimulus in the form of differential access to society's limited and desirable rewards, in order to force talented individuals to make sacrifices and acquire the necessary training. These differentiated rewards lead to differentiation of the prestige of the strata and, consequently, to social stratification.

Modern studies of social stratification use the theoretical basis of the above approaches, and also proceed from the principle of multidimensionality of stratification measurements. The foundations of this approach were already laid in the works of M. Weber, who studied the interdependence between various stratification criteria. Weber believed that class affiliation is determined not only by the nature of the relationship to the means of production, but also by economic differences that are not directly related to property: for example, qualifications, skills, education.

Other criteria for stratification, according to Weber, are status and party affiliation (groups of individuals having a common origin, goals, interests).

American sociologist B. Barber, based on the multidimensionality and interconnectedness of dimensions, proposed the following concept of the structure of social stratification.

• 1. The prestige of a profession, occupation, position, assessed by its functional contribution to social development.
• 2. Power, viewed as the institutionally defined right to influence the actions of other people, contrary to or independent of their wishes.
• 3. Income or wealth. Different occupational statuses in society have different abilities to earn income and accumulate wealth in the form of capital; there are different chances of inheriting wealth.
• 4. Education. Uneven access to education determines the ability of individuals to occupy a particular position in society.
• 5. Religious or ritual purity. In some societies, religious affiliation is crucial.
• 6. Ranking by kinship and ethnic groups.

Thus, income, power, prestige and education determine the overall socio-economic status, i.e. the position and place of a person in society.

In modern sociological science coexist different approaches to the analysis of social stratification (activity-based, the concept of “emergence” of the emergence of unexpected criteria of social inequality, etc.).

From the point of view of the activity-activist approach to the analysis of social inequalities (T.I. Zaslavskaya), the social hierarchy of modern Russian society can be represented as follows?7?:

elite – ruling political and economic – up to 0.5%;

upper layer - large and medium-sized entrepreneurs, directors of large and medium-sized privatized enterprises, other sub-elite groups - 6.5%;

middle layer - representatives small business, qualified professionals, middle management, officers - 20%;

base layer – ordinary specialists, assistant specialists, workers, peasants, trade and service workers – 60%;

bottom layer – low-skilled and unskilled workers, temporarily unemployed – 7%;

social bottom – up to 5%.