Functionalist Theory of Stratification

What Is Social Stratification?

Social stratification refers to the system by which society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. In every known human society, some groups enjoy greater wealth, status and power than others. Sociologists explain this unequal ordering in very different ways, depending on their perspective. This lesson examines the functionalist explanation of why stratification exists, before considering how rival perspectives challenge it.

Key Fact

Davis and Moore (1945) argued that social stratification is a “universal necessity” — every society that has ever existed has developed some form of ranked hierarchy. They believed this was not a flaw in social organisation but a functional requirement for society’s survival.

Davis and Moore: Functionalist Theory of Stratification

Writing from a functionalist perspective, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945) argued that social stratification performs two essential tasks for society: effective role allocation and performance linked to rewards. Their argument runs as follows.

First, societies contain positions that vary in their functional importance — some roles are more critical to the smooth running of society than others. A surgeon operating on a patient in an NHS hospital, for example, performs a role that requires a high level of skill and years of specialist training. Second, the pool of talented individuals capable of performing such roles is, in their view, limited. Society must therefore motivate the most talented people to fill these functionally important roles by attaching high rewards — high pay, prestige and status — to them.

The promise of greater rewards encourages individuals to undergo the long training required, work hard and perform these roles conscientiously. The result is a meritocracy — a society in which positions are filled on the basis of ability and effort, not birth. Davis and Moore concluded that stratification is therefore not only inevitable but socially necessary. Unequal rewards, in this view, are the mechanism by which societies ensure the right people end up doing the most important jobs.

Stratification systems differ in how rigid they are. An open system is one in which social mobility is possible — individuals can move up or down the hierarchy through their own efforts. Contemporary capitalist societies such as the UK are described as relatively open systems, where educational qualifications and occupational achievement can enable movement across class boundaries. Davis and Moore’s model assumes an open, meritocratic system.

A closed system is one in which social position is fixed at birth and movement between positions is not permitted. The most extreme example is the caste system, historically practised in parts of South Asia, in which occupation, marriage and social interaction were all determined by the caste a person was born into. Slavery is another closed system. Critics note that the UK class system has elements of both: educational qualifications and hard work can improve life chances, but evidence consistently shows that social class background remains a strong predictor of outcomes.

Criticisms of Davis and Moore

Davis and Moore’s theory has attracted sustained criticism from several perspectives. A key early critic was Melvin Tumin, who challenged the assumption that talent is scarce and that high rewards are the only way to motivate people. Tumin questioned whether it is possible to measure “functional importance” objectively. He noted that some highly rewarded occupations (such as entertainment celebrities) have questionable functional value, while roles that are arguably essential to society (such as refuse collection or care work) are poorly rewarded.

Tumin also argued that stratification actually restricts the talent pool by creating barriers: individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face material obstacles to accessing higher education and professional training regardless of their ability. This means stratification may reduce, not increase, the chances of the most talented filling the most important roles.

A common misconception is to accept Davis and Moore’s theory as simply “common sense” and assume that high earners must be in their positions because of talent. The sociological critique challenges this. Ascribed status — status passed down through family wealth, social networks or inherited privilege — continues to play a significant role in determining who fills elite positions. Research consistently shows that privately educated individuals are over-represented in top professions in the UK. This suggests stratification may reflect inherited advantage as much as merit, a point that Marxist and feminist perspectives develop further.

Marxist and Feminist Critiques

From a Marxist perspective, stratification is not a neutral mechanism for allocating talent — it is a system that serves the interests of the bourgeoisie by legitimising exploitation. Marx argued that the ruling class uses ideology to make inequality appear natural and inevitable, concealing the fact that the system primarily benefits those who already own wealth and property. From this view, Davis and Moore’s theory functions as ruling class ideology — it justifies the existing unequal distribution of rewards as though it were based purely on merit.

Feminist sociologists point out that Davis and Moore’s model fails to account for patriarchy. Women have historically been excluded from or under-rewarded in many functionally important roles not because of lack of talent, but because of structural discrimination. Even if the principle of attaching high rewards to important roles were valid, the definition of which roles are “important” has historically been made by men. Care work, nursing and teaching — predominantly female occupations — tend to be rewarded less highly than male-dominated professions requiring comparable training, suggesting that reward levels reflect gender power relations rather than functional necessity alone.