Our social universe is constructed into individual groups based on their power, property, and prestige. Sociologists define this division as “social stratification.” Social stratification greatly affects our way of living and can mold our future. Functionalists argue that global stratification is crucial for a society to exist. Two functionalists, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore had difficulty understanding how inequality helps keep a society going. They developed an argument that in order for society to run, there must be positions filled that sometimes are more important than others. They also thought that the more important the position, the more qualified the person must be and in order to get people to those positions, they must come
…show more content…
Sociologist Gaetano Mosca claimed that social stratification is inevitable and that every society will be organized by power. In addition, Karl Marx noted that social stratification was a result of elite members pushing their workers to do as they’re told. Eventually, the workers will rebel and it will be revolutionizing (Text, p. 202). In response to Davis and Moore’s argument, sociologist Melvin Tumin disagreed with their perspective and proposed three arguments: We don’t know that being in a higher position is more important, people’s positions are more than just being worthy, and social stratification is considered a crutch for many and doesn’t benefit everyone (Text, p. 200). Although Tumin’s points have some validity to them, social stratification is crucial for the American society to function properly and it benefits the society as a whole. Another argument brought out in light of the conflict and functionalist perspective was Gerhard Lenski’s synthesis. Lenski thought that the functionalists and conflict theorists were accurate in a sense and combined ideas from both to say that in certain societies, they tend to share most of their resources to people who play a greater role. However, in other societies, they fight amongst each other for resources and the group that wins is the elite who will have control of those below them (Text, p.
Sociologist Gaetano Mosca claimed that social stratification is inevitable and that every society will be organized by power. In addition, Karl Marx noted that social stratification was a result of elite members pushing their workers to do as they’re told. Eventually, the workers will rebel and it will be revolutionizing (Text, p. 202). In response to Davis and Moore’s argument, sociologist Melvin Tumin disagreed with their perspective and proposed three arguments: We don’t know that being in a higher position is more important, people’s positions are more than just being worthy, and social stratification is considered a crutch for many and doesn’t benefit everyone (Text, p. 200). Although Tumin’s points have some validity to them, social stratification is crucial for the American society to function properly and it benefits the society as a whole. Another argument brought out in light of the conflict and functionalist perspective was Gerhard Lenski’s synthesis. Lenski thought that the functionalists and conflict theorists were accurate in a sense and combined ideas from both to say that in certain societies, they tend to share most of their resources to people who play a greater role. However, in other societies, they fight amongst each other for resources and the group that wins is the elite who will have control of those below them (Text, p.