Society; branch of sociology.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  The division of society into strata is carried out on the basis of the inequality of social distances between them - the main property of stratification. Social strata are lined up vertically and in strict sequence according to indicators of wealth, power, education, leisure, consumption.

  In social stratification, a certain social distance is established between people (social positions) and a hierarchy of social layers is formed. Thus, unequal access of members of society to certain socially significant scarce resources is fixed by establishing social filters on the borders separating social strata.

  For example, the allocation of social strata can be carried out according to the levels of income, knowledge, power, consumption, the nature of work, spending free time. The social strata identified in society are evaluated in it according to the criterion of social prestige, which expresses the social attractiveness of certain positions.

  The simplest stratification model is a dichotomous one - the division of society into elites and masses. In the earliest archaic social systems, the structuring of society into clans is carried out simultaneously with the establishment of social inequality between them and within them. This is how “initiates” appear, that is, those who are initiated into certain social practices (priests, elders, leaders) and the uninitiated - profane. Within such a society, if necessary, it can further stratify as it develops. This is how castes, estates, classes, etc. appear.

  Modern ideas about the stratification model that has developed in society are quite complex - multi-layered (polychotomous), multidimensional (carried out along several axes) and variable (allow the coexistence of many stratification models): qualifications, quotas, attestation, status determination, ranks, benefits, privileges, etc. preferences.

  The most important dynamic characteristic of society is social mobility. According to the definition of P. A. Sorokin, “social mobility is understood as any transition of an individual, or a social object, or a value created or modified through activity, from one social position to another” . However, social agents do not always move from one position to another, it is possible to move the social positions themselves in the social hierarchy, such a movement is called “positional mobility” (vertical mobility) or within the same social stratum (horizontal mobility). Along with social filters that establish barriers to social movement, there are also “social lifts” in society that significantly speed up this process (in a crisis society - revolutions, wars, conquests, etc.; in a normal, stable society - family, marriage, education , property, etc.). The degree of freedom of social movement from one social stratum to another largely determines whether a society is closed or open.

  Warner's theory of 6 layers in American society.

  W. L. Warner put forward a theory about the prestige of various strata of society based on the statements people make about each other.

  According to Warner's theory, the population of modern Western society is divided into six strata:

  1. Wealthy aristocrats.
  2. Millionaires in the first generation.
  3. Highly educated intellectuals (doctors, lawyers), business people (owners of capital).
  4. Office workers, secretaries, ordinary doctors, school teachers and other "white collars".
  5. Skilled workers ("blue collar"). Electricians, locksmiths, welders, turners, drivers, etc.
  6. Homeless vagrants, beggars, criminals and the unemployed.

  The difference between historical forms of social stratification

  Historical forms of social stratification differ in the degree of severity of the "filters" on the levels of social stratification.

  castes- these are groups of people in the social hierarchy, where social elevators are completely turned off, so people do not have any opportunity to build a career.

  Estates- these are groups of people in the social hierarchy, where strict "filters" severely restrict social mobility and slow down the movement of "elevators".

  Layers- these are groups of people in the social hierarchy, where the main "filter" for those who want to make a career is the availability of financial resources.

  Slavery- this is a social, economic and legal form of depriving a person of any rights, accompanied by an extreme degree of inequality. It arose in ancient times and de jure existed in some countries until the end of the 20th century, de facto in a number of countries it still exists.

  Occupational stratification- division of society into layers, based on the success of the performance of roles, the availability of knowledge, skills, education, etc.

  It appears in two forms:

  • Hierarchy of the main professional groups (interprofessional stratification);
  • Stratification within each professional group (intraprofessional stratification).

  Interprofessional stratification

  Indicators of interprofessional stratification are:

  • The importance of the profession for the survival and functioning of the group, the social status of the profession;
  • The level of intelligence necessary for the successful performance of professional activities.

  First of all, professions associated with the organization and control of the professional groups themselves are recognized as socially significant. For example, the hazing behavior of a soldier or the dishonesty of an employee of a firm will not have a significant impact on others, but the general negative status of the group to which they belong significantly affects the entire army or firm.

  To successfully perform the function of organization and control, a higher level of intelligence is required than for physical work. This kind of work pays better. In any society, the activities of organization and control and intellectual activity are considered more professional. These groups in the interprofessional stratification have a higher rank.

  However, there are exceptions:

  1. Possibility to overlay higher levels of the lower professional layer on the lower levels of the next, but higher professional layer. For example, the leader of the builders becomes the foreman, and the foremen can be superimposed on the lower rank of engineers.
  2. A sharp violation of the existing ratio of layers. These are periods of reversal, if the layer after does not disappear at all, the previous ratio is quickly restored.

  Intraprofessional stratification

  Representatives of each professional layer are divided into three groups, in turn, each group is divided into many subgroups:

  Intra-professional layers may have different names, but they exist in all societies.

  Between people in society there are differences of a social, biological, psychological nature. Social differences are called differences that are generated by social factors, such as: division of labor, lifestyle, functions performed, level of prosperity, etc. Modern society is characterized by the multiplication (growth) of social differences.

  Society is not only extremely differentiated and consists of many social groups, classes, communities, but also hierarchized: some layers have more power, more wealth, have a number of obvious advantages and privileges compared to others. Therefore, we can say that society has a social structure.

  The social structure is a stable set of elements, as well as connections and relationships that groups and communities of people enter into regarding the conditions of their life.

  The initial element of the social structure of society is a person. Larger elements of the social structure: social groups, social strata (strata), classes, social communities, etc.

  The social structure thus reflects the “vertical section” of society, however, all the constituent elements in society are located in a certain hierarchy, it is reflected by social stratification (“horizontal section”).

  Social stratification (lat. stratum - layer, fasio - I do) - a set of vertically arranged social strata of society. The concept of stratification is borrowed by sociology from geology, where it denotes the position of layers of various rocks along the vertical.

  Social stratum - it is a set of people within a large group who have a certain kind and level of prestige gained from their position and the ability to achieve a special kind of monopoly. Sometimes in the literature, the concept of “social stratification” (i.e., division into layers) is used, which is identical to stratification. The term "stratification" captures not only the process of polarization of the population into poor and rich, but also the end result of stratification, when a middle class arises. The phenomenon of stratification is characteristic of both modern and pre-industrial societies.

  A historical example of stratification is the caste system of Hindu society. In India, there were thousands of castes, but they were all grouped into four main ones: Brahmins - the caste of priests (3% of the population), Kshatriyas - descendants of warriors; vaishya - merchants, who together made up about 7% of Indians; sudra - peasants and artisans (70%); the rest are untouchables who have traditionally been cleaners, scavengers, tanners, swineherds.

  
  

  Strict rules did not allow representatives of the higher and lower castes to communicate, as it was believed that this defiles the higher ones. Of course, the stratification of ancient societies is not similar to the stratification of modern society, they differ in many criteria, one of which is the criterion of openness. In an open system of stratification, members of the social structure can easily change their social status (characteristic of modern societies); in a closed system of stratification, members of society can change their status with great difficulty (agrarian-type societies).

  The theory of social structure and stratification in sociology was developed by M. Weber, P. Sorokin, K. Marx and others.

  P. Sorokin identified 3 types of social stratification according to 3 criteria:

  1) income level,

  2) political status,

  3) professional roles.

  P. Sorokin He represented social stratification as the division of society into strata (layers). He believed that the layers (strata) do not remain data, unchanged, they are in constant change and development. P. Sorokin called the totality of such changes social mobility, i.e. mobility of social strata and classes.

  social stratum- is a set of people within a large group, with a certain kind and level of prestige obtained through position, as well as the ability to achieve a monopoly.

  social mobility- this is a change by an individual or group of a place in the social structure of society, a movement from one social position to another.

  Social mobility has various characteristics, of which the spatial characteristics, the speed and density of the flow of stratification changes are essential.

  Movement (mobility) happens:

  Horizontal, vertical (up and down to another layer or within its own stratum);

  Slow, fast (in terms of speed);

  Individual, group.

  T. Parsons improved the theory of social stratification proposed by P. Sorokin.

  He supplemented the stratification criteria with new features:

  1) qualitative characteristics that people have from birth (ethnicity, gender characteristics);

  2) role characteristics (position, level of knowledge);

  3) characteristics of possession (property, material values).

  K. Marx understood social structure as the division of society into social classes. He linked the division of society into classes with the division of labor and the institution of private property. He believed that the cause of social stratification is the division of society into those who own the means of production, and those who can only sell their labor. According to K. Marx, these two groups and their diverging interests serve as the basis for stratification. Thus, for Marx, social stratification existed in only one dimension - economic.

  M. Weber believed that K. Marx simplified the picture of stratification too much; there are other criteria for division in society. He proposed a multidimensional approach to stratification. M. Weber considered the sources of development of strata: various types of people's occupations (professions), "charisma" inherited by some people and the appropriation of political power.

  The scientist proposed to use 3 criteria for the stratification of society:

  Class (economic status);

  Status (prestige);

  Party (power).

  The economic position of stratification is determined by the wealth and income of the individual; prestige is authority, influence, respect, the degree of which corresponds to a certain social status; power is the ability of individuals and social groups to impose their will on others and to mobilize human resources to achieve a goal.

  These three dimensions are interrelated, but not necessarily high on one criterion, an individual will also be high on the other (for example, the prestige of a priest in society is high, but this group of the population ranks low in terms of influence on politics).

  Basic dimensions of stratification

  Modern scientists have come to the conclusion that when analyzing the social stratification of society, it is advisable to use several criteria. Thus, use multilevel stratification, which, unlike single-level, represents the division of society according to two or more criteria. The differentiation of people (or social groups) in society into social strata is characterized by inequality in income, education, profession, participation in power structures, etc.

  Sociologists take into account the following features of stratification:

  1. In the process of stratification, people are differentiated into hierarchically formed groups (layers, classes, strata).

  2. Social stratification divides people not only into higher and lower strata, but also into a privileged minority and an infringed majority.

  3. When stratifying, the possibility of movement is taken into account.

  Modern society can be differentiated (structured) according to various criteria.

  Society differentiation criteria:

  ethno-national,

  worldview,

  Religious-confessional,

  educational,

  spiritual and cultural,

  Value-oriented (religious, secular morality).

  Economic (ownership of capital, level of personal income and consumption);

  Ideological and political (involvement in the management of society, involvement in the processes of redistribution of social wealth).

  Some Western sociologists distinguish three classes in the social structure of society: upper class(usually 1-2% of the population, these are the owners of big capital, the highest bureaucracy, the elite); lower class(low-skilled and unskilled workers with low levels of education and income); middle class(a set of groups of self-employed and wage labor occupying a middle, intermediate position between the higher and lower strata in most status hierarchies and having a common identity). The middle class in developed countries is 60% of the population (for example, in the USA). According to some sociologists, in Belarus it is no more than 20%.

  Within the distinguished classes, differentiation is also possible. For example, within the middle class there are upper middle(owners of middle capital, middle-level administrative and political elite, representatives of higher intellectual professions); average average(representatives of small business, farmers, businessmen, persons of “liberal professions”); lower middle(the average composition of the provision of education, health care and social services, workers of mass trade and service professions, highly skilled workers).

  The social structure can have a "pyramidal" or "diamond" shape. With a pyramidal form of social structure, the middle class in society is quite small, but a significant part of society belongs to the lower strata. With a diamond structure, the middle class is large. It is believed that the larger the middle class, the more stable the society.

  Some sociologists study the social structure from the point of view of status and role differences that affect the content and direction of social relations. Others analyze the social structure on the basis of various models of social relations, from which role differences between people are derived. If perceived social structure as a set of different in size, social position in the system of social relations relatively stable forms of social groups, communities, their social positions and interactions between them, it becomes probable to determine such elements as: individuals, norms, values, social statuses, roles, positions etc.

  The elements of the system are emergent, i.e. their properties are not reduced to their sum, but are the properties of this particular set of elements.

  The social structure of modern Belarusian society

  In the post-Soviet space, the main stratification criterion was the scale of property appropriation, which reflected the ongoing social changes. For example, in 1990, the share of income received from entrepreneurial activity, which was not officially recorded at that time, amounted to 2% of all income, in 1999 - 12%. Sociologists note that the criterion of income has become the main one in the assessments of the population of their position in society. For example, in the course of numerous sociological surveys, it turned out that 2/3 of the respondents in our country are concerned about the low level of their income.

  The situation of the population in the 90s. The twentieth century, according to statistics summarized by sociologists, looked like this:

  1) rich people (1.5% of the population);

  2) the wealthy (they can afford to stay in expensive sanatoriums, expensive purchases, trips, etc.) - 5-6%;

  3) wealthy (they feel restrictions when buying expensive things) - 8-9%;

  4) middle-income (make a choice: either expensive clothes or good food) - 14%;

  5) low-income (feeling difficulties in buying quality food, clothes) - 17%;

  6) poor (47%);

  7) beggars (7%).

  However, in order to present a picture of the Belarusian society, it is not enough to use one criterion of income, it is necessary to compare a number of social and status criteria.

  Socio-status hierarchy of the population:

  1. The upper stratum (new elite, owners of banks, firms, officials in ministerial positions, etc.).

  2. The upper middle layer (directors, entrepreneurs, artists, etc.).

  3. The middle middle layer (professors, doctors, lawyers, etc.).

  4. The lower middle layer (teachers, engineers, etc.).

  5. The lowest layer (workers, employees, etc.).

  7. Marginal layers (beggars, vagabonds).

  The criteria for dividing the Belarusian society into these groups are the following: income, influence in the political sphere, education, the prestige of the profession, the availability of social guarantees, the level of consciousness. These seven indicators are interrelated.

  The variety of mutually intersecting connections and interactions of the identified groups of indicators predetermines the complex panorama of social and stratification changes in modern Belarusian society.

  The summary of the educational material is compiled on the basis of the literature:

  1. General sociology: textbook. allowance / under total. ed. prof. A.G. Efendiev. - M.: INFRA-M, 2007. - 654 p.

  2. Ekadoumova, I.I. Sociology: answers to examination questions / I.I. Ekadoumova. M.N. Mazanik. - Minsk: TetraSystems, 2010. - 176 p.

  3. Dobrenkov, V.I. Sociology. T. 2. Social structure and stratification / V.I. Dobrenkov, A.I. Kravchenko. - M.: Vuzovskaya kniga, 2005 - 535 p.

  4. Volkov, Yu.G. Sociology / V.I. Dobrenkov [i dr.]. - 2nd ed., corrected. and additional - M.: UITs "Gardariki", 2000. - 510 p.

  5. Babosov, E.M. General sociology: textbook. allowance for university students - 3rd ed. / EAT. Babosov. - Minsk: TetraSystems, 2006. - 640 p.

  5. Sociology: Encyclopedia / comp. A.A. Gritsanov [i dr.]. - Minsk: Book House, 2003. - 1312 p.

  6. Babosov, E.M. Workshop on sociology: textbook. allowance for university students / E.M. Babosov - Minsk: TetraSystems, 2003. - 416 p.

  7. Babosov, E.M. Sociology of personality, stratification and management / E.M. Babosov - Minsk: Bel. Navuka, 2006. - 591 p.

  social stratification

  social stratification(from lat. stratum− layer and facio- do) - one of the basic concepts of sociology, denoting a system of signs and criteria of social stratification, position in society; the social structure of society; branch of sociology. The term "stratification" entered sociology from geology, where it refers to the location of the layers of the earth. But people initially likened the social distances and partitions existing between them to layers of the earth, floors of located buildings, objects, tiers of plants, etc.

  Stratification- this is the division of society into special layers (strata) by combining various social positions with approximately the same social status, reflecting the prevailing idea of ​​social inequality in it, built horizontally (social hierarchy), along its axis according to one or more stratification criteria (indicators of social status). The division of society into strata is carried out on the basis of the inequality of social distances between them - the main property of stratification. Social strata line up vertically and in strict sequence according to indicators of wealth, power, education, leisure, and consumption.

  AT social stratification a certain social distance is established between people (social positions) and a hierarchy is built from social strata. Thus, the unequal access of members of society to certain socially significant scarce resources is fixed by establishing social filters on the boundaries separating social strata. For example, the allocation of social strata can be carried out according to the levels of income, education, power, consumption, the nature of work, spending free time. The social strata identified in society are evaluated in it according to the criterion of social prestige, which expresses the social attractiveness of certain positions.

  The simplest stratification model is a dichotomous one - the division of society into elites and masses. In some of the earliest, archaic social systems, the structuring of society into clans is carried out simultaneously with the implementation of social inequality between them and within them. This is how the "initiates" appear, i.e. those who are initiated into certain social practices (priests, elders, leaders) and the uninitiated are "profane" (profane - from lat. pro fano- deprived of holiness, uninitiated; profane - all other members of society, ordinary members of the community, fellow tribesmen). Within them, society can further stratify if necessary.

  The most important dynamic characteristic of society is social mobility. According to the definition of P. Sorokin, "social mobility is understood as any transition of an individual, or a social object, or a value created or modified through activity, from one social position to another." However, social agents do not always move from one position to another, it is possible to move the social positions themselves in the social hierarchy, such a movement is called "positional mobility" (vertical mobility) or within the same social stratum (horizontal mobility). Along with social filters that establish barriers to social movement, there are also "social lifts" in society that significantly speed up this process (in a crisis society - revolutions, wars, conquests, etc.; in a normal, stable society - family, marriage, education , property, etc.). The degree of freedom of social movement from one social stratum to another largely determines whether a society is closed or open.

  • social structure
  • social class
  • creative class
  • Social inequality
  • Religious stratification
  • Racism
  • castes
  • Class struggle
  • social behavior

  Links

  • Ilyin V.I. Theory of social inequality (structuralist-constructivist paradigm). M., 2000.
  • social stratification
  • Sushkova-Irina Ya. I. Dynamics of social stratification and its representation in the pictures of the world // Electronic journal “Knowledge. Understanding. Skill". - 2010. - № 4 - Culturology.
  • IA REX experts on social stratification

  Notes

  1. Sorokin P. Man. Civilization. Society. M., 1992. C. 373
  Categories:
  • Sociology
  • social hierarchy

  Social stratification

  Social stratification (from Latin stratum - layer and facio - I do) - one of the basic concepts of sociology, denoting a system of signs and criteria of social stratification, position in society; the social structure of society; branch of sociology. The term "stratification" entered sociology from geology, where it refers to the location of the layers of the earth. But people initially likened the social distances and partitions existing between them to layers of the earth, floors of located buildings, objects, tiers of plants, etc.

  Stratification is the division of society into special layers (strata) by combining various social positions with approximately the same social status, reflecting the prevailing idea of ​​social inequality in it, built horizontally (social hierarchy), along its axis according to one or more stratification criteria (indicators social status). The division of society into strata is carried out on the basis of the inequality of social distances between them - the main property of stratification. Social strata line up vertically and in strict sequence according to indicators of wealth, power, education, leisure, and consumption.

  In social stratification, a certain social distance is established between people (social positions) and a hierarchy is built from social strata. Thus, the unequal access of members of society to certain socially significant scarce resources is fixed by establishing social filters on the boundaries separating social strata. For example, the allocation of social strata can be carried out according to the levels of income, education, power, consumption, the nature of work, spending free time. The social strata identified in society are evaluated in it according to the criterion of social prestige, which expresses the social attractiveness of certain positions.

  The simplest stratification model is a dichotomous one - the division of society into elites and masses. In some of the earliest, archaic social systems, the structuring of society into clans is carried out simultaneously with the implementation of social inequality between them and within them. This is how the "initiates" appear, i.e. those who are initiated into certain social practices (priests, elders, leaders) and the uninitiated are "profane" (profane - from Latin pro fano - deprived of holiness, uninitiated; profane - all other members of society, ordinary members of the community, fellow tribesmen). Within them, society can further stratify if necessary.

  As society becomes more complex (structuring), a parallel process occurs - the embedding of social positions into a certain social hierarchy. This is how castes, estates, classes, etc. appear.

  Modern ideas about the stratification model that has developed in society are quite complex - multi-layered (polychotomous), multidimensional (carried out along several axes) and variable (sometimes allow the existence of many stratification models): qualifications, quotas, attestation, status determination, ranks, benefits, privileges, other preferences.

  32.THE CLASS STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY

  There is a special kind of stratification of modern society, which is called class stratification .

  public classes , according to Lenin's definition "... large groups of people, differing in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (for the most part fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently , according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they dispose of. Classes are such groups of people from which one can appropriate the labor of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain way of social economy. "

  For the first time, the expanded concept of social class was formulated by K. Marx through the use of the concept class-forming feature . According to Marx, such a sign is the attitude of people to property. Some classes in society own property, can dispose of property, while other classes are deprived of this property. Such a division can lead to interclass conflicts, which are primarily aimed at the redistribution, redistribution of property. The presence of this sign of the class division of society continues to be used by many modern scientists.

  Unlike Marx, the German sociologist Max Weber identifies several signs of the class division of society. In particular, he considers prestige as one of the most important features of social class. In addition to prestige, Weber considers such signs wealth and power, as well as attitudes towards property . In this regard, Weber singles out a much larger number of classes in society than Marx. Each of the social classes has its own subculture, which includes specific behaviors, an accepted value system and a set of social norms. Despite the influence of the dominant culture, each of the social classes cultivates its own values, behaviors and ideals. These subcultures have fairly clear boundaries, within which individuals feel their own: belonging to a social class, identify themselves with it.

  Currently, there are quite a few models of the class structure of society. However, the most common model is W. Watson model . According to this model, modern society is divided into six main classes. The upper and middle classes of society are especially clearly distinguished.

  The experience of using this model has shown that it has limitations in relation to pre-market Russia. However, with the development of market relations, the class structure of Russian society is increasingly reminiscent of the class structures of Western countries. That is why Watson's model of class structure can be of great importance in the analysis of social processes taking place in modern Russia.

  social stratification

  Social stratification - this is the definition of the vertical sequence of the position of social strata, layers in society, their hierarchy. For various authors, the concept of stratum is often replaced by other key words: class, caste, estate. Using these terms further, we will invest in them a single content and understand a stratum as a large group of people who differ in their position in the social hierarchy of society.

  Sociologists agree that the basis of the stratification structure is the natural and social inequality of people. However, the way inequality was organized could be different. It was necessary to isolate those foundations that would determine the appearance of the vertical structure of society.

  K. Marx introduced the only basis for the vertical stratification of society - the possession of property. The narrowness of this approach became apparent already at the end of the 19th century. That's why M. Weber increases the number of criteria that determine belonging to a particular stratum. In addition to the economic - attitude to property and income level - he introduces such criteria as social prestige and belonging to certain political circles (parties)

  Under prestige was understood as the acquisition by an individual from birth or due to personal qualities of such a social status that allowed him to take a certain place in the social hierarchy.

  The role of status in the hierarchical structure of society is determined by such an important feature of social life as its normative-value regulation. Thanks to the latter, only those whose status corresponds to the ideas rooted in the mass consciousness about the significance of their title, profession, as well as the norms and laws functioning in society, always rise to the "upper rungs" of the social ladder.

  M. Weber's selection of political criteria for stratification still looks insufficiently substantiated. Says it more clearly P. Sorokin. He unequivocally points to the impossibility of giving a single set of criteria for belonging to any stratum and notes the presence in society three stratification structures: economic, professional and political. An owner with a large fortune, significant economic power, could not formally be included in the highest echelons of political power, not be engaged in professionally prestigious activities. And, on the contrary, a politician who made a dizzying career might not be the owner of capital, which nevertheless did not prevent him from moving in the circles of high society.

  Subsequently, repeated attempts were made by sociologists to expand the number of stratification criteria by including, for example, educational level. One can accept or reject additional stratification criteria, but apparently one cannot but agree with the recognition of the multidimensionality of this phenomenon. The stratification picture of society is multifaceted, it consists of several layers that do not completely coincide with each other.

  AT 30-40s in American sociology an attempt was made to overcome the multidimensionality of stratification by asking individuals to determine their own place in the social structure.) In studies conducted W.L. Warner in a number of American cities, the stratification structure was reproduced on the basis of the principle of self-identification of respondents with one of the six classes based on the methodology developed by the author. This technique could not but cause a critical attitude due to the debatability of the proposed stratification criteria, the subjectivity of the respondents, and, finally, the possibility of presenting empirical data for several cities as a stratification cross-section of the entire society. But this kind of research gave a different result: they showed that consciously or intuitively people feel, realize the hierarchy of society, feel the main parameters, principles that determine the position of a person in society.

  However, research W. L. Warner did not refute the statement about the multidimensionality of the stratification structure. It only showed that different types of hierarchy, refracting through a person's value system, create in him a complete picture of the perception of this social phenomenon.

  So, society reproduces, organizes inequality according to several criteria: according to the level of wealth and income, according to the level of social prestige, according to the level of political power, and also according to some other criteria. It can be argued that all these types of hierarchy are significant for society, as they allow regulating both the reproduction of social ties and directing personal aspirations and ambitions of people towards acquiring socially significant statuses. After determining the grounds for stratification, let's move on to considering its vertical cut. And here researchers face the problem of divisions on the scale of social hierarchy. In other words, how many social strata should be singled out in order for the stratification analysis of society to be as complete as possible. The introduction of such a criterion as the level of wealth or income led to the fact that, in accordance with it, it was possible to single out a formally infinite number of strata of the population with different levels of well-being. And the appeal to the problem of socio-professional prestige gave grounds to make the stratification structure very similar to the socio-professional one.

  The hierarchical system of modern society devoid of rigidity, formally all citizens have equal rights, including the right to occupy any place in the social structure, to rise to the top rungs of the social ladder or to be "below". The sharply increased social mobility, however, did not lead to the "erosion" of the hierarchical system. Society still maintains and guards its own hierarchy.

  Society stability associated with the profile of social stratification. Excessive "stretching" of the latter is fraught with serious social cataclysms, uprisings, riots, bringing chaos, violence, hindering the development of society, putting it on the verge of collapse. The thickening of the stratification profile, primarily due to the "truncation" of the top of the cone, is a recurring phenomenon in the history of all societies. And it is important that it be carried out not through uncontrolled spontaneous processes, but through a consciously pursued state policy.

  Stability of the hierarchical structure society depends on the proportion and role of the middle stratum or class. Occupying an intermediate position, the middle class performs a kind of connecting role between the two poles of the social hierarchy, reducing their confrontation. The larger (in quantitative terms) the middle class, the more chances it has to influence the policy of the state, the process of formation of the fundamental values ​​of society, the worldview of citizens, while avoiding the extremes inherent in opposing forces.

  The presence of a powerful middle layer in the social hierarchy of many modern countries allows them to maintain stability, despite the episodic increase in tension among the poorest strata. This tension is "quenched" not so much by the force of the repressive apparatus as by the neutral position of the majority, who are on the whole satisfied with their position, confident in the future, feeling their strength and authority.

  The "erosion" of the middle stratum, which is possible during periods of economic crises, is fraught with serious shocks for society.

  So, vertical slice of society mobile, its main layers can increase and decrease. This is due to many factors: production declines, economic restructuring, the nature of the political regime, technological renewal and the emergence of new prestigious professions, etc. However, the stratification profile cannot "stretch out" indefinitely. The mechanism of redistribution of the national wealth of power automatically works in the form of spontaneous actions of the masses, demanding the restoration of justice, or, in order to avoid this, a conscious regulation of this process is required. The stability of society can only be ensured through the creation and expansion of the middle stratum. Caring for the middle stratum is the key to the stability of society.

  What is social stratification?

  Psyche

  Stratification - the location of individuals and groups from top to bottom in horizontal layers (strata) on the basis of inequality in income, level of education, amount of power, professional prestige.
  Stratification reflects social heterogeneity, the stratification of society, the heterogeneity of the social status of its members and social groups, their social inequality.
  

  Barcodaur

  Socialization is one of the main themes in sociology. This is the division of society into social strata (strata) by combining various social positions with approximately the same social status, reflecting the prevailing idea of ​​social inequality in it, built vertically (social hierarchy), along its axis along one or more stratification criteria (indicators of social status ) . In social stratification, a certain social distance is established between people (social positions) and unequal access of members of society to certain socially significant scarce resources is fixed by establishing social filters on the boundaries separating them. For example, the allocation of social strata can be carried out according to the levels of income, education, power, consumption, the nature of work, spending free time. The social strata identified in society are evaluated in it according to the criterion of social prestige, which expresses the social attractiveness of certain positions. But in any case, social stratification is the result of a more or less conscious activity (policy) of the ruling elites, who are extremely interested in imposing on society and legitimizing in it their own social ideas about the unequal access of society members to social benefits and resources. The simplest stratification model is a dichotomous one - the division of society into elites and masses. In the earliest, archaic society, the structuring of society into clans is carried out simultaneously with the implementation of social inequality between them and within them. This is how those who are initiated into certain social practices (priests, elders, leaders) and the uninitiated - profane (all other members of society, ordinary members of the community, fellow tribesmen) appear. Within them, society can further stratify if necessary. As society becomes more complex (structuring), a parallel process occurs - the embedding of social positions into a certain social hierarchy. This is how castes, estates, classes, etc. appear. Modern ideas about the stratification model that has developed in society are quite complex - multi-layered, multidimensional (carried out along several axes) and variable (allow the existence of many sometimes stratification models). The degree of freedom of social movements (mobility) from one social stratum to another determines whether a society is closed or open.

  The term "stratification" entered sociology from geology, where it refers to the location of the layers of the earth. But people initially likened the social distances and partitions existing between them to the layers of the earth.

  The division of society into strata is carried out on the basis of the inequality of social distances between them - the main property of stratification. Social strata line up vertically and in strict sequence according to indicators of wealth, power, education, leisure, and consumption.
  "Stratification" - the term is accepted in science, and the word "stratification" is more used in everyday language.

  Social stratification (brief definition) - social stratification, i.e., the division of the whole society into groups of rich, prosperous, wealthy, poor and very poor, or beggars.

  Stratification - the division of society into the poor and the rich, to-rye constitute the two poles of society.

  The polarization of society is a process when the distance between the poor and the rich is greatly increased.

  A class is a large social group that owns the means of production, occupies a certain place in the system of social division of labor and is characterized by a specific way of obtaining income.

  Underclass - the lowest layer of stratification (beggars).

  1. Concept andmain criteriasocial stratification

  Stratification- this is a hierarchically organized structure of social inequality that exists in a certain society, in a certain historical period of time. Moreover, social inequality is reproduced in fairly stable forms as a reflection of the political, economic, cultural and normative structure of society.

  social stratification- this is a description of social inequality in society, its division into social strata according to income, the presence or absence of privileges, lifestyle Frolov S.S. Sociology. Textbook for high schools. - M.: science. 1994. S. 154. .

  The basis of stratification in sociology is inequality, i.e. uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, power and influence. K. Marx and M. Weber were the first to try to explain the nature of social stratification.

  K. Marx believed that in capitalist societies the cause of social stratification is the division into those who own and manage the most important means of production - the class of capitalist oppressors, or the bourgeoisie, and those who can only sell their labor - the oppressed working class, or proletariat. According to Marx, these two groups and their diverging interests are the basis of the stratification. Thus, for Marx, social stratification existed in only one dimension.

  Believing that Marx oversimplified the picture of stratification, Weber argued that there are other dividing lines in society that do not depend on class or economic position, and proposed a multidimensional approach to stratification, highlighting three dimensions: class (economic position), 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 interconnected; they feed and support each other, but still may not match

  The functionalist theory of stratification was formulated in 1945 by K. Davis and W. Moore. Stratification exists because of its universality and necessity; society cannot do without stratification. Social order and integration require a certain degree of stratification. The stratification system makes it possible to fill in all the statuses that form the social structure, it develops incentives for the individual to fulfill the duties associated with their position.

  The distribution of material wealth, power functions and social prestige (inequality) depends on the functional significance of the position (status) of the individual. In any society there are positions that require specific abilities and training. Society must have certain benefits that are used as incentives for people to take positions and fulfill their respective roles. As well as certain ways of uneven distribution of these benefits, depending on the positions held. Functionally important positions should be rewarded accordingly. Inequality plays the role of an emotional stimulus. Benefits are built into the social system, so stratification is a structural feature of all societies. Universal equality would deprive people of the incentive to advance, the desire to make every effort to fulfill their duties. If incentives are not enough and statuses are not filled, the society breaks up. This theory has a number of shortcomings (does not take into account the influence of culture, traditions, family, etc.), but is one of the most developed.

  One of the creators of the modern theory of stratification is P.A.Sorokin. He introduces the concept of "social space" as the totality of all social statuses of a given society, filled with social connections and relationships. The way of organizing this space is stratification. Social space is three-dimensional: each of its dimensions corresponds to one of the three main forms (criteria) of stratification. Social space is described by three axes: economic, political and professional status. Accordingly, the position of an individual or group is described in this space using three coordinates.

  A set of individuals with similar social coordinates form a stratum. The basis of stratification is the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and obligations, power and influence.

  A great contribution to the solution of practical and theoretical problems of stratification of Russian society was made by T.I. Zaslavskaya. In her opinion, the social structure of society is the people themselves, organized into various kinds of groups (layers, strata) and performing in the system of economic relations all those social roles that the economy gives rise to, which it requires. It is these people and their groups that carry out a certain social policy, organize the development of the country, and make decisions. Thus, in turn, the social and economic status of these groups, their interests, the nature of their activity and relationships with each other affect the development of the economy Glotov M.B. Modern concepts of social stratification / / Social problems, 2008. No. 5. P. 14. .

  Thus, the following criteria of social stratification can be distinguished:

  1. Economic situation. The economic dimension of stratification is determined by wealth and income. Wealth is what people own. Income is simply understood as the amount of money people receive.

  2. Prestige- 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 seeks to give tangibility to prestige - 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.

  3. Power determines which people or groups will be able to translate their preferences into the reality of 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.

  4. social status- this is that relative rank, with all the rights, duties and life styles that follow from it, which the individual occupies in the social hierarchy. The status can be assigned to individuals at birth, regardless of the qualities of the individual, as well as on the basis of gender, age, family relationships, origin, or it can be achieved in a competitive struggle, which requires special personal qualities and own efforts Volkov Yu.G., Mostovaya I.V. . Sociology:

  2. Ttypes of social stratification

  Regardless of the forms that social stratification takes, its existence is universal. There are four main systems of social stratification:

  -slavery;

  - castes;

  - estates;

  - classes.

  The first three systems characterize closed societies, and the last type - open ones. The closed society is determined by the prohibition of social movement from the lower stratum to the higher one. In an open society, there are no official restrictions on transition.

  2.1 Slavery

  Slavery is a type of stratification, which is characterized by the economic, legal and social form of enslavement of people, which borders on extreme social inequality and complete lack of rights. On the path of formation, slavery made evolutionary development.

  Both the ancient Romans and the ancient Africans had slaves. In ancient Greece, slaves were engaged in physical labor, thanks to which free citizens had the opportunity to express themselves in politics and the arts. The least typical slavery was for nomadic peoples, especially hunters and gatherers, and it was most widespread in agrarian societies Ritzer J. Modern sociological theories. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002. S. 688 ..

  Conditions of slavery and slaveholding varied significantly in different regions of the world. In some countries, slavery was a temporary condition of a person: having worked for his master for the allotted time, the slave became free and had the right to return to his homeland. Thus, the Israelites freed their slaves in the year of jubilee, every 50 years. Slaves in ancient Rome generally had the ability to buy their freedom; in order to collect the amount necessary for the ransom, they entered into a deal with their master and sold their services to other people (this is exactly what some educated Greeks who fell into slavery to the Romans did). However, in many cases, slavery was for life; in particular, criminals sentenced to life work were turned into slaves and worked on Roman galleys as rowers until their death.

  Not everywhere the status of a slave was inherited. In ancient Mexico, the children of slaves were always free people. But in most countries, the children of slaves automatically also became slaves, although in some cases the child of a slave who served all his life in a rich family was adopted by this family, he received the surname of his masters and could become one of the heirs along with the rest of the children of the masters.

  Usually point to three causes of slavery. First, a debt obligation, when a person who was unable to pay his debts fell into slavery to his creditor. Secondly, the violation of laws, when the execution of a murderer or a robber was replaced by slavery, i.e. the culprit was handed over to the affected family as compensation for the grief or damage caused. Thirdly, war, raids, conquest, when one group of people conquered another and the winners used some of the captives as slaves

  Thus, slavery was the result of a military defeat, a crime, or an unpaid debt, and not a sign of some inherent natural quality of some people.

  Although slaveholding practices varied from region to region and from era to era, whether slavery was the result of unpaid debt, punishment, military captivity, or racial prejudice; whether it was permanent or temporary; hereditary or not, the slave was still the property of another person, and the system of laws secured the status of a slave. Slavery served as the main distinction between people, clearly indicating which person is free (and according to the law receives certain privileges), and which one is a slave (without privileges) Volkov Yu.G., Mostovaya I.V. Sociology: Textbook for universities / Ed. prof. IN AND. Dobrenkov. - M.: Gardariki, 1998. S. 161. .

  There are two forms of slavery: classical and patriarchal.

  In the patriarchal form, the slave has all the rights of a younger member of the family, in the classical form, the slave has no rights and is considered the property of the owner (a talking tool).

  At the maturity type, slavery becomes slaveholding. When slavery is mentioned as a historical type of stratification, they mean its highest stage - slavery. This form of social relations is the only one in history when a person belonging to the lower stratum is the property of someone who is higher in rank.

  2. 2 castes

  The caste system is not as old as the slave system. Slavery was observed in almost all countries, and it is advisable to talk about castes only in India and partly in Africa. India is a classic caste society. In the first centuries of the new era, it replaced the slave society.

  Caste is a social group (stratum), to which a person is allowed to belong solely depending on his birth. Textbook / ed. V.N. Lavrinenko. - M.: UNITI - DANA, 2002. S. 211. .

  The basis of the caste system is prescribed status. The achieved status is not able to change the place of the individual in this system. People who are born into a low-status group will always have this status, no matter what they personally manage to achieve in life.

  Societies that are characterized by this form of stratification strive for a clear preservation of the boundaries between castes, therefore endogamy is practiced here - marriages within one's own group - and there is a ban on intergroup marriages. To prevent inter-caste contact, such societies develop complex rules regarding ritual purity, according to which it is considered that communication with members of the lower castes defiles the higher caste.

  It is impossible to transfer to another caste during life, only a newly born person will be able to be in another caste. The caste position is fixed by the religion of the Hindus. Religious ideas are such that a person is given to live more than one life. Getting into one or another caste depends on how a person behaves in a previous life.

  The most striking example of a caste society is India. In India, there are four main castes, descended, according to legend, from various parts of the god Brahma:

  a) brahmins - priests;

  b) kshatriyas - warriors;

  c) vaishyas - merchants;

  d) Shudras - peasants, artisans, workers.

  The four main Indian castes, or Varnas, are subdivided into thousands of specialized sub-castes (jatis), with representatives of each caste and each jati practicing some particular craft.

  A special position is occupied by the so-called untouchables, who do not belong to any caste and occupy a lower position. Their touch with a member of a higher caste makes that person "impure". In some cases, even the shadow of an untouchable is considered unclean, so in the early morning and at noon, when the figures cast the longest shadows, members of the untouchable caste are even forbidden to enter some villages. Those who are "dirty" from touching an outcast must perform rites of cleansing, or ablution, to restore purity.

  Although in 1949 the government of India announced the abolition of the caste system, the strength of age-old traditions cannot be overcome so easily, and the caste system continues to be a part of daily life in India. For example, the rituals that a person goes through at his birth, marriage, death, are dictated by caste laws.

  Another example of a society in which the caste system existed is South Africa. The country's population was divided into four racial groups: Europeans (whites), Africans (blacks), coloreds (mixed race) and Asians. Belonging to a particular group determined where this or that person has the right to live, study, work; where a person has the right to swim or watch a movie - whites and non-whites were forbidden to be together in public places. After decades of international trade sanctions, sports boycotts and the like. The Afrikaners were forced to abolish their caste system.

  2.3 Estates

  An estate is a social group where custom and legal laws are fixed, which are inherited by duties and rights.

  Estates were part of European feudalism, but also existed in many other traditional societies. The feudal estates include strata with various duties and rights; some of these differences are established by the law Grigoriev S.I. Fundamentals of modern sociology: Textbook. - M.: Jurist, 2009. S. 181. .

  Europe at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries was a classic example of a class society. In Europe, estates included the aristocracy and the nobility. The clergy constituted a different estate, having a lower status, but with various privileges. The so-called "third estate" included servants, free peasants, merchants and artists. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages and individual mobility were perceived with tolerance.

  The basis for the distribution of estates was land ownership. In each estate, rights and obligations were fixed by legal law and reinforced by the sacred bonds of religious doctrine. Inheritance determined membership in the estate. As for social barriers, they were very tough in the class.

  In each estate, a large number of ranks, professions, levels and ranks were observed. So, only nobles could engage in public service. The aristocracy was considered a military estate (chivalry).

  The estate, which was in the highest hierarchical position, had a higher status.

  A characteristic feature of the estates is the presence of social symbols and signs: titles, uniforms, orders, titles. Classes and castes did not have state distinctive signs, although they were distinguished by clothing, jewelry, norms and rules of conduct, and a ritual of conversion.

  In a feudal society, the state assigned distinctive symbols to the main class - the nobility. It was they who were given titles, uniforms, etc. Titles- legally established verbal designations of the official and estate-generic position of their owners, briefly defining the legal status. in Russia in the 19th century. there were such titles as “general”, “state councilor”, “chamberlain”, “count”, “adjutant wing”, “secretary of state”, “excellency” and “lordship”.

  uniforms- official uniform, corresponding to the titles and visually expressing them.

  Orders- material insignia, honorary awards that complemented titles and uniforms. The rank of order (cavalier of the order) was a special case of the uniform, and the actual badge of the order was a common addition to any uniform.

  The core of the system of titles, orders and uniforms was the rank - the rank of each civil servant (military, civilian or courtier). On January 24, 1722, Peter I introduced a new system of titles in Russia, the legal basis of which was the Table of Ranks. The report card provided for three main types of service: military, civilian and court. Each was divided into 14 ranks, or classes.

  The civil service was built on the principle that an employee had to go through the entire hierarchy from bottom to top, starting with the length of service of the lowest class rank. The class denoted the rank of the position, which was called the class rank. The name "official" was assigned to its owner.

  Only the nobility was allowed to public service - local and service. Noble status was usually formalized in the form of genealogy, family coat of arms, portraits of ancestors, legends, titles and orders. The total number of the nobility and class officials (including family members) was equal in the middle of the 19th century. 1 million Kravchenko A.I. Sociology. General course. Allowance for universities. - M.: Logos, 2002. S. 411. .

  2.4 Classes

  Finally, another stratification system is the class system. The class approach is often opposed to the stratification approach, although in fact class division is only a special case of social stratification.

  Belonging to a social stratum in slave-owning, caste and estate-feudal societies was fixed by official legal or religious norms. In pre-revolutionary Russia, every person knew what class he was in. What is called people were attributed to one or another social stratum.

  In a class society, things are different. The state does not deal with the issues of social consolidation of its citizens. The only controller is the public opinion of people, which is guided by customs, established practices, income, lifestyle and standards of behavior. Therefore, it is very difficult to accurately and unambiguously determine the number of classes in a particular country, the number of strata or layers into which they are divided, and the belonging of people to strata is very difficult.

  Class - this is a large social group that differs from others in terms of access to social wealth (distribution of goods in society), power, social prestige, and has the same socio-economic status. The term “class” was introduced into scientific circulation at the beginning of the 19th century, replacing such terms as “rank” and “order”, which were used to describe the main hierarchical groups in society Marshak A.L. Sociology: Textbook. - M.: UNITI - DANA, 2002. S. 89. .

  The origins of social class theory can be found in the writings of political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau, who discussed issues of social inequality and stratification, as well as French and English thinkers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, who put forward the idea that that non-political social elements - the economic system and the family - largely determine the form of political life in society. This idea was developed by the French social thinker Henri Saint-Simon, who argued that the state form of government corresponds to the nature of the economic production system.

  The first typology of classes was proposed by the USA in the 40s. 20th century American sociologist L. Warner. The upper-upper class included the so-called old families. They consisted of the most successful businessmen and those who were called professionals. They lived in privileged parts of the city.

  The lower-upper class in terms of material well-being was not inferior to the upper-upper class, but did not include the old tribal families.

  The upper-middle class consisted of owners and professionals who had less material wealth than those from the two upper classes, but they actively participated in the public life of the city and lived in fairly comfortable areas.

  The lower-middle class consisted of lower employees and skilled workers. The upper-lower class included low-skilled workers employed in local factories and living in relative prosperity.

  The lower-lower class consisted of those who are commonly called the "social bottom". These are the inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places unsuitable for life. They constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and constant humiliation.

  In all two-part words, the first word denotes a stratum, or layer, and the second - the class to which this layer belongs.

  Currently, sociologists adhere to a unified view of the characteristics of the main social classes in modern societies and usually distinguish three classes: the highest, the lowest and the middle.

  Higher the class in modern industrial societies consists predominantly of representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties. For example, in the United States, more than 30% of all national wealth is concentrated in the hands of the top 1% of the owners. The possession of such significant property provides members of this class with a solid position that does not depend on competition, the fall in the price of securities, etc. They have the opportunity to influence economic policy and political decisions, which often helps to preserve and increase family wealth.

  The middle class includes hired workers - middle and top-level officials, engineers, teachers, middle managers, as well as owners of small shops, enterprises, farms.

  At its highest level - wealthy professionals or managers of large companies - the middle class merges with the upper class, and at its lowest level - those engaged in routine and low-paid types of work in trade, distribution and transport - the middle class merges with the lower class.

  The working class in industrial societies traditionally includes wage laborers in the extractive and manufacturing sectors of the economy, as well as those in low-paid, low-skilled, ununionized jobs in the service and retail industries. There is a division of workers into skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled, which naturally affects the level of wages. In general, the working class is characterized by the absence of property and dependence on the upper classes for their livelihood - wages. Associated with these conditions are relatively low living standards, limited access to higher education, and exclusion from important decision-making areas.

  In the second half of the XX century. in industrialized countries, there has been a general shift in the economy from the manufacturing sector to the service sector, which has led to a reduction in the number of workers. In the United States, Great Britain, and other countries, the decline in the mining and manufacturing industries has led to the emergence of a permanent "core" of the unemployed, who found themselves sidelined from the main economic stream. This new stratum of permanently unemployed or underemployed workers has been defined by some sociologists as lower and class.

  Conclusion

  social stratification slavery inequality

  Thus, having studied the concept of social stratification and considering its historical forms, we can draw the following conclusions:

  1. Turning to the social structure of society, it is important not only to analyze the diversity of social groups and their classification, but also their "location" in the social space, and the location is unequal. The latter is done with the help of the theory of social stratification. It should be noted that social stratification is the same social structure of society in which social groups are located in a certain hierarchy, which represents social inequality.

  2. Social stratification is the same as social stratification according to a certain criterion. Such main criteria in modern sociology are the amount of income, access to power, status, level of education. These criteria express the relationship of inequality between people. None of the criteria can be absolutized, they must be used in a complex, in combination, moreover, the value of individual criteria can rise and fall along with the social changes experienced by society.

  3. In sociology, 4 historical types of social stratification are distinguished: slavery, castes, estates and classes.

  Historically, the first system of social stratification is slavery. Slavery- this is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and an extreme degree of inequality. When one speaks of slavery as a historical type of stratification, one means its highest stage.

  Like slavery, the caste system characterizes a closed society and rigid stratification. castes- these are hereditary groups of people occupying a certain place in the social hierarchy, associated with traditional occupations and limited in communicating with each other.

  Estates are a form of stratification that precedes classes.

  Estates is a social group that has rights and obligations enshrined in custom or law and inherited. The estate system, which includes several strata, is characterized by a hierarchy, expressed in the inequality of their position and privileges.

  The main characteristic of such a system of social stratification as a class is the relative flexibility of its boundaries. Class can be defined as a large social group of people who own or do not own the means of production, occupying their place in the division of labor in society and characterized by a certain way of earning income.

  4. Of the above historical types of social stratification, slavery, caste and estate systems are classified as closed societies, that is, those in which the transition from one stratum to another is practically prohibited. The assigned status characterizes a rigidly fixed system of stratification.

  In this section, we will consider the most important problems of sociology, namely the social stratification of the population, the emergence of poverty and inequality, and on this basis, the social stratification of society. And let's finish our analysis with a question about the social movements of people from group to group, which received the special name of social mobility.

  SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

  1.1 Initial representations

  When we talked about the subject of sociology, we found a close connection between the three fundamental concepts of sociology - social structure, social composition and social stratification.

  We expressed the structure in terms of a set of statuses and likened it to empty cells of a honeycomb. It is located, as it were, in a horizontal plane, but is created by the social division of labor. In a primitive society there are few statuses and a low level of division of labor, in a modern society there are many statuses and a high level of organization of the division of labor.

  But no matter how many statuses there are, in the social structure they are equal and functionally related to each other. When we filled the empty cells with people, each status turned into a large social group. The totality of statuses gave us a new concept - the social composition of the population. And here the groups are equal to each other, they are also located horizontally. Indeed, from the point of view of the social composition, all Russians, women, engineers, non-party people and housewives are equal.

  However, we know that in real life the inequality of people plays a huge role. Inequality is the criterion by which we can place some groups above or below others. The social composition turns into social stratification - a set of social strata located in a vertical order, in particular the poor, the wealthy, the rich.

  If we resort to a physical analogy, then the social composition is in no way an ordered collection of iron filings. But here they put a magnet in them, and they all lined up in a clear order.

  Stratification is a certain "oriented" composition of the population.

  What "orients" large social groups? It turns out that there is an unequal assessment by society of the significance and role of each status or group. A plumber or a janitor is valued below a lawyer and a minister. Consequently, high statuses and people occupying them are better rewarded, have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should also be higher.

  So we got the four main dimensions of stratification - income, power, education, prestige. And that's it - there are no others. Why? But because they exhaust the range of social benefits to which people aspire. More precisely, not the benefits themselves (there may just be many of them), but the channels of access to them. A home abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a vacation in the Canary Islands, etc. -- social goods that are always in short supply (i.e., highly respected and inaccessible to the majority) and are acquired through access to money and power, which, in turn, are achieved through high education and personal qualities.

  Thus, social structure arises from the social division of labor, and social stratification arises from the social distribution of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits. And it's always uneven. So there is an arrangement of social strata according to the criterion of unequal access to power, wealth, education and prestige.

  1.2 Measurement of stratification

  Imagine a social space in which vertical and horizontal distances are unequal. P. Sorokin, the man who was the first in the world to give a complete theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, and who confirmed his theory with the help of a huge empirical material stretching throughout human history, thought this way or something like this.

  Points in space are social statuses. The distance between the turner and the miller is one, it is horizontal, and the distance between the worker and the master is different, it is vertical. The master is the boss, the worker is the subordinate. They have different social ranks. Although the case can be presented in such a way that the master and worker will be located at an equal distance from each other.

  This will happen if we consider both of them not as a boss and a subordinate, but as just workers performing different labor functions. But then we will move from the vertical to the horizontal plane.

  The inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. She has four measuring rulers, or coordinate axes. All of them are located vertically and next to each other:

  education;

  Income is measured in rubles or dollars that an individual (individual income) or family (family income) receives during a certain period of time, say, one month or a year.

  Four dimensions of social stratification

  We plot equal intervals on the coordinate axis, for example, up to $5,000, from $5,001 to $10,000, from $10,001 to $15,000, and so on up to $75,000 and up.

  

  Income is the flow of cash receipts per unit of time

  Education is measured by the number of years of study at a public or private school or university. Let's say elementary school means 4 years, junior high school means 9 years, high school means 11 years, college means 4 years, university means 5 years, graduate school means 3 years, doctoral studies means 3 years. Thus, a professor has more than 20 years of formal education behind him, while a plumber may not have eight.

  Power is measured by the number of people who are affected by the decision you make (power is the ability to impose your will or decisions on other people, regardless of their desire).

  The decisions of the President of Russia apply to 150 million people (whether they are implemented is another question, although it also concerns the issue of power), and the decisions of the foreman - to 7-10 people.

  Three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars, years, people. Prestige is outside this range, since it is a subjective indicator. Prestige - respect for the status prevailing in public opinion. Since 1947, the US National Public Opinion Research Center has periodically polled ordinary Americans, selected from a national sample, in order to determine the social prestige of various professions. Respondents are asked to rate each of 90 occupations (occupations) on a 5-point scale: excellent (best), good, average, slightly worse than average, worst occupation. The list includes almost all occupations from the supreme judge, the minister and the doctor to the plumber and the janitor.

  Having calculated the average for each occupation, the sociologists obtained a public assessment of the prestige of each type of work in points. Arranging them in a hierarchical order from the most respected to the most unprestigious, they received a rating, or a scale of professional prestige. Unfortunately, periodic representative surveys of the population about professional prestige have never been conducted in our country.

  A classic example is the comparison between a police officer and a college professor. On the scales of education and prestige, the professor ranks higher than the policeman, and on the scales of income and power, the policeman ranks higher than the professor. Indeed, the professor has less power, the income is somewhat lower than that of a policeman, but the professor has more prestige and the number of years of study. Marking both with points on each scale and connecting them with lines, we obtain a stratification profile.

  

  Stratified profile of a college professor and police officer

  Each scale can be considered separately and denoted by an independent concept.

  In sociology, there are three basic types of stratification:

  economic (income);

  political (power);

  professional (prestige).

  and many non-basic ones, for example, cultural and speech and age.

  1.3 Stratification

  Belonging is measured by subjective and objective indicators:

  subjective indicator - a sense of belonging to this group, identification with it;

  objective indicators-income, power, education, prestige.

  Thus, a large fortune, high education, great power and high professional prestige are the necessary conditions for you to be attributed to the highest stratum of society.

  A stratum is a social stratum of people who have similar objective indicators on four scales of stratification.

  The concept of stratification (stratum - layer, facio - do) came to sociology from geology, where it denotes the vertical arrangement of layers of various rocks. If we make a cut of the earth's crust at a certain distance, it will be found that under the layer of chernozem there is a layer of clay, then sand, etc. Each layer consists of homogeneous elements. So is the stratum - it includes people with the same income, education, power and prestige. There is no stratum that includes highly educated people in power and powerless poor people in low-prestige jobs.

  In a civilized country, a big mafioso cannot belong to the highest stratum. Although he has a very high income, perhaps a high education and strong power, his occupation does not enjoy high prestige among citizens. It is condemned. Subjectively, he may consider himself a member of the upper class and even fit the objective criteria. However, he lacks the main thing - the recognition of "significant others."

  Under "significant others" are two large social groups: members of the upper class and the general population. The highest stratum will never recognize him as "their" because he compromises the entire group as a whole. The population will never recognize mafia activity as a socially approved occupation, as it contradicts the mores, traditions and ideals of this society.

  Let us conclude: belonging to a stratum has two components - subjective (psychological identification with a certain stratum) and objective (social entry into a certain stratum).

  Social entry has undergone a certain historical evolution. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. With the emergence of slavery, it suddenly intensified.

  Slavery is a form of the most rigid fixing of people in unprivileged strata. Castes are the lifelong attachment of an individual to his (but not necessarily unprivileged) stratum. In medieval Europe, lifelong belonging is weakened. Estates imply legal attachment to the stratum. Rich merchants bought noble titles and thus moved to a higher class. Estates were replaced by classes - strata open to all, not implying any legitimate (legal) way of securing one stratum.

  So, we have come to a new topic - historical types of social stratification.

  1.4 Historical types of stratification

  In sociology, four main types of stratification are known - slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies and the last type - open ones.

  A closed society is a society where social movements from the lower strata to the higher strata are either completely prohibited or significantly limited. An open society is a society where movement from one stratum to another is not officially restricted in any way.

  Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and an extreme degree of inequality.

  Slavery has historically evolved. There are two forms of it:

  Under patriarchal slavery (a primitive form), a slave had all the rights of a younger member of the family: he lived in a water house with his masters, participated in public life, married free people, and inherited his master's property. It was forbidden to kill him.

  Under classical slavery (the mature form), the slave was finally enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and had no family. He was allowed to be killed. He did not own property, but he himself was considered the property of the owner ("talking tool").

  Antique slavery in ancient Greece and plantation slavery in the United States until 1865 are closer to the second form, and servitude in Russia in the 10th-12th centuries is closer to the first. The sources of slavery differ: the ancient was replenished mainly due to conquests, and servitude was debt, or enslavement, slavery. The third source is criminals. In medieval China and in the Soviet Gulag (extra-legal slavery), criminals were in the position of slaves.

  At a mature stage, slavery turns into slavery. When people talk about slavery as a historical type of stratification, they mean its highest stage. Slavery is the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the property of another and when the lower stratum is deprived of all rights and freedoms. There is no such thing in castes and estates, not to mention classes. The caste system is not as old as the slave system, and less common. If almost all countries went through slavery, of course, to varying degrees, then castes were found only in India and partly in Africa. India is a classic example of a caste society. It arose on the ruins of the slaveholding in the first centuries of the new era.

  A caste is a social group (stratum), membership in which a person owes solely to his birth. A person cannot move from his caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. The caste position is fixed by the Hindu religion (now it is clear why castes are not widespread). According to its canons, people live more than one life. Each person falls into the appropriate caste, depending on what his behavior was in a previous life. If bad, then after the next birth he should fall into a lower caste, and vice versa.

  There are 4 main castes in India: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), Shudras (workers and peasants), and about 5,000 minor castes and semi-castes. The untouchables are especially special - they are not included in any caste and occupy the lowest position. In the course of industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is becoming more and more class-based, while the village, in which 7/10 of the population lives, remains caste-based.

  Estates precede classes and characterize the feudal societies that existed in Europe from the 4th to the 14th century.

  An estate is a social group that has fixed custom or legal law and inherited rights and obligations.

  The estate system, which includes several strata, is characterized by a hierarchy, expressed in the inequality of position and privileges. Europe was a classic example of a class organization, where at the turn of the 14th-15th centuries society was divided into upper classes (nobility and clergy) and an unprivileged third estate (artisans, merchants, peasants). In the X-XIII centuries there were three main estates: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia, from the second half of the 18th century, a class division into the nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistinism "(middle urban strata) was established. Estates were based on land ownership.

  The rights and obligations of each estate were determined by legal law and consecrated by religious doctrine. Membership in the estate was inherited. Social barriers between the estates were quite rigid, so social mobility existed not so much between as within the estates.

  Each estate included many layers, ranks, levels, professions, ranks. So, only nobles could engage in public service. The aristocracy was considered a military class (chivalry).

  The higher in the social hierarchy an estate stood, the higher was its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were quite allowed. Sometimes individual mobility was allowed. A simple person could become a knight by purchasing a special permit from the ruler. As a relic, this practice has survived in modern England.

  1.5 Classes

  Class is understood in two senses - broad and narrow.

  In a broad sense, a class is understood as a large social group of people who own or do not own the means of production, occupying a certain place in the system of social division of labor and characterized by a specific way of earning income.

  Since private property arises during the period of the birth of the state, it is believed that already in the Ancient East and in ancient Greece there were two opposite classes - slaves and slave owners. Feudalism and capitalism are no exception - and here there were antagonistic classes: the exploiters and the exploited. This is the point of view of K. Marx, which is adhered to today not only by domestic, but also by many foreign sociologists.

  In a narrow sense, a class is any social stratum in modern society that differs from others in income, education, power and prestige. The second point of view prevails in foreign sociology, and now it is acquiring the rights of citizenship in the domestic one as well.

  In modern society, based on the described criteria, there are not two opposite, but several strata that pass into each other, called classes. Some sociologists find six classes, others count five, and so on. According to the narrow interpretation, there were no classes under either slavery or feudalism. They appeared only under capitalism and mark the transition from a closed to an open society.

  Although ownership of the means of production plays an important role in modern society, its importance is gradually declining. The era of individual and family capitalism is fading away. In the 20th century, collective capital dominates. The shares of one company can be owned by hundreds and thousands of people. There are more than 50 million shareholders in the USA.

  And although ownership is scattered among a huge number of owners, only those who hold a controlling stake are able to make key decisions. Often they are top managers - presidents and directors of the company, chairmen of boards of directors.

  The managerial stratum is gradually coming to the fore, pushing the traditional class of owners aside. The concept of "management revolution", which appeared thanks to J. Bernheim in the middle of the 20th century, reflects a new reality - the "splitting of the atom" of property, the disappearance of classes in the old sense, the entry into the historical arena of non-owners (after all, managers are persons of hired labor) as leading class or stratum of modern society.

  However, there was a time when the concept of "class" was not considered an anachronism. On the contrary, it only appeared and reflected the onset of a new historical era. This happened at the end of the 18th century, when a new historical force, the bourgeoisie, resolutely pushed the nobility into the background, loudly declared itself.

  The emergence of the bourgeoisie on the stage of history had the same revolutionary impact on society in those years as the emergence of the managerial class has today. Thus, we move on to the topic of the emergence of classes.

  1.6 Emergence of classes

  The industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries destroyed the feudal system and brought to life social forces that led to the formation of a class system.

  While the number of the three estates - the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry - either did not increase or decreased, the number of the "fourth estate" increased sharply: the development of trade and industry gave rise to new professions - entrepreneurs, merchants, bankers, merchants.

  A numerous petty bourgeoisie appeared. The ruin of the peasants and their moving to the city led to a reduction in their numbers and the emergence of a new stratum, which feudal society did not know - wage industrial workers.

  Gradually, a new type of economy was formed - capitalist, which corresponds to a new type of social stratification - the class system. The growth of cities, industry and services, the decline in power and prestige of the landed aristocracy and the strengthening of the status and wealth of the bourgeoisie radically changed the face of European society. New professional groups that entered the historical arena (workers, bankers, entrepreneurs, etc.) strengthened their positions, demanded privileges and recognition of their status. Soon, in their significance, they became equal to the former estates, but they could not become new estates.

  The term "estate" reflected a historically outgoing reality. The new reality was best reflected by the term "class". It expressed the economic status of people who were able to move up and down.

  The transition from a closed society to an open one demonstrated the increased ability of a person to independently build his own destiny. Class restrictions collapsed, everyone could rise to the heights of social recognition, move from one class to another, with effort, talent and diligence. And although even in modern America only a few succeed, the expression "a self-made man" holds steady here.

  Thus, the role of the detonator was played by money and commodity-money relations. They did not take into account class barriers, aristocratic privileges, inherited titles. Money equalized everyone, it is universal and available to everyone, even those who have not inherited fortunes and titles.

  A society in which ascribed statuses dominated gave way to a society in which achieved statuses began to play the leading role. "This is an open society.

  1.7 Classes and estates in pre-revolutionary Russia

  Before the revolution in Russia, it was the class division of the population, not the class division, that was official. The society was divided into two main classes - taxable (peasants, petty bourgeois) and non-taxable (nobility, clergy).

  Within each estate there were smaller estates and layers. The state granted them certain rights enshrined in legislation. They were guaranteed only insofar as the estates performed certain duties, for example, they grew bread or were engaged in crafts. The apparatus of officials regulated relations between the estates, which expressed its "duty".

  Thus, the estate system was inseparable from the state.

  That is why we can define estates as social and legal groups that differ in the scope of rights and obligations in relation to the state.

  According to the 1897 census, the entire population of the country, which is 125 million people, was divided into the following classes: nobles - 1.5% of the total population, clergy - 0.5%, merchants - 0.3%, bourgeois - - 10.6%, peasants 77.1%, Cossacks - 2.3%. The first privileged estate in Russia was considered the nobility, the second - the clergy. The rest were not privileged.

  The nobles were divided into hereditary and personal. Not all of them were landowners, many were in the public service.

  The landowners constituted a special group - the landowners (among the hereditary nobles, the landlords were no more than 30%).

  Gradually, as in Europe, independent social strata are formed within the estates - the embryos of classes.

  In connection with the development of capitalism, the once united peasantry at the turn of the century stratified into poor peasants (34.7%), middle peasants (15%), wealthy (12.9%), kulaks (1.4%), as well as small and landless peasants. peasants, together making up one-third. The philistines were a heterogeneous formation - the middle urban strata, which included small employees, artisans, handicraftsmen, domestic servants, postal and telegraph employees, students, etc.

  Russian industrialists, the petty, middle and big bourgeoisie emerged from the midst of the bourgeoisie and the peasantry. True, yesterday's merchants predominated in the latter. The Cossacks were a privileged military class that served on the border.

  By 1917, the process of class formation was not completed; it was at the very beginning. The main reason was the lack of an adequate economic base: commodity-money relations were in their infancy, as was the country's domestic market. They did not cover the main productive force of society - the peasantry, which, even after the Stolypin reform, never became free farmers.

  The working class, numbering about 12 million people, did not all consist of hereditary workers, many were semi-workers, semi-peasants. By the end of the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution had not been fully completed. Manual labor was never replaced by machines (even in the 80s of the XX century, it accounted for 40%). The bourgeoisie and the proletariat did not become the main classes of society.

  The government protected domestic entrepreneurs from foreign competitors with countless privileges, creating greenhouse conditions for them. The lack of competition strengthened the monopoly and held back the development of capitalism, which never passed from an early to a mature stage. The low material level of the population and the limited capacity of the domestic market did not allow the working masses to become full-fledged consumers.

  Thus, per capita income in Russia in 1900 was 63 rubles, and in England and the USA, respectively, 273 and 346 rubles. The population density was 32 times less than in Belgium. 14% of the population lived in cities, and in England - 78%, in the USA - 42%. There were no objective conditions for the emergence of a middle class in Russia.

  The October Revolution easily destroyed the social structure of Russian society, many old statuses disappeared - nobleman, bourgeois, tradesman, police chief, etc., therefore, their carriers, large social groups of people, disappeared. The revolution destroyed the only objective basis for the emergence of classes - private property. The process of class formation, which began at the end of the 19th century, was liquidated in the bud in 1917.

  The official ideology of Marxism, which equalized everyone in rights and financial situation, did not allow restoring the estate or class system. As a result, a unique historical situation has developed: within the framework of one country, all known types of social stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes - have been destroyed and recognized as incompetent. Officially, the Bolshevik Party proclaimed a course towards building a classless society. But, as you know, no society can exist without a social hierarchy, even in the simplest form.

  1.8 US class system

  Belonging to a social stratum in slave-owning, caste and estate-feudal societies was fixed by official legal or religious norms. In pre-revolutionary Russia, every person knew what class he was in. People, as they say, were assigned to one or another social stratum.

  In a class society, things are different. No one is assigned anywhere. The state does not deal with the issues of social consolidation of its citizens. The only controller is the public opinion of people, which is guided by customs, established practices, incomes, lifestyles and standards of behavior. Therefore, it is very difficult to accurately and unambiguously determine the number of classes in a particular country, the number of strata or layers into which they are divided, and the belonging of people to strata is very difficult. Criteria are needed, but they are chosen rather arbitrarily. That is why, in a country as sociologically developed as the United States, different sociologists offer different typologies of classes: seven in one, six in another, five in another, and so on. social strata. The first typology of US classes was proposed in the 1940s by the American sociologist Lloyd Warner:

  the upper upper class included the so-called "old families". They consisted of the most successful businessmen and those who were called professionals. They lived in privileged parts of the city;

  the lower upper class in terms of material well-being was not inferior to the upper one, the upper class, but did not include the old tribal families;

  the upper middle class consisted of owners and professionals who had less material wealth than those from the two upper classes, but they actively participated in the public life of the city and lived in fairly comfortable areas;

  the lower middle class consisted of lower employees and skilled workers;

  the upper lower class included low-skilled workers employed in local factories and living in relative prosperity;

  the lower lower class consisted of those who are commonly called the "social bottom" - these are the inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other unsuitable places for life. They constantly felt an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and constant humiliation.

  Other schemes are also proposed, for example: upper - upper, upper lower, upper - middle, middle - middle, lower - middle, working, lower classes. Or: upper class, upper - middle, middle and lower - middle class, upper working and lower working class, underclass.

  There are many options, but it is important to understand two fundamental points:

  the main classes, whatever they are called, are only three: rich, prosperous and poor;

  non-basic classes arise by adding strata or layers that lie within one of the main classes.

  The term "upper-upper class" means, in essence, the upper layer of the upper class. In all two-part words, the first word denotes a stratum or layer, and the second class, to which this layer belongs. The "upper-lower class" is sometimes called what it is, and sometimes it is used to designate the working class.

  The middle class (with its layers) is always distinguished from the working class. But the working class is also distinguished from the lower class, which may include the unemployed, the unemployed, the homeless, the poor, and so on. As a rule, highly skilled workers are included not in the working class, but in the middle, but in its lowest stratum, which is filled mainly by low-skilled mental workers - office workers.

  Another variant is possible: workers are not included in the middle class, but constitute two layers in the general working class. Specialists are included in the next layer of the middle class, because the very concept of "specialist" implies, at a minimum, a college education. The upper stratum of the middle class is filled mainly by "professionals".

  Professionals abroad are people who, as a rule, have a university education and extensive practical experience, are distinguished by high skill in their field, are engaged in creative work and belong to the so-called category of self-employed, i.e. having their own practice, their own business. These are lawyers, doctors, scientists, teachers, etc.

  To be called a "professional" is a great honor. Their number is limited and regulated by the state. So, only recently social workers received the long-awaited title, which has been sought for several decades.

  1.9 Middle class

  Between the two poles of the class stratification of American society - the very rich (wealth - $ 200 million or more) and the very poor (income less than 6.5 thousand dollars a year), constituting approximately the same proportion of the total population, namely 5%, is located that part of the population, which is commonly called the middle class. In industrialized countries, it makes up the majority of the population - from 60 to 80%.

  The middle class is a unique phenomenon in world history. Let's put it this way: it has not been throughout the history of mankind. It appeared only in the 20th century. In society, it performs a specific function.

  The middle class is the stabilizer of society. The larger it is, the less likely it is that society will be shaken by revolutions, ethnic conflicts, social cataclysms.

  It consists of those who have made fate with their own hands and, therefore, are interested in preserving the system that provided such opportunities. The middle class separates two opposite poles - the poor and the rich and does not allow them to collide. The thinner the middle class, the closer the polar points of stratification are to each other, the more likely they are to collide. And vice versa.

  The middle class is the broadest consumer market for small and medium businesses. The more numerous this class, the more confidently the small business stands on its feet. As a rule, the middle class includes those who have economic independence, i.e. owns an enterprise, firm, office, private practice, own business, as well as scientists, priests, doctors, lawyers, middle managers - the social backbone of society.

  The current middle class is the historical successor to the "fourth estate", which exploded the estate system at the dawn of the industrial revolution. The very concept of "middle class" arose in the 17th century in England. It denoted a special group of entrepreneurs who opposed, on the one hand, the top of the big landowners, and on the other, the "proletarian rabble." Gradually, small and medium bourgeois, managers, and freelancers began to be included in it.

  1.10 Stratification in the USSR and Russia

  During the existence of Soviet Russia (1917-1922) and the USSR (1922-1991), the basis of the theory of social structure was the scheme of V.I. Lenin, described by him in his work "State and Revolution" (August - September 1917).

  Classes are large groups of people who differ in a) their place in a historically determined system of social production, b) in their relationship (for the most part fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, c) in their role in the social organization of labor, d ) according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they can dispose of. Thanks to the four class criteria, they received the name "Lenin's four-member".

  Since The State and Revolution was written before the October Revolution, Lenin could not have known which classes should exist under socialism. They were first identified in November 1936 by I.V. Stalin in his report "On the Draft Constitution of the USSR". An end was put to many years of discussions of social scientists.

  Stalin created a three-term formula, a socialist society consists of two friendly classes - workers and peasants and a stratum recruited from them - the working intelligentsia (synonymous with specialists and employees).

  The new stage was marked by the creation in the 1960s and 1970s of the theory of developed socialism. Sociologists have done a lot of research and, as they thought, found the following:

  there are intra- and inter-class layers that differ in the nature of work, standard of living and way of life;

  interclass differences are erased, and intraclass differences (differentiation) increase;

  layers are not identical to an interlayer - there are many layers, but only one interlayer;

  in all classes and strata the proportion of mental labor is increasing and the proportion of physical labor is decreasing.

  In the early 1960s, the term "worker-intellectuals" appeared. It denoted the layer of the working class bordering on the intellectuals (specialists), the most skilled workers employed in especially complex social types of labor. In different years, it included from 0.5 to 1.0 million people.

  Soviet sociologists saw the growth in the number and proportion of this stratum as a success of socialism, a sign of the emergence of new social communities. Military personnel, ministers of religious cults and employees of the administrative apparatus were referred to specific social groups.

  In the concept of developed socialism, a two-stage scheme of the evolution of Soviet society was theoretically substantiated:

  the overcoming of differences between classes and the building of a classless society will take place mainly within the historical framework of the first phase, socialism;

  the complete overcoming of class differences and the building of a socially homogeneous society is completed in the second, highest phase of communism.

  As a result of building a classless society at first, and then a socially homogeneous society, a fundamentally new system of stratification should take shape: the "antagonistic", vertical system of inequality will gradually (over the course of several generations) be replaced by a "horizontal system" of social equality.

  In the late 1980s, there was a growing critical attitude towards official theory among sociologists. It is found that with the development of society, social differences do not disappear, but intensify. The degree of inequality under socialism is higher than under capitalism. In the USSR, there is antagonism, and alienation, and exploitation. The state does not die, but is strengthened. The employees of the administrative apparatus are not a specific stratum, but a social class that dominates and exploits the population. The old theory is gradually being replaced by a new one, which is constantly being improved and replenished.

  Abroad, already in the 1920s, the question of the emergence in the USSR of a new ruling class and a new type of social structure was raised. Back at the beginning of the 20th century, M. Weber pointed to those who would become the ruling class under socialism - the bureaucrats. In the 1930s, N. Berdyaev and L. Trotsky confirmed that a new stratum had formed in the USSR - a bureaucracy that entangled the whole country and turned into a privileged class.

  The idea of ​​transforming a management group into a management class was theoretically substantiated in the book by the American management specialist J. Bernheim "Managerial Revolution" (1991), which we have already discussed. He proclaimed that the class of managers is replacing the capitalist class, who, although not owners, nevertheless control corporations and society as a whole. Although J. Bernheim spoke only about the United States and did not touch on the USSR, many of the features he noted are applicable to Soviet society as well.

  As in the United States, managers in the USSR (they are called "nomenklatura", "bureaucracy") are employees of hired labor. But their position in society and the system of division of labor is such that it allows them to control all spheres of production and social life as if they were not employees, but owners. The concept of "public property" served as a cover, and many were misled by it. In fact, not all citizens disposed of public property, but the ruling elite, and in the way they saw fit.

  In 1943-1944. English writer J. Orwell in the story "Animal Farm" by artistic means expressed the idea of ​​the existence of a ruling class under socialism. In 1957, Milovan Gilas' work "The New Class. An Analysis of the Communist System" was published in New York. His theory soon gained worldwide fame. Its essence was as follows.

  After the victory of the October Revolution, the apparatus of the Communist Party turns into a new ruling class that monopolizes power in the state. Having carried out nationalization, he appropriated all state property. As a result of the fact that the new class acts as the owner of the means of production, it is a class of exploiters.

  Being also the ruling class, it exercises political terror and total control. Selfless revolutionaries are reborn as ferocious reactionaries. If earlier they advocated broad democratic freedoms, now they are becoming their stranglers. The method of economic management of the new class is extremely wasteful, and culture takes on the character of political propaganda.

  In 1980, a book by a former emigrant from the USSR M.S. Voslensky "Nomenklatura", which became widely known. It is recognized as one of the best works on the Soviet system and the social structure of the USSR. The author develops the ideas of M. Djilas about partocracy, but calls the ruling class not all managers and not the entire Communist Party, but only the highest stratum of society - the nomenklatura.

  The nomenclature is a list of leadership positions that are filled by a higher authority. The ruling class really includes only those who are in the regular nomenclature of party organs - from the nomenclature of the Politburo of the Central Committee to the main nomenclature of the district party committees.

  The number of the top echelon of the nomenklatura is 100 thousand, and the lowest - 150 thousand people. These are those who could not be popularly elected or replaced. In addition to them, the nomenclature included heads of enterprises, construction, transport, agriculture, defense, science, culture, ministries and departments. The total number is about 750 thousand, and with members of their families, the number of the ruling class of the nomenklatura in the USSR is about 3 million people, i.e. less than 1.5% of the country's population.

  The nomenklatura and the bureaucracy (officialdom) are different phenomena. Officials represent a layer of executors, and the nomenclature - the top leaders of the country. It issues orders that are implemented by bureaucrats. The nomenclature is distinguished by a high level and quality of life. Its representatives have luxurious apartments, country villas, servants, government cars. They are treated in special clinics, go to special shops, study in special schools.

  Although the nominal salary of a nomenklatura worker exceeds the average salary only 4-5 times, but thanks to the additional privileges and benefits received at public expense, their standard of living is ten times higher. The nomenklatura - the hierarchical structure of the country's top leadership - represents, according to M. Voslensky, the ruling and exploiting class of the feudal type. It appropriates the surplus value created by a politically and economically disenfranchised people.

  Summarizing 70 years of experience in building socialism, the famous Soviet sociologist T. Zaslavskaya in 1991 discovered three groups in its social system: the upper class, the lower class, and the stratum separating them. The basis of the higher education was the nomenklatura, which united the highest strata of the party, military, state and economic bureaucracy. The lower class is formed by the wage-workers of the state: workers, peasants, intelligentsia. The social stratum between them was made up of those social groups that served the nomenklatura: managers, journalists, propagandists, teachers, medical staff of special clinics, drivers of personal vehicles and other categories of servants of the elite.

  Let's summarize. Soviet society has never been socially homogeneous, it has always had social stratification, which is a hierarchically ordered inequality. Social groups formed a kind of pyramid, in which the layers differed in the amount of power, prestige, and wealth. Since there was no private property, there was no economic basis for the emergence of classes in the Western sense. The society was not open, but closed, like a class-caste society. There were no estates in the usual sense in Soviet society, since there was no legal consolidation of social status.

  At the same time, class-like and class-like groups actually existed in Soviet society. Let's consider why this was so.

  It is more correct to classify Russia as a mixed type of stratification. True, unlike in England and Japan, estate vestiges did not exist in the Soviet period as a living and highly venerated tradition; they were not added to the class structure.

  In a modified form, the remnants of the estate and class system of stratification were revived in a new society, which, according to the plan, was supposed to be devoid of any stratification, any inequality. A new unique type of mixed stratification has emerged in Russia.

  But at the end of the 1980s, Russia turned towards market relations, democracy and a Western-style class society. Within five years, an upper class of proprietors was formed, constituting about 3% of the total population, and the social ranks of society were formed, the standard of living of which is below the poverty line. In 1991-1992 they made up about 70% of the population. And yet no one occupies the middle of the social pyramid.

  As the living standards of the population rise, the middle part of the pyramid will be replenished with an increasing number of representatives not only of the intelligentsia, but of all strata of society, focused on business, professional work and career. From it will be born the middle class of Russia. But so far he's gone.

  What is there? There is still the same nomenklatura, which, by the beginning of economic reforms, managed to occupy key positions in the economy and politics. Privatization came in handy. In essence, the nomenklatura merely legalized its function as a real manager and owner of the means of production.

  Two other sources of replenishment of the upper class are the businessmen of the shadow economy and the scientific and engineering stratum of the intelligentsia. The former were in fact the pioneers of private enterprise at a time when it was prosecuted by law.