home
Practical psychology
Stratification happens. Parameters of social stratification

Stratification happens. Parameters of social stratification

11.10.2019

Human society is uneven: it has different groups, layers, or in other words - strata. This division of people is called the social stratification of society. Let's try to briefly study this concept.

Definition

In essence, social stratification has a similar meaning to the social stratification of society. Both of these concepts denote differentiation, the division of people into different groups. For example, rich and poor.

The stratification carries the significance of the formation of layers, groups in society. The only difference is that the concept of stratification is fixed in science, and the term "social stratification" is more used in everyday speech.

Origin of the term

The word "stratification" was originally used by geologists. It denoted layers of various rocks: fertile layer, clay, sand, and so on. Then this concept was transferred to sociological science. This is how the concept of horizontal social stratification appeared, and now we represent human society, like the structure of the Earth, in the form of layers.

The division into strata occurs according to the following criteria: income, power, prestige, level of education. That is, society is divided into groups on the following grounds: by income level, by the ability to manage other people, by education level and by prestige.

Classes

Large, including many representatives of the strata are called classes, which are subdivided into layers. For example, the class of the rich is divided into upper and lower (Depending on income - very large and smaller).

The history of the emergence of social stratification

The theory of social stratification has come a long way in its development, since this phenomenon has a fairly long history:

In primitive society, there was practically no stratification, since inequality had not yet acquired pronounced forms;
With the complication of society, castes, estates, and then classes began to arise;
In Europe, in the 17th-19th centuries, classes replaced the feudal-estate society. For a long time there was a class hierarchy: the clergy, the nobility, the peasantry. But society does not stand still. Industry developed, new professions appeared, representatives of which no longer fit into the former estates. Workers, entrepreneurs were not satisfied with this situation, which led to uprisings and even revolutions (for example, in England and France). As a result of these events, classes appeared.

In the post-industrial and contemporary period, the concept of social stratification has not lost its significance, as the structure of society continues to become more complex.

Ways to solve the problem

Features of social stratification in modern Russia, the severity of this problem causes disputes about the origin and ways to solve it :

Someone believes that social inequality is inevitable, it exists in any society: there are especially important functions that are performed by the most talented people. They are provided with rare valuable benefits;
Others believe that stratification in society is unfair, as some people appropriate more goods for themselves at the expense of others. Which means it must be destroyed.

Feature of social stratification

One of the signs and features of social stratification is that a person can change his roles, move around. This phenomenon is called social mobility. She has two varieties :

Horizontal : change of position in the same stratum (For example, the director of an oil company became the director of a large bank)
vertical : moving up the social ladder, both up and down (For example, a history teacher became a school principal - climbing, or a teacher lost his job and became unemployed - a decrease in status

What have we learned?

The social stratification of a society is its division into separate groups. It has special criteria such as power, income and prestige. The differentiation of society appeared a long time ago and continues to exist in the modern world. One of its features is social mobility, that is, the movement of people from one stratum to another.

Topic quiz

Report Evaluation

Average rating: 4.3. Total ratings received: 83.

Introduction

The history of all sociology as a science, as well as the history of its most important private discipline, the sociology of inequality, spans a century and a half.

In all ages, many scientists have thought about the nature of relations between people, about the plight of most people, about the problem of the oppressed and the oppressors, about the justice or injustice of inequality.

A variety of relations of roles, positions lead to differences between people in each particular society. The problem comes down to somehow streamlining these relations between categories of people that differ in many aspects.

Even the ancient philosopher Plato reflected on the stratification of people into rich and poor. He believed that the state is, as it were, two states. One is the poor, the other is the rich, and they all live together, plotting each other all sorts of intrigues. Plato was "the first political ideologue who thought in terms of classes," according to Karl Popper. In such a society, people are haunted by fear and uncertainty. A healthy society must be different.

What is inequality? In its most general form, inequality means that people live in conditions in which they have unequal access to limited resources of material and spiritual consumption. To describe the system of inequality between groups of people in sociology, the concept of "social stratification" is widely used.

social stratification- (from Latin stratum - layer and facere - to make) in bourgeois sociology - a concept that denotes the main social differences and inequality (social differentiation) in modern society. Opposes the Marxist theory of classes and class struggle.

Bourgeois sociologists ignore property relations as the main feature of the class division of society. Instead of the main features of classes opposing each other, they single out derivative, secondary characteristics; while adjacent layers differ little from each other. Three directions prevail in the study of social stratification. The first puts forward social prestige as the leading criterion for distinguishing layers, embodied in a certain collective opinion about the "higher - lower" position of individuals and groups. The second considers people's self-assessments regarding their social position to be the main one. Thirdly, when describing the stratification, he uses such objective criteria as profession, income, education, etc. In essence, non-Marxist sociology does not distinguish between the main features by which classes and strata are divided, and additional ones.

The latter do not explain the essence, causal relationships of social differentiation, but only describe its consequences in different spheres of life. If at the empirical level, bourgeois scientists simply fix social inequality, approaching the problem of social stratification purely descriptively, then when they go on to explain the phenomenon of social stratification, they violate the principle of correspondence of levels of generalization, since a person’s position in society is explained through individual behavior, i.e. the social dissolves into the individual. Social stratification is a central theme in sociology. It explains social stratification into the poor, the wealthy and the rich. Considering the subject of sociology, one can find a close connection between the three fundamental concepts of sociology - social structure, social composition and social stratification. In Russian sociology, during his life in Russia and for the first time during his stay abroad (20s), P. Sorokin systematized and deepened a number of concepts that later acquired a key role in the theory of stratification (social mobility, “one-dimensional” and “ multidimensional stratification, etc. Social stratification, Sorokin notes, is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank.

It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. The structure can be expressed through a set of statuses and likened 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, consequently, 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.

But now we have filled the empty cells with people, each status has 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, in terms of 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 a disorderly collection of "iron filings". But then they put a magnet, 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 society's unequal assessment of the meaning and role of each status or group. A plumber or a janitor is valued lower than a lawyer and a minister. Consequently, high statuses and people occupying them are better rewarded, they have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, the level of education should also be higher. So we got the four main dimensions of stratification - income, power, education, prestige. And that's all, there are no others. Why? But because they exhaust the range of social benefits that people aspire to, more precisely, not the benefits themselves (there may be many of them), but the channels of access to them: a house abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a vacation in the Canary Islands, etc. - social goods that are always in short supply but 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 - about the social distribution of results. To understand the essence of social stratification and its features, it is necessary to conduct a general assessment of the problems of the Russian Federation.

social stratification

The sociological concept of stratification (from Latin stratum - layer, layer) reflects the stratification of society, differences in the social status of its members.

social stratification - it is a system of social inequality, consisting of hierarchically arranged social strata (strata). A stratum is understood as a set of people united by common status features.

Considering social stratification as a multidimensional, hierarchically organized social space, sociologists explain its nature and causes of origin in different ways. Thus, Marxist researchers believe that the social inequality that determines the stratification system of society is based on property relations, the nature and form of ownership of the means of production. According to the supporters of the functional approach (K. Davis and W. Moore), the distribution of individuals into social strata occurs in accordance with their contribution to the achievement of society's goals, depending on the importance of their professional activities. According to the theory of social exchange (J. Homans), inequality in society arises in the process of unequal exchange of the results of human activity.

To determine belonging to a particular social stratum, sociologists offer a variety of parameters and criteria.

One of the creators of the stratification theory, P. Sorokin, distinguished three types of stratification:

1) economic (according to the criteria of income and wealth);

2) political (according to the criteria of influence and power);

3) professional (according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).

In turn, the founder of structural functionalism T. Parsons identified three groups of signs of social stratification.

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.

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 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

Notes

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 multidimensional nature of this phenomenon. The stratification picture of society is multifaceted, it consists of several layers that do not completely coincide with each other.

IN 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 basic 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).

(from Lat. stratum - layer + facere - to do) is called the differentiation of people in society depending on access to power, profession, income and some other socially significant features. The concept of "stratification" was proposed by a sociologist (1889-1968), who borrowed it from the natural sciences, where it, in particular, denotes the distribution of geological layers.

Rice. 1. The main types of social stratification (differentiation)

The distribution of social groups and people by strata (layers) makes it possible to single out relatively stable elements of the structure of society (Fig. 1) in terms of access to power (politics), professional functions performed and income received (economy). Three main types of stratification are presented in history - castes, estates and classes (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Main historical types of social stratification

castes(from Portuguese casta - clan, generation, origin) - closed social groups connected by a common origin and legal status. Caste membership is determined solely by birth, and marriages between members of different castes are forbidden. The most famous is the caste system of India (Table 1), originally based on the division of the population into four varnas (in Sanskrit this word means “kind, genus, color”). According to legend, varnas were formed from different parts of the body of the primordial man, who was sacrificed.

Table 1. Caste system in ancient India

	Representatives	Associated body part
Brahmins	Scholars and priests
	Warriors and rulers
	Peasants and merchants
	"Untouchable", dependent persons

Estates - social groups whose rights and obligations, enshrined in law and tradition, are inherited. Below are the main estates characteristic of Europe in the 18th-19th centuries:

the nobility is a privileged class from among the large landowners and officials who have served themselves. An indicator of nobility is usually a title: prince, duke, count, marquis, viscount, baron, etc.;
clergy - ministers of worship and the church, with the exception of priests. In Orthodoxy, black clergy (monastic) and white (non-monastic) are distinguished;
merchant class - the trading class, which included the owners of private enterprises;
peasantry - the estate of farmers engaged in agricultural labor as the main profession;
philistinism - the urban class, consisting of artisans, small merchants and lower employees.

In some countries, a military estate was distinguished (for example, chivalry). In the Russian Empire, the Cossacks were sometimes referred to as a special estate. Unlike the caste system, marriages between members of different classes are permissible. It is possible (although difficult) to move from one class to another (for example, the purchase of the nobility by a merchant).

Classes(from lat. classis - category) - large groups of people, differing in their attitude to property. The German philosopher Karl Marx (1818-1883), who proposed the historical classification of classes, pointed out that an important criterion for distinguishing classes is the position of their members - oppressed or oppressed:

in a slave-owning society, such were slaves and slave-owners;
in feudal society, feudal lords and dependent peasants;
in capitalist society, the capitalists (the bourgeoisie) and the workers (the proletariat);
there will be no classes in a communist society.

In modern sociology, one often speaks of classes in the most general sense - as collections of people with similar life chances, mediated by income, prestige and power:

upper class: divided into upper upper class (rich people from "old families") and lower upper class (recently rich people);
middle class: divided into upper middle (professionals) and
lower middle (skilled workers and employees); The lower class is divided into an upper lower class (unskilled workers) and a lower lower class (lumpen and marginals).

The lower lower class are groups of the population that, for various reasons, do not fit into the structure of society. In fact, their representatives are excluded from the social class structure, so they are also called declassed elements.

The declassed elements include lumpen - vagabonds, beggars, beggars, as well as outcasts - those who have lost their social characteristics and have not acquired a new system of norms and values in return, for example, former factory workers who lost their jobs due to the economic crisis, or peasants, driven off the land during industrialization.

Strata - groups of people with similar characteristics in a social space. This is the most universal and broadest concept, which makes it possible to single out any fractional elements in the structure of society according to a set of various socially significant criteria. For example, strata such as elite specialists, professional entrepreneurs, government officials, office workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers, etc. are distinguished. Classes, estates and castes can be considered varieties of strata.

Social stratification reflects presence in society. It shows that strata exist in different conditions and people have different opportunities to meet their needs. Inequality is the source of stratification in society. Thus, inequality reflects differences in the access of representatives of each layer to social benefits, and stratification is a sociological characteristic of the structure of society as a set of layers.

The main feature of the human community is social inequality arising from social differences, social differentiation.

Social differences are called differences that are generated by social factors: the division of labor (workers of mental and physical labor), the way of life (urban and rural population), the functions performed, the level of prosperity, etc. Social differences are, first of all, status differences. They indicate the dissimilarity of the functions performed by a person in society, the different opportunities and positions of people, the discrepancy between their rights and obligations.

Social differences may or may not be compatible with natural ones. It is known that people differ in gender, age, temperament, height, hair color, intelligence level and many other characteristics. Differences between people, due to their physiological and mental characteristics, are called natural.

The leading trend in the evolution of any society is the multiplication of social differences, i.e. increasing their diversity. The process of growing social differences in society was called by G. Spencer "social differentiation".

This process is based on:

· the emergence of new institutions, organizations that help people jointly solve certain problems and at the same time dramatically complicate the system of social expectations, role interactions, and functional dependencies;

· the complication of cultures, the emergence of new value ideas, the development of subcultures, which leads to the emergence within the same society of social groups that adhere to different religious, ideological views, focusing on different forces.

Many thinkers have long tried to figure out whether a society can exist without social inequality, since too much injustice is due to social inequality: a narrow-minded person can be at the top of the social ladder, hardworking, gifted - all his life he can be content with a minimum of material wealth and constantly experience a dismissive attitude towards himself.

Differentiation is a property of society. Consequently, society reproduces inequality, considering it as a source of development and livelihood. Therefore, differentiation is a necessary condition for the organization of social life and performs a number of very important functions. On the contrary, universal equality deprives people of incentives to advance, the desire to apply their maximum efforts and abilities to fulfill their duties (they will consider that they receive no more for their work than they would receive if they did nothing all day).

What are the reasons that give rise to the differentiation of people in society? In sociology, there is no single explanation for this phenomenon. There are different methodological approaches to solving questions about the nature, origins and prospects of social differentiation.

functional approach (representatives T. Parsons, K. Davis, W. Moore) explain inequality based on the differentiation of social functions performed by different layers, classes, communities. The functioning and development of society is possible only thanks to the division of labor between social groups: one of them is engaged in the production of material goods, the other - in the creation of spiritual values, the third - in management, etc. For the normal functioning of society, an optimal combination of all types of human activity is necessary, but some of them, from the point of view of society, are more important, while others are less important.

On the basis of the hierarchy of significance of social functions, according to the supporters of the functional approach, a corresponding hierarchy of groups, classes, and layers performing these functions is formed. The top of the social ladder is invariably occupied by those who carry out the general leadership and administration of the country, because only they can maintain and ensure the unity of the country, create the necessary conditions for the successful implementation of other social functions. Top management positions should be filled by the most capable and qualified people.

However, the functional approach cannot explain the dysfunctions when certain roles are rewarded in no way in proportion to their weight and significance for society. For example, remuneration of persons employed in the service of the elite. Critics of functionalism emphasize that the conclusion about the usefulness of hierarchical construction contradicts the historical facts of clashes, conflicts of strata, which led to difficult situations, explosions and sometimes threw society back.

The functional approach also does not allow explaining the recognition of the individual as belonging to the highest stratum in the absence of his direct participation in management. That is why T. Parsons, considering the social hierarchy as a necessary factor, links its configuration with the system of dominant values in society. In his understanding, the location of social strata on the hierarchical ladder is determined by the ideas formed in society about the significance of each of them and, therefore, can change as the value system itself changes.

The functional theory of stratification comes from:

1) the principle of equal opportunities;

2) the principle of survival of the fittest;

3) psychological determinism, according to which individual psychological qualities predetermine success in work - motivation, the need for achievement, intelligence, etc.

4) the principles of work ethics, according to which success in work is a sign of God's grace, failure is the result of only a lack of good qualities, etc.

As part of conflict approach (represented by K. Marx, M. Weber) inequality is seen as the result of class struggle for the redistribution of material and social resources. Representatives of Marxism, for example, call private property the main source of inequality, which gives rise to the social stratification of society, the emergence of antagonistic classes that have an unequal relationship to the means of production. The exaggeration of the role of private property in the social stratification of society led K. Marx and his orthodox followers to the conclusion that it is possible to eliminate social inequality by establishing public ownership of the means of production.

The theory of social stratification by M. Weber is based on the theory of K. Marx, which he modifies and develops. According to M. Weber, the class approach depends not only on control over the means of production, but also on economic differences that are not directly related to property. These resources include skills, credentials and qualifications that determine employment opportunities.

The theory of stratification by M. Weber is based on three factors, or measurements (three components of social inequality):

1) economic status, or wealth, as the totality of all material values belonging to a person, including his income, land and other types of property;

2) political status, or power as an opportunity to subordinate other people to one's will;

3) prestige - the basis of social status - as recognition and respect for the merits of the subject, a high assessment of his actions, which are a role model.

The differences between the teachings of Marx and Weber lie in the fact that Marx considered ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of labor as the main criteria for the formation of classes, while Weber considered ownership of the means of production and the market. For Marx, classes existed always and everywhere, where and when there was exploitation and private property, i.e. when the state existed, and capitalism only in modern times. Weber associated the concept of class only with capitalist society. Class for Weber is inextricably linked with the exchange of goods and services through money. Where there are none, there are no classes. Market exchange acts as a regulator of relations only under capitalism; therefore, classes exist only under capitalism. That is why traditional society is the arena of action of status groups, and only modern society is of classes. According to Weber, classes cannot appear where there are no market relations.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the tendency to synthesize functional and conflict approaches became widespread. It found its fullest expression in the works of American scientists Gerhard and Zhdin Lenski, who formulated evolutionary approach to the analysis of social differentiation. They showed that stratification was not always necessary and useful. In the early stages of development, there was practically no hierarchy. Later it appeared as a result of natural needs, partly on the basis of the conflict that arises as a result of the distribution of the surplus product. In an industrial society, it is based mainly on the consensus of values of those in power and ordinary members of society. In this regard, rewards are both fair and unfair, and stratification can promote or hinder development, depending on specific historical conditions and situations.

Most modern sociologists emphasize that social differentiation is hierarchical and is a complex, multifaceted social stratification.

social stratification- the division of society into vertically located social groups and strata (strata), the placement of people in the status hierarchy from top to bottom according to four main criteria of inequality: prestige of the profession, unequal income, access to power, level of education.

The term "stratification" comes from the Latin stratum- layer, layer and fatio - I do. Thus, in the etymology of the word, the task is not simply to identify group diversity, but to determine the vertical sequence of the position of social strata, layers in society, their hierarchy. Some authors often replace the concept of "stratum" with other terms: class, caste, estate.

Stratification is a feature of any society. Reflects the presence of upper and lower strata of society. And its basis and essence is the uneven distribution of privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social laws and influence on power.

One of the authors of the theory of social stratification was P. Sorokin. He outlined it in the work "Social Stratification and Mobility". According to P. Sorokin, social stratification - it is the differentiation of the entire set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata, Its basis and essence - in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of society.

Sorokin P. pointed out the impossibility of giving a single criterion for belonging to any stratum and noted the presence in society of three stratification grounds (respectively, three types of criteria, three forms of social stratification): economic, professional and political. They are closely intertwined, but do not merge completely, so Sorokin spoke about economic, political and professional strata and classes. If an individual moved from the lower class to the middle class, increased his income, then he made the transition, moved in the economic space.

If he changed his profession or occupation - in the professional, if the party affiliation - in the 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 vice versa, a politician who made a dizzying career could not be the owner of capital, which, nevertheless, did not prevent him from moving in the upper strata of society. Professional stratification manifests itself in two main forms: a hierarchy of professional groups (interprofessional stratification) and stratification in the middle of professional groups.

The theory of social stratification was created in the early 40s. 20th century American sociologists Talcott Parsons, Robert-King Merton, K. Davis and other scientists who believed that the vertical classification of people is caused by the distribution of functions in society. In their opinion, social stratification ensures the allocation of social strata according to certain characteristics important for a particular society: the nature of property, income, power, education, prestige, national and other features. The social stratification approach is both a methodology and a theory for considering the social structure of society.

It adheres to the basic principles:

Compulsory research of all strata of society;

The use of a single criterion for their comparison;

Sufficiency of criteria for a complete and in-depth analysis of each of the studied social stratum.

Subsequently, sociologists have made repeated attempts to expand the number of grounds for stratification at the expense of, for example, the level of education. The stratification picture of society is multifaceted, it consists of several layers that do not completely coincide with each other.

Critics of the Marxist concept opposed the absolutization of the criterion of relation to the means of production, property and a simplified idea of the social structure as the interaction of two classes. They referred to the diversity of strata, to the fact that history provides an example not only of the aggravation of relations between strata, but also of convergence, erasure of contradictions.

The Marxist doctrine of classes as the basis of the social structure of society in modern Western sociology is opposed by more productive theories of social stratification. Representatives of these theories argue that the concept of "class" in the modern post-industrial society "does not work", because in modern conditions, on the basis of wide corporatization, as well as the exit of the main owners of shares from the management sphere and replacing them with hired managers, property relations turned out to be blurred, as a result, they have lost their former significance.

Therefore, representatives of the theory of social stratification believe that the concept of "class" in modern society should be replaced by the concept of "stratum" or the concept of "social group", and the theory of the social class structure of society should be replaced by a more flexible theory of social stratification.

It should be noted that almost all modern theories of social stratification are based on the idea that a stratum (social group) is a real, empirically fixed social community that unites people in some common positions, which leads to the constitution of this community in the social structure of society and opposition other social communities. Thus, the basis of the theory of social stratification is the principle of uniting people into groups and opposing them to other groups according to status signs: power, property, professional, educational.

At the same time, leading Western sociologists offer different criteria for measuring social stratification. The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, when considering this issue, took into account not only economic capital, measured in terms of property and income, but also cultural (education, special knowledge, skills, lifestyle), social (social ties), symbolic (authority, prestige, reputation). The German-English sociologist R. Dahrendorf proposed his own model of social stratification, which was based on such a concept as "authority".

Based on this, he divides the entire modern society into managers and managed. In turn, he divides managers into two subgroups: managing owners and managing non-owners, that is, bureaucratic managers. The controlled group is also divided into two subgroups: the highest - the "working aristocracy" and the lowest - low-skilled workers. Between these two social groups lies an intermediate "new middle class".

American sociologist B. Barber stratifies society according to six indicators:

1) the prestige of the profession, power and might;

2) income or wealth;

3) education or knowledge;

4) religious or ritual purity;

5) the situation of relatives;

6) ethnicity.

The French sociologist A. Touraine believes that in modern society social differentiation is carried out not in relation to property, prestige, power, ethnicity, but in relation to access to information. The dominant position is occupied by people who have access to the greatest amount of information.

In American society, W. Warner singled out three classes (upper, middle and lower), each of which consists of two layers.

Upper upper class. The "pass" to this layer is the inherited wealth and social fame of the family; as a rule, these are old settlers whose fortunes have increased over several generations. They are very rich, but they don't flaunt their wealth. The social position of representatives of this elite stratum is so secure that they can deviate from accepted norms without fear of losing their status.

lower upper class . These are professionals in their field, receiving extremely high income. They earned, not inherited their position. These are active people with a lot of material symbols that emphasize their status: the biggest houses in the best areas, the most expensive cars, swimming pools, etc.

upper middle class . These are people for whom the main thing is a career. High professional, scientific training or business management experience can become the basis of a career. Representatives of this class are very demanding about the education of their children, they are characterized by somewhat exposed consumption. A house in a prestigious area for them is the main sign of their success and their prosperity.

lower middle class . Typical Americans who are an example of respectability, conscientious attitude to work, fidelity to cultural norms and standards. Representatives of this class also attach great importance to the prestige of their home.

Upper lower class . People leading ordinary lives filled with events that repeat day after day. Representatives of this class live in non-prestigious areas of the city, in small houses or apartments. This class includes builders, auxiliary workers and others whose labor is devoid of creativity. They are only required to have a secondary education and some skills; they usually work by hand.

lower lower class . People who are in extreme distress, having problems with the law. These include, in particular, immigrants of non-European origin. The lower class person rejects the norms of the middle classes and tries to live for today, spending most of his income on food and shopping on credit.

The experience of using Warner's stratification model showed that in the presented form it in most cases does not correspond to the countries of Eastern Europe, Russia and Ukraine, where a different social structure is formed in the course of historical processes.

The social structure of Ukrainian society, based on the sociological studies of N. Rimashevskaya, can be represented in general terms as follows.

1." All-Ukrainian elite groups", which unite in their hands the property in the amount equivalent to the largest Western countries, and also own the means of power influence at the national level.

2. " Regional and corporate elites”, which have a significant Ukrainian position and influence at the level of regions and entire industries or sectors of the economy.

3. The Ukrainian "upper middle class", which owns property and incomes that provide Western standards of consumption as well. Representatives of this stratum strive to improve their social status, focus on the established practice and ethical standards of economic relations.

4. The Ukrainian "dynamic middle class", which owns incomes that ensure the satisfaction of average Ukrainian and higher standards of consumption, and is also characterized by a relatively high potential adaptability, significant social aspirations and motivations, and an orientation towards legal ways of its manifestation.

5. "Outsiders", which are characterized by low adaptation and social activity, low incomes and orientation towards legal ways of obtaining it.

6. "Marginals", which are characterized by low adaptation, as well as asocial and antisocial attitudes in their socio-economic activities.

7. "Criminal society", which is characterized by high social activity and adaptability, but at the same time fully consciously and rationally opposes the legal norms of economic activity.

So, social stratification is a reflection of vertical inequality in society. Society organizes and reproduces inequality on several grounds: in terms of wealth, wealth and income, prestige of status groups, political power, education, etc. It can be argued that all types of hierarchy are significant for society, since they allow both to regulate the reproduction of social ties and direct personal aspirations, ambitions of people to acquire significant status for society.

It is necessary to distinguish between two concepts - ranging And stratification . Ranking has two aspects - objective and subjective. When we talk about the objective side of ranking, we mean visible, visible to the eye differences between people. Subjective ranking implies our tendency to compare people, somehow evaluate them. Any action of this kind is related to ranking. Ranking ascribes to phenomena and individuals a certain value, a price, and thanks to this it builds them into a meaningful system.

Ranking reaches its maximum in a society where individuals have to openly compete with each other. For example, the market objectively compares not only goods, but also people, primarily on the basis of their individual abilities.

The result of the ranking is a ranking system. Rank indicates the relative position of an individual or group within a ranking system. Any group - large or small - can be considered as a single ranking system.

The American sociologist E. Braudel proposes to distinguish, using the ranking criterion, individual and group stratification. If individuals are ranked in ranks regardless of their group affiliation, then we get individual stratification. If the set of different groups is ordered in a certain way, then we can get group stratification.

When a scientist takes into account only the objective side of ranking, he uses the concept of stratification. Thus, stratification is an objective aspect or result of ranking. Stratification indicates the order of ranking, the relative position of the ranks, their distribution within the ranking system.

Individual stratification is characterized by the following features:

1. The order of ranks is based on one criterion. For example, a football player should be judged by his game on the field, but not by wealth or religious beliefs, a scientist by the number of publications, a teacher by his success with students.

1. Ranking can also take into account the economic context: an excellent football player and an outstanding scientist should receive high salaries.

2. Unlike group stratification, individual stratification does not exist permanently. It works for a short time.

3. Individual stratification is based on personal achievement. But apart from personal qualities, individuals are ranked and valued according to the reputation of their family or the group to which they belong, say, a wealthy family or scientists.

In group stratification, it is not individual individuals that are evaluated and ranked, but entire groups, for example, a group of slaves is valued low, and the noble class is highly valued.

The English sociologist E. Giddens distinguishes four historical types of stratification: slavery, castes, estates, classes.

Thus, the main idea of the theory of stratification is the eternal inequality of individuals and groups in society, which cannot be overcome, since inequality is an objective feature of society, the source of its development (in contrast to the Marxist approach, which assumed the social homogeneity of society in the future).

Modern theories of social stratification, which put forward certain criteria for the division of society into social strata (groups), serve as a methodological basis for the formation of the theory of social mobility.