Stratification levels. Types of social stratification

In sociological research, the theory of social stratification does not have a single integral form. It is based on diverse concepts relating to the theory of classes, social masses and elites, both complementary and inconsistent with each other. The main criteria that determine the historical types of stratification are property relations, rights and obligations, the system of subordination, etc.

Basic concepts of stratification theories

Stratification is a “hierarchically organized interaction of groups of people” (Radaev V.V., Shkaratan O.I., “Social stratification”). The criteria for differentiation in relation to the historical type of stratification include:

• physical and genetic;
• slaveholding;
• caste;
• estate;
• etacratic;
• socio-professional;
• class;
• cultural and symbolic;
• cultural and normative.

At the same time, all historical types of stratification will be determined by their own criterion of differentiation and the method of highlighting differences. Slavery, for example, as a historical type, will single out the rights of citizenship and property as the main criterion, and bondage and military coercion as a method of determination.

In the most generalized form, the historical types of stratification can be represented as follows: table 1.

It should be noted that the historical types of stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes - do not always have clear boundaries between themselves. So, for example, the concept of caste is used mainly for the Indian stratification system. We will not meet the category of Brahmins in any other Brahmins (they are also priests) were endowed with special rights and privileges that no other category of citizens had. It was believed that the priest speaks on behalf of God. According to Indian tradition, the Brahmins were created from the mouth of the God Brahma. Warriors were created from his hands, the main of which was considered the king. At the same time, a person belonged to one or another caste from birth and could not change it.

On the other hand, the peasants could act both as a separate caste and as an estate. At the same time, they could also be divided into two groups - simple and rich (prosperous).

The concept of social space

The well-known Russian sociologist Pitirim Sorokin (1989-1968), exploring the historical types of stratification (slavery, castes, classes), singles out “social space” as a key concept. In contrast to the physical, in the social space, subjects located next to each other can simultaneously be located on completely different levels. And vice versa: if certain groups of subjects belong to the historical type of stratification, then it is not at all necessary that they are territorially located next to each other (Sorokin P., "Man. Civilization. Society").

The social space in Sorokin's concept has a multidimensional character, including cultural, religious, professional and other vectors. This space is all the more extensive, the more complex the society and the identified historical types of stratification (slavery, castes, etc.) are. Sorokin also considers the vertical and horizontal levels of the division of social space. The horizontal level includes political associations, professional activities, etc. The vertical level includes the differentiation of individuals in terms of their hierarchical position in the group (leader, deputy, subordinates, parishioners, electorate, etc.).

Sorokin singles out such forms of social stratification as political, economic, professional. Within each of them there is additionally its own stratification system. In turn, the French sociologist (1858-1917) considered the system of division of subjects within a professional group from the point of view of the specifics of their work activity. As a special function of this division is the creation between two or more individuals of a sense of solidarity. At the same time, he ascribes to it a moral character (E. Durkheim, “The Function of the Division of Labor”).

Historical types of social stratification and the economic system

In turn, the American economist (1885-1972), who considers social stratification within the framework of economic systems, singles out the maintenance / improvement of the social structure, stimulating social progress as one of the key functions of economic organizations (Knight F., "Economic organization").

The American-Canadian economist of Hungarian origin Carl Polanyi (1886-1964) writes about the special connection between the economic sphere and social stratification for the subject: their social rights and benefits. He values ​​material objects only insofar as they serve this purpose ”(K. Polanyi,“ Societies and Economic Systems ”).

Class theory in sociological science

Despite a certain similarity of characteristics, it is customary in sociology to differentiate the historical types of stratification. Classes, for example, should be separated from the concept. Social stratum means social differentiation within a hierarchically organized society (Radaev V.V., Shkaratan O.I., “Social stratification”). In turn, the social class is a group of politically and legally free citizens.

The most famous example of class theory is usually attributed to the concept of Karl Marx, which is based on the doctrine of the socio-economic formation. The change of formations leads to the emergence of new classes, a new system of interaction and production relations. In the Western sociological school, there are a number of theories that define class as a multidimensional category, which, in turn, leads to the danger of blurring the line between the concepts of “class” and “stratum” (Zhvitiashvili A. S., “Interpretation of the concept of “class” in modern Western sociology").

From the standpoint of other sociological approaches, historical types of stratification also imply a division into upper (elitist), middle, and lower classes. There are also possible variations of this division.

The concept of an elite class

In sociology, the concept of elite is perceived rather ambiguously. For example, in the stratification theory of Randall Collins (1941), a group of people stands out as an elite, managing a lot of people, while taking into account few people (Collins R. "Stratification through the prism of the theory of conflict"). (1848-1923), in turn, divides society into an elite (the highest stratum) and a non-elite. The elite class also consists of 2 groups: the ruling and non-ruling elite.

Collins refers to the representatives of the upper class as heads of government, army leaders, influential businessmen, etc.

The ideological characteristics of these categories are determined, first of all, by the duration of this class in power: “To feel ready for submission becomes the meaning of life, and disobedience is considered in this environment as something unthinkable” (Collins R., “Stratification through the prism of the theory of conflict”). It is belonging to this class that determines the degree of power that an individual has as its representative. At the same time, power can be not only political, but also economic, religious and ideological. In turn, these forms can be interconnected.

The specificity of the middle class

It is customary to include the so-called circle of performers in this category. The specificity of the middle class is such that its representatives simultaneously occupy a dominant position over some subjects and a subordinate position in relation to others. The middle class also has its own internal stratification: the upper middle class (performers who deal only with other performers, as well as large, formally independent businessmen and professionals who depend on good relationships with customers, partners, suppliers, etc.) and the lower middle class ( administrators, managers - those who are on the lower frontier in the system of power relations).

A. N. Sevastyanov characterizes the middle class as anti-revolutionary. According to the researcher, this fact is explained by the fact that the representatives of the middle class have something to lose - in contrast to the revolutionary class. What the middle class seeks to acquire can be obtained without a revolution. In this regard, representatives of this category are indifferent to the issues of restructuring society.

Working class category

The historical types of social stratification of society from the standpoint of classes distinguish the class of workers (the lowest class in the hierarchy of society) into a separate category. Its representatives are not included in the organizational communication system. They are directed to the immediate present, and their dependent position forms a certain aggressiveness in their perception and evaluation of the social system.

The lower class is characterized by an individualistic attitude towards themselves and their own interests, the absence of stable social ties and contacts. This category is made up of temporary laborers, permanent unemployed, beggars, etc.

Domestic approach in the theory of stratification

In Russian sociological science, there are also different views on the historical types of stratification. Estates and their differentiation in society is the basis of socio-philosophical thinking in pre-revolutionary Russia, which subsequently caused controversy in the Soviet state until the 60s of the twentieth century.

With the beginning of the Khrushchev thaw, the issue of social stratification falls under strict ideological control by the state. The basis of the social structure of society is the class of workers and peasants, and a separate category is the stratum of the intelligentsia. The idea of ​​“rapprochement of classes” and the formation of “social homogeneity” is constantly supported in the public mind. At that time, the topics of bureaucracy and nomenklatura were hushed up in the state. The beginning of active research, the object of which was the historical types of stratification, is laid in the perestroika period with the development of glasnost. The introduction of market reforms into the economic life of the state revealed serious problems in the social structure of Russian society.

Characteristics of the marginalized strata of the population

The category of marginality also occupies a separate place in sociological stratification theories. Within the framework of sociological science, this concept is usually understood as “an intermediate position between social structural units, or the lowest position in the social hierarchy” (Galsanamzhilova O.N., “On the issue of structural marginality in Russian society”).

In this concept, it is customary to distinguish two types: The latter characterizes the intermediate position of the subject in the transition from one social status position to another. This type can be a consequence of the subject's social mobility, as well as the result of a change in the social system in society with fundamental changes in the subject's lifestyle, type of activity, etc. Social ties are not destroyed. A characteristic feature of this type is a certain incompleteness of the transition process (in some cases, it is difficult for the subject to adapt to the conditions of the new social system of society - a kind of “freezing” occurs).

Signs of peripheral marginality are: the absence of an objective belonging of the subject to a certain social community, the destruction of his past social ties. In various sociological theories, this type of population can bear such names as "outsiders", "outcasts", "outcasts" (some authors - "declassed elements"), etc. Within the framework of modern stratification theories, studies of status inconsistency - inconsistencies, mismatch of certain social and status characteristics (income level, profession, education, etc.). All this leads to an imbalance in the stratification system.

Theory of stratification and an integrated approach

The modern theory of the stratification system of society is in a state of transformation, caused both by a change in the specifics of pre-existing social categories and the formation of new classes (primarily due to socio-economic reforms).

In sociological theory, which considers the historical types of stratification of society, a significant moment is not a reduction to one dominant social category (as is the case with class theory within the framework of Marxist teaching), but a broad analysis of all possible structures. A separate place should be given to an integrated approach that considers individual categories of social stratification from the point of view of their relationship. In this case, the question arises of the hierarchy of these categories and the nature of their influence on each other as elements of a common social system. The solution of this issue involves the study of various stratification theories in the framework of a comparative analysis that compares the key points of each of the theories.

If we look at the social structure of society as a complex of social groups that are strikingly different from each other, sociologists are obliged to answer the question of how to distinguish these groups from each other. Stratification studies this issue in social science. This is a system of verified features, according to which an individual is assigned to a certain group. It is about this social phenomenon that we will talk today.

Theory of stratification

In order to be able to distinguish between social groups, as well as to study them, the theory of social stratification was developed in the early 40s of the twentieth century. T. Parsons, R. Merton, K. Davis, W. Moore worked on its creation. Sociologists assured that stratification in social science is a process that was provoked by the spread of executable functions necessary for the life of society. According to them, due to social stratification in society, it is possible to distinguish ordered layers that were formed on the basis of important features.

It should also not be forgotten that the approach of social stratification is both a method and methodology for studying the social structure of society. It is based on the principles:

• Mandatory research of all public spending.
• The need to apply the same criteria in a comparative analysis.
• Applying a sufficient number of criteria that will allow for a deep analysis of the social stratum.

About stratification

The concept of "stratification" was taken from geology by Pitirim Sorokin. In social science, stratification is a process of social reproduction, during which all layers, classes, castes and groups are unequal, therefore they are forced to be placed in a hierarchical order. In other words, social stratification is the division of society into different groups of people who are united according to the same criteria. The main criteria for stratification in social science are the level of income, access to power and knowledge, the nature of work, and leisure activities.

Thus, economic, professional and political stratification are distinguished. But that's not all, stratification in social science is a source that allows you to determine the stable elements of the social structure. In the course of historical development, three types of stratification were formed.

castes

One of these types are castes. Literally translated from Portuguese, this word means "origin". That is, castes are understood as closed groups that are connected by origin and status. To become a member of this association, you need to be born in it, moreover, there is no possibility for representatives of different castes to marry. Simply put, the caste system is very limited, this is a place for those who are just lucky.

The most famous caste system is considered to be an example of stratification in India. According to legend, society was originally divided into 4 varnas, which were created from different parts of the body, symbolizing a person. So, the “mouths” of the society were brahmins (priests and scholars). The "hands" were kshatriyas (leaders and soldiers). The role of the "torso" was played by vaishyas (merchants and villagers), and the "feet" were considered sudras (dependent persons).

Estates

Another type of stratification in social science is called "estate". This is a special group of people whose rules of conduct, duties and rights are inherited. In contrast to the caste system, it is easier to become part of a certain estate, since this is a conscious choice of a person, and not the result of a fatal combination of circumstances. In the countries of Europe of the 18th-19th centuries, the following system of estates existed:

• Nobility - groups of people with special privileges, they were usually given different titles, such as duke, baron, prince, etc.
• Clergy - if you exclude the priests, then all the rest who served the church were considered clergy. In turn, it was divided into two types: “black” - all the monastic brethren, “white” - non-monastic people who remained faithful to church dogmas.
• Merchants - a cohort of people engaged in trade.
• Peasantry - people whose basis of labor activity was agriculture and agricultural labor.
• Philistinism - groups of people who live in cities, are engaged in crafts, trade or are in the service.

Classes

The definition of stratification in social science is impossible without the concept of "class". By class is meant a group of people that is distinguished by freedom of access to property. For the first time such a concept was introduced into social science by Karl Marx, he said that the position of an individual in society is determined by his access to material goods. This is how class disparities arose. If we look at specific historical examples, then only two classes were defined in the slave-owning community: slaves and their masters. The main strata of feudal society were the feudal lords and the peasants dependent on them.

However, in modern sociological sciences, classes are groups of individuals who are similar according to the criteria of political, economic, and socio-cultural affiliation. Therefore, in every modern society we can distinguish:

• Upper class (elite or rich people).
• Middle class (professionals in their field, employees, workers with qualifications).
• Lower class (unskilled workers, marginalized).
• Underclass (people at the very "bottom" of the system).

strata

Thus, we can say that the units of social stratification are strata - groups of people who are united according to a certain attribute. The concept of "stratum" is the most universal term that can be used to characterize both large classes of people and small groups that are united according to one criterion.

As for examples of stratification in social science, these can be representatives of the elite and the masses. As Pareto said, in every society there are 20% of the elite - people who lead the public order and prevent the emergence of anarchy. And 80% of the so-called masses are ordinary people who do not have access to public power.

Stratification is the criterion that is an indicator of the inequality that prevails in society. The division into groups shows how different conditions people live in society. They have different potential and access to social benefits. But in spite of everything, it is only through stratification that a detailed characterization of the social structure can be obtained.

Mobility

In social science, social stratification and mobility are inextricably linked concepts. Mobility refers to dynamic change. As Pitirim Sorokin said: “Social mobility is the process of moving an individual or another object (norm, value) to a different social plane.”

For example, a person can change his position in society, and at the same time begin to belong to another class. A good example of quality social mobility would be the banal story of how a poor guy became a millionaire.

Like social stratification, mobility has its varieties. First of all, vertical and horizontal mobility are distinguished.

Vertical mobility

Vertical mobility is a process that is characterized by changes that can be described as "better than what was" or "worse than what was". For example, a person received a promotion at work, a salary increase, or a higher education. These are positive changes, which are called upward mobility.

An example of downward mobility would be a dismissal, a demotion, or any other situation that changes circumstances for the worse.

Horizontal mobility

In addition to vertical mobility, there is also horizontal dynamics. If in the first case a person had the opportunity to move within his stratum, then in this case he moves exclusively within his own stratum.

For example, a programmer changed his job and moved to another city. He still belongs to the middle class of the population, he just changed his territorial position. Or if a person changes the specifics of work without a significant increase in earnings. For example, he worked as a secretary, and became an assistant accountant. The specifics of the work seem to be different, there are more responsibilities, and the salary has not changed significantly. Therefore, we can say that mobility is considered horizontal if a person changes his social group to one that is located at the same level.

Intergenerational and intragenerational mobility

This concept is more common in the countries of America, in particular in the States, where the public is of the opinion that the next generation should live better than the previous one. And anarchy is understood not as anarchy, which Durkheim spoke of, but as a discrepancy between needs and resources.

Intergenerational mobility is determined by the process in which a child occupies a better or worse position in society than his parents. For example, if the parents were low-skilled workers and their child became a scientist, this is positive intergenerational mobility.

Intragenerational mobility is determined by the change in social status throughout the life span, regardless of the achievements of the parents.

Groups and people

Exploring the concepts of social mobility and stratification, it is difficult not to note such definitions as individual and group dynamics.

Group mobility deserves special attention - a dynamic process in which an entire estate, caste or class changes its position in society. For example, after the collapse of the USSR, when many factories stopped, engineers became unclaimed. A whole class of engineers was forced to change their specialization in a short time. This kind of mobility is a characteristic feature of societies that are in a state of total change.

With individual mobility, each person independently changes his belonging to a particular stratum.

conclusions

In general, studies show that social mobility is influenced by the political regime, the stages of modernization, and the socio-economic situation in the society. As well as the characteristics of the individual himself: his education, character, etc.

But what is stratification in social science? In simple terms, this is the division of society into rich and poor. And only then these rich and poor can be divided into strata with different characteristics. The social structure in any society is the main criterion that helps the society to evolve. Due to which strata prevail in a particular society, it is possible to determine which development strategy suits it best.

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 management 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 the struggle of classes 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 the skills, credentials and qualifications that determine employment opportunities.

M. Weber's theory of stratification 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.

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.

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.