Theory of social stratification and social mobility. P.A.'s theory of social stratification

P. Sorokin's theory of stratification was first presented in his work "Social mobility" (1927), which is considered a classic work in this area.

social stratification, according to Sorokin, is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. Its basis and essence is in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community.

The whole variety of social stratification can be reduced to three main forms - economic, political and professional, which are closely intertwined. This means that those who belong to the highest stratum in one respect usually belong to the same stratum in another dimension; and vice versa. This happens in most cases, but not always. According to Sorokin, the interdependence of the three forms of social stratification is far from complete, because the various layers of each form do not quite coincide with each other, or rather, coincide only partially. Sorokin first called this phenomenon a status mismatch. It lies in the fact that a person can occupy a high position in one stratification and a low position in another. Such a discrepancy is painfully experienced by people and can serve as an incentive for some to change their social position, to lead to social mobility of the individual.

Considering professional stratification, Sorokin singled out interprofessional and intraprofessional stratification.

There are two universal grounds for interprofessional stratification:

§ the importance of the occupation (profession) for the survival and functioning of the group as a whole;
§ the level of intelligence necessary for the successful performance of professional duties.

Sorokin concludes that in any given society, the more professional work consists in the exercise of the functions of organization and control and requires a higher level of intelligence for its performance and accordingly implies the privilege of the group and its higher rank, which it occupies in the interprofessional hierarchy.

Sorokin represented intraprofessional stratification as follows:

§ entrepreneurs;
§ employees of the highest category (directors, managers, etc.);
§ hired workers.

To characterize the professional hierarchy, he introduced the following indicators:

§ height;
§ number of storeys (number of ranks in the hierarchy);
§ occupational stratification profile (the ratio of the number of people in each occupational subgroup to all members of the occupational group).

Sorokin defined social mobility as any transition of an individual or a social object (value, i.e. everything created or modified by human activity) from one social position to another (Fig. 3).

Rice. 3.

Under horizontal social mobility, or displacement, implies the transition of an individual from one social group to another, located at the same level.

Under vertical social mobility refers to those relationships that arise when an individual moves from one social stratum to another. Depending on the direction of movement, upward and downward vertical mobility is distinguished, i.e. social ascent and social descent.

Updrafts exist in two main forms:

§ the penetration of the individual from the lower layer into the existing higher layer;
§ the creation of a new group and the penetration of the entire group into a higher layer to the level with the already existing groups of this layer.

Downdrafts also have two forms:

§ the fall of an individual from a higher social position to a lower one without destroying the original group to which the individual previously belonged;
§ degradation of the social group as a whole, lowering its rank against the background of other groups or the destruction of its social unity.

Sorokin called the reasons for vertical group mobility wars, revolutions, foreign conquests, which contribute to changing the criteria for stratification in society and change group status. An important reason may also be a change in the importance of a particular type of labor, industry.

The most important channels that ensure the social circulation of individuals in society are such social institutions as the army, school, political, economic and professional organizations.

1. Concepts and definitions

Social stratification is the differentiation of a certain set of people into classes in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and obligations, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community. Specific forms of social stratification are very diverse. If the economic status of members of a society is not the same, if there are both haves and have-nots among them, then such a society is characterized by the presence of economic stratification, regardless of whether it is organized on communist or capitalist principles, whether it is constitutionally defined as a "society of equals" or not . No labels, signs, oral statements are able to change or obscure the reality of the fact of economic inequality, which is expressed in the difference in incomes, living standards, in the existence of rich and poor sections of the population. If within a group there are hierarchically different ranks in terms of authority and prestige and honors, if there are rulers and ruled, then regardless of the terms (monarchs, bureaucrats, masters, bosses) this means that such a group politically differentiated, whatever it proclaims in its constitution or declaration. If the members of a society are divided into different groups according to the nature of their activity, occupation, and some professions are considered more prestigious in comparison with others, and if the members of a particular professional group are divided into leaders of various ranks and subordinates, then such a group professionally differentiated regardless of whether superiors are elected or appointed, whether their leadership positions are inherited or due to their personal qualities.

2. The main forms of social stratification and the relationship between them

The specific aspects of social stratification are numerous. However, all their diversity can be reduced to three main forms: economic, political and professional stratification. As a rule, they are all closely intertwined. People who belong to the highest stratum in one respect usually belong to the same stratum in other respects; and vice versa. Representatives of the highest economic strata simultaneously belong to the highest political and professional strata. The poor, as a rule, are disenfranchised and are in the lower strata of the professional hierarchy. This is the general rule, although there are many exceptions. So, for example, the richest are not always at the top of the political or professional pyramid, and the poor do not always occupy the lowest places in the political and professional hierarchy. And this means that the interdependence of the three forms of social stratification is far from perfect, because the various layers of each of the forms do not completely coincide with each other. Rather, they coincide with each other, but only partially, that is, to a certain extent. This fact does not allow us to analyze all three main forms of social stratification together. For greater pedantry, it is necessary to analyze each of the forms separately. The real picture of the social stratification of any society is very complex and confusing. To facilitate the analysis process, only the main, most important properties should be taken into account, in order to simplify, omitting details that do not distort the overall picture.

ECONOMIC STRATIFICATION

1. Two main types of fluctuation

Speaking about the economic status of a certain group, two main types of fluctuations should be distinguished. The first refers to the economic decline or rise of the group; the second - to the growth or reduction of economic stratification within the group itself. The first phenomenon is expressed in the economic enrichment or impoverishment of social groups as a whole; the second is expressed in a change in the economic profile of the group or in an increase or decrease in the height, so to speak, of steepness, of the economic pyramid. Accordingly, there are the following two types of fluctuations in the economic status of a society:

I. Fluctuation of the economic status of the group as a whole:

a) an increase in economic well-being;

b) a decrease in the latter.

II. Fluctuations in the height and profile of economic stratification within society:

a) the rise of the economic pyramid;

b) flattening of the economic pyramid.

1. Hypotheses of constant height and profile of economic stratification and its growth in XIX century are not confirmed.

2. The most correct is the hypothesis of fluctuations in economic stratification from group to group, and within the same group - from one period of time to another. In other words, there are cycles in which increasing economic inequality is followed by its weakening.

3. Some periodicity is possible in these fluctuations, but for various reasons its existence has not yet been proven by anyone.

4. With the exception of the early stages of economic evolution, marked by an increase in economic stratification, there is no constant trend in fluctuations in the height and form of economic stratification.

5. A strict trend towards a decrease in economic inequality has not been found; there are no serious grounds for recognizing the existence of an opposite trend.

6. Under normal social conditions, the economic cone of a developed society fluctuates within certain limits. Its shape is relatively constant. Under extreme circumstances, these limits may be violated, and the profile of economic stratification may become either very flat or very convex and high. In both cases, this situation is short-lived. And if the "economically flat" society does not perish, then the "flatness" is quickly replaced by increased economic stratification. If economic inequality becomes too strong and reaches a point of overstrain, then the top of society is destined to collapse or be overthrown.

7. Thus, in any society at any time there is a struggle between the forces of stratification and the forces of equalization. The former work constantly and steadily, the latter - spontaneously, impulsively, using violent methods.

POLITICAL STRATIFICATION

So, as already noted, the universality and constancy of political stratification does not mean at all that it has always and everywhere been identical. Now the following problems should be discussed: a) does the profile and height of political stratification change from group to group, from one period of time to another; b) whether there are established limits for these fluctuations; c) frequency of oscillations; d) whether there is an eternally constant direction of these changes. In revealing all these questions, we must be extremely careful not to fall under the spell of eloquent eloquence. The problem is very complex. And it should be approached gradually, step by step.

1. Top of political stratification changes

Let's simplify the situation: for starters, let's take only the upper part of the political pyramid, which consists of free members of society. Let's leave for a while without attention all those layers that are below this level (servants, slaves, serfs, etc.). At the same time, we will not consider who? as? for what period? for what reasons? engaged in different layers of the political pyramid. Now the subject of our interest is the height and profile of the political edifice inhabited by the free members of society: is there a constant tendency in its changes to "level" (that is, to reduce the height and relief of the pyramid) or in the direction of "rise".

The generally accepted opinion is in favor of the "levelling" trend. People tend to take it for granted that there is an iron trend in history towards political equality and towards the destruction of political "feudalism" and hierarchy. Such a judgment is typical of the present moment. As G. Vollas rightly noted, “the political creed of the masses of people is not the result of reflections verified by experience, but a collection of unconscious or semi-conscious assumptions put forward out of habit. What is closer to reason is closer to the past, and how a stronger impulse allows you to quickly come to a conclusion ". As for the height of the upper part of the political pyramid, my arguments are as follows.

Among primitive tribes and at the early stages of the development of civilization, political stratification was insignificant and imperceptible. A few leaders, a layer of influential elders - and, perhaps, everything that was located above the layer of the rest of the free population. The political form of such a social organism somehow, only remotely, resembled a sloping and low pyramid. It rather approached a rectangular parallelepiped with a barely protruding elevation at the top. With the development and growth of social relations, in the process of unification of the originally independent tribes, in the process of natural demographic growth of the population, political stratification intensified, and the number of different ranks increased rather than decreased. The political cone began to grow, but did not even out. The four main ranks of the semi-civilized societies in the Sandwich Islands and the six classes among the New Zealanders may illustrate this initial increase in stratification. The same can be said about the earliest stages in the development of modern European peoples, about ancient Greek and Roman societies. Regardless of the further political evolution of all these societies, it seems obvious that their political hierarchy will never become as flat as it was in the early stages of the development of civilization. If this is the case, then it would be impossible to admit that in the history of political stratification there has been a constant trend towards political "levelling".

The second argument is that, whether we take the history of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, or modern European societies, it does not show that over time the pyramid of the political hierarchy becomes lower and the political cone flatter. In the history of Rome during the period of the republic, instead of several ranks of the archaic period, we see the highest pyramid of different ranks and titles, overlapping each other even in terms of privilege. Something similar is happening today. Specialists in constitutional law rightly point out that the US president clearly has more political rights than the European constitutional monarch. The execution of orders given by high officials to their subordinates, by generals to the lowest military ranks, is as categorical and obligatory as in any non-democratic country. Compliance with the orders of an officer of the highest rank in the American army is as mandatory as in any other army. There are differences in recruitment methods, but this does not mean that the political building of modern democracies is flat or less stratified than the political building of many non-democratic countries. Thus, as regards the political hierarchy among the citizens, I I do not see any trend in political evolution towards a lowering or flattening of the cone. Despite the various methods of recruiting upper class members in modern democracies, the political cone is now as high and stratified as at any other time, and certainly higher than in many less developed societies. Although I emphatically emphasize this point, I would not like to be misunderstood that I am asserting the existence of a reverse permanent tendency to increase the political hierarchy. This is in no way confirmed by anything. All that we see is "chaotic", undirected, "blind" fluctuations, leading neither to strengthening nor to weakening of political stratification...

Summary

1. The height of the profile of political stratification varies from country to country, from one period of time to another.

2. In these changes there is no constant tendency either to equalization or to an elevation of stratification.

3. There is no constant trend of transition from monarchy to republic, from autocracy to democracy, from minority rule to majority rule, from the absence of government intervention in society to comprehensive state control. There are also no reverse trends.

4. Among the many social forces contributing to political stratification, an important role is played by the increase in the size of the political body and the heterogeneity of the composition of the population.

5. The profile of political stratification is more mobile, and it fluctuates more widely, more often and more impulsively than the profile of economic stratification.

6. In any society there is a constant struggle between the forces of political alignment and the forces of stratification. Sometimes one force wins, sometimes another prevails. When the fluctuation of the profile in one of the directions becomes too strong and sharp, then the opposing forces increase their pressure in various ways and bring the stratification profile to the point of equilibrium.

PROFESSIONAL STRATIFICATION

1. Intraprofessional and interprofessional stratification

The existence of occupational stratification is established from two main groups of facts. It is obvious that certain occupational classes have always constituted the upper social strata, while other occupational groups have always been at the bottom of the social cone. The most important occupational classes do not lie horizontally, that is, on the same social level, but, so to speak, overlap each other. Secondly, the phenomenon of professional stratification is also found within each professional sphere. Whether we take the field of agriculture or industry, trade or management, or any other professions, people employed in these areas are stratified into many ranks and levels: from the upper ranks, which exercise control, to the lower ranks, which are controlled and which are subordinate to their "bosses" in a hierarchy. ", "directors", "authorities", "managers", "bosses", etc. Professional stratification, therefore, manifests itself in these two main forms: 1) in the form of a hierarchy of main professional groups (interprofessional stratification) and 2) in the form of stratification within each professional class (intraprofessional stratification).

2. Interprofessional stratification, its forms and foundations

The existence of interprofessional stratification manifested itself in different ways in the past and makes itself felt ambiguously now. In the bush society, it was expressed in the existence of lower and higher castes. According to the classical theory of caste hierarchy, caste-professional groups overlap rather than sit side by side on the same level.

There are four castes in India - Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Among them, each preceding one surpasses the next one in origin and status. The legitimate occupations of the Brahmins are education, teaching, performing sacrifices, performing worship, charity, inheritance and harvesting in the fields. The occupations of the kshatriyas are the same, with the exception of teaching and performing worship, and, perhaps, collecting donations. They are also assigned managerial functions and military duties. The legitimate occupations of the Vaisyas are the same as those of the Kshatriyas, with the exception of managerial and military duties. They are distinguished by agriculture, livestock breeding and trade. To serve all three castes is prescribed to the sudra. The higher the caste he serves, the higher his social dignity.

The actual number of castes in India is much higher. And therefore the professional hierarchy between them is extremely essential. In ancient Rome, among the eight guilds, the first three played a significant political role and were of paramount importance from a social point of view, and therefore were hierarchically higher than all the others. Their members made up the first two social classes. This stratification of professional corporations continued in a modified form throughout the history of Rome.

Consider the medieval guilds. Their members were not only stratified within the guilds themselves, but already at the dawn of their formation, more and less privileged guilds were formed. In France they were represented by the so-called "sixth corps", in England - by the trade guild. Among modern occupational groups, there also exists, if not legally, then in fact, interprofessional stratification. The essence of the problem is to determine whether there is any universal principle that underlies interprofessional stratification.

The foundation of interprofessional stratification. Whatever the various temporary bases of interprofessional stratification in different societies, next to these ever-changing bases there are constant and universal bases.

Two conditions, at least, have always been fundamental: 1) the importance of the lesson(professions) for the survival and functioning of the group as a whole, 2) intelligence level necessary for the successful performance of professional duties. Socially significant professions are those that are associated with the functions of organizing and controlling the group. These are people reminiscent of a locomotive driver, on whom the fate of all passengers on the train depends.

Professional groups that carry out the basic functions of social organization and control are placed at the center of the "engine of society." The bad behavior of a soldier may not greatly affect the entire army, the unscrupulous work of one worker has little effect on others, but the action of the army commander or group leader automatically affects the entire army or group whose actions he controls. Moreover, being at the control point of the "social engine", if only by virtue of such an objectively influential position, the corresponding social groups ensure for themselves the maximum of privileges and power in society. This alone explains the correlation between the social significance of a profession and its place in the hierarchy of professional groups. The successful performance of the socio-professional functions of organization and control naturally requires a higher level of intelligence than for any physical work of a routine nature. Accordingly, these two conditions turn out to be closely interrelated: the performance of the functions of organization and control requires a high level of intelligence, and a high level of intelligence is manifested in achievements (directly or indirectly) associated with the organization and control of the group. Thus, we can say that in in any given society, the more professional work lies in the exercise of the functions of organization and control and the higher level of intelligence required for its performance, the greater privilege of the group and the higher rank it occupies in the interprofessional hierarchy, and vice versa.

Four amendments should be added to this rule. First, the general rule does not rule out the possibility of overlapping the upper strata of the lower professional class with the lower strata of the next higher class. Secondly, the general rule does not apply to periods of disintegration of society. At such moments in history, the ratio can be broken. Such periods usually lead to a reversal, after which, if the group does not disappear, the former ratio is quickly restored. Exceptions, however, do not invalidate the rule. Thirdly, the general rule does not exclude deviations. Fourthly, since the concrete historical character of societies is different and their conditions change with time, it is quite natural that the specific content of professional occupations, depending on one or another general situation, changes. In times of war, the functions of social organization and control are to organize victory and military leadership. In peacetime, these functions are different. Such is the general principle of the stratification of occupational classes. Let us present facts confirming this general proposition.

First confirmation. The universal and permanent order is that the professional groups of unskilled workers have always been at the bottom of the professional pyramid. They were servants and serfs, they were the lowest paid workers, they had the least rights, the lowest standard of living, the lowest control function in society.

Second confirmation is that groups of manual workers have always been less paid, less privileged, less powerful than groups of knowledge workers. This fact shows itself in the general tendency of the masses of manual labor towards intellectual professions, while the opposite direction is rarely the result of free choice, but almost always determined by unpleasant necessity. This general hierarchy of mental and physical professions is well expressed in the classification of Professor F. Toussig. It says: at the top of the occupational pyramid we find a group of professions, including high-ranking officials, big businessmen; it is followed by a class of "semi-professionals" of small businessmen and employees; below is the class of "skilled labor"; next comes the class of "semi-skilled labor"; and, finally, the class of "unskilled labour". It is easy to see that this classification is based on the principle of a decrease in the intelligence and controlling power of the profession, simultaneously coinciding with a decrease in wages and a decrease in the social status of the profession in the hierarchy. This state of affairs is also confirmed by F. Barr with his "scale of professional status", built from the point of view of the level of intelligence necessary for a satisfactory occupation of the profession. In short form, it gives the following coefficients of intelligence necessary for the satisfactory performance of professional functions (recall that the number of intellectual indicators varies from 0 to 100).

Intelligence indices Professions

0 to 4.29 Odd jobs, itinerant workers, scavenging, repairmen,

Daytime activities, simple farm work, laundry work, etc.

From 5.41 to 6.93 Driver, peddler, shoemaker, hairdresser, etc.

From 7.05 to 10.83 General repairman, cook, farmer, policeman, builder, postman,

Bricklayer, plumber, carpet maker, potter, tailor, telegraph operator.

From 10.86 to 16.28 Detective, clerk, employee of a transport company, foreman, stenographer, bib-

Lyotekar, nurse, editor, primary and secondary school teacher, pharmacist,

University teacher, preacher, doctor, engineer, artist, architect, etc.

From 16.58 to 17.50 Wholesaler, consulting engineer, education system administrator,

Journalist, doctor, publisher, etc.

From 17.81 to 20.71 University professor, big businessman, great musician, nationwide

Officials, prominent writer, prominent researcher, innovator, etc.

The table shows that three variables - the "manual nature" of work, the low level of intelligence required for its performance, and the distant relation to the functions of social organization and control - they are all parallel and interrelated. On the other hand, we observe a similar parallelism among the "intellectual character" of professional work, the high level of intelligence required for its performance, and its connection with the functions of social organization and control. To this we can add that, moving from less "intellectual" to more "intellectual" occupations, there is an increase in the average level of income, despite some partial deviations from the general rule.

Third confirmation inherent in the very nature of the professions of those individuals and groups that make up the highest echelons of society; they have the highest prestige and represent the aristocracy of society. As a rule, the professions of these layers are in the functions of organization and control and, accordingly, require a high level of intelligence.

Such groups and individuals in history were:

1) Leaders, leaders, healers, priests, elders (they were the most privileged in preliterate societies). They, as a rule, were the smartest and most experienced people within the group. Being connected with the business of social organization and control in society, their occupations were higher than the professions of all other members of society. This can be seen from the fact that all the legendary leaders of the primitive tribes, such as Ocnirabata among the tribes of Central Australia, Manco Ccapach and Mama Occlelo among the Incas, To Cabinana among the natives of New Britain, Fu Hi among the Chinese, Moses among the Jews, and many others like them heroes of other nations are portrayed as great teachers, legislators, great innovators, judges - in short, great social organizers.

2) Accordingly, among the many groups, the most privileged were the occupations associated with the priesthood, military leadership, administrative and economic organization, and social control. There is no need to say that all these occupations, under the conditions of that time, had all the characteristics that I have noted above. "The Raja and the Brahmin, who are deeply versed in the Vedas, both maintain the moral order of the world. From the existence of the human race depends on them," says ancient wisdom.

The very survival and further development of society depended on a successful war; also depended on the high appraisal of a skilled leader in this field. The war urgently required leaders with great courage and endurance, with the ability to organize and control others, to make decisions quickly, while carefully considering them, to act decisively, purposefully and effectively.

The profession of a clergyman was no less important and vital for the whole group. The first priests embodied the highest knowledge, experience and wisdom. The clergy was the bearer of medical and natural knowledge, moral, religious and educational control, it was considered the ancestor of the applied sciences and arts; in short, it was the economic, mental, physical, social and moral organizer of society. As for the high position of the rulers in the professional cone of early societies, their "work" was directly related to social organization and control, was essential for the survival of the group.

3) At later stages of development, the aristocratic and intellectual "professions", whatever they were called, became bearers of the same types of activity in various forms of their manifestation. The king or president of the republic, the nobility or dignitaries of the republic, the pope, medieval clergy or modern scholastics, scientists, politicians, inventors, teachers, preachers, teachers and administrators, ancient or modern organizers of agriculture, industry, trade - all these professional groups were at the top of the interprofessional stratification of both past and present societies. Their titles may change, but their social functions remain the same. The functions of the monarch and the president of the republic, the functions of the medieval clergy and modern scientists, the scholastics and the intelligentsia, the functions of past farmers and merchants, modern captains and commerce are essentially similar. They are identical both in essence and in the high position occupied by these professional groups in the hierarchy. Undoubtedly, a high level of intelligence is required for the successful performance of these "works", since they are purely intellectual in nature. There is also no doubt that the successful exercise of these functions is most important for society as a whole. And with the exception of periods of decline, the merits of leaders to society are undeniable. The personal unscrupulousness of some of them is outweighed by the objective results of their organizing and controlling activities. In this regard, J. Fraser is absolutely right, stating: “If we could measure the harm that they cause with their fraud with the good that they bring thanks to their foresight, we would see that good far surpasses evil. There are much more misfortunes brought by honest fools who were in a higher position than clever swindlers.

This simple truth does not seem to be understood by many sociologists until now.

On the other hand, manual labor and a layer of lower clerical professions were considered either "indecent" and "shameful" (especially in the past), or, in any case, were less valuable, less privileged, less paid and less influential professions. Whether it's fair or not doesn't matter. This is the real situation. An explanation for this may be given by the following words of F. Giddings: “We are constantly told that unskilled labor creates the wealth of the world. But it would be closer to the truth to say that large classes of unskilled labor barely provide for their own existence. Workers who do not have the ability to adapt to changing conditions, unable to bring new ideas into their work, not having the slightest idea what to do at a critical moment, are more likely to be identified with the dependent classes than with the creators of the material values of society.

Whether this is true or not is difficult to say, but the facts that I noted in the above presentation remain. Their objective existence confirms, firstly, the very existence of interprofessional stratification; secondly, the functioning of the above basic principle of interprofessional hierarchy.

3. Intraprofessional stratification, its forms

The second type of professional stratification is the intraprofessional hierarchy. The members of almost every occupational group are divided into at least three main strata. The first one represents entrepreneurs, or masters who are economically independent in their activities, who are their own "masters" and whose activities consist solely or in part in the organization and control of their "business" and their employees. The second layer is represented employees of the highest category, such as directors, managers, chief engineers, corporate board members, etc.; all of them are not the owners of the "case", the owner is still standing over them; they sell their service and get paid for it; they all play a very important role in the organization of "doing business"; their professional function is not in physical, but in intellectual labor. Third layer - hired workers, who, like high-ranking employees, sell their labor, but cheaper; being mainly manual laborers, they are dependent in their activities. Each of these layers-classes, in turn, is subdivided into many subclasses. Despite the different names of these intraprofessional strata, they have existed and still exist in all more or less developed societies. In a caste society we find them within the same occupational group. For example, among the brahmins: the ranks of disciples, householders, gurus, hermits and other subordinate categories. In the Roman professional associations we find these intraprofessional layers in the form of apprentices, ordinary members, and masters of various ranks. In medieval guilds - in the form of meters, students and apprentices. At present, these strata are represented by entrepreneurs, employees and wage workers. The names, as you can see, are different, but the essence is very similar. Today, in the form of intraprofessional stratification, we have a new form of professional feudalism, which really exists and manifests itself in the most sensitive way both in the difference in wages and in the difference in social status, depending on behavior, success, and very often the happiness of one depends on the will and disposition " owner". If we take the distribution list of any "business association" or the register of any public or government institution, we find a complex hierarchy of ranks and positions in the same enterprise or in the same institution. Suffice it to say that any democratic society is highly stratified: in a new guise, but it is still the same feudal society.

Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin (1889-1968) - Russian-American scientist, born in the Vologda province and died in Winchester (USA), is considered the greatest sociologist of our century. His book "Social and Cultural Dynamics" is an unprecedented scientific work in terms of volume, surpassing K. Marx's "Capital". Another of his books, Social Mobility, is recognized as a world classic.

P. Sorokin considers the world as a social universe, that is, a kind of space filled not with stars and planets, but with social ties and relationships of people. They form a multidimensional coordinate system, which determines the social position of any person. In a multidimensional space, two main coordinate axes are distinguished - the X axis (for measuring horizontal mobility) and the Y axis (for measuring vertical mobility). In other words, it turned out to be a kind of classical Euclidean space.

In addition to them, P. Sorokin distinguishes three types of social stratification: economic, political and professional. Social stratification generally describes the stratification of people into classes and hierarchical ranks. Its basis is an uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, power and influence. Its subspecies - economic stratification - means the unequal economic status, in other words, the presence of economic inequality, which is expressed in the difference in incomes, living standards, in the existence of the poor and the rich. Political differentiation describes a system of hierarchical ranks that has entangled, like a giant web, the entire society. It includes authorities, power, prestige, titles, honors. Professional differentiation - the division of the population into occupations, occupations and professions, some of which are considered more prestigious, others less, and their organization necessarily includes leaders of various ranks and subordinates.

For economic stratification, two phenomena are indicative, which Sorokin calls fluctuations:

1) enrichment and impoverishment of a group or society;

2) decrease and increase in the height of the economic pyramid. Using huge statistical material, he proves that there is no family, village, city, region or country that would become richer or poorer year by year. There is no stable trend in history. In the development of any society, periods of enrichment are followed by periods of impoverishment. So it was in ancient Egypt and so it is in modern America. Aimless fluctuations (fluctuations) occur cyclically (for enrichment, impoverishment follows): small cycles - 3 - 5; 7 - 8; 10-12 years old; large - 40 - 60 years. Sorokin believes that his theory of fluctuations refutes the idea of human progress - the constant improvement of the economic situation.

Comparing different classes, eras and countries, Sorokin unexpectedly found that there is no stable trend in the fluctuations in the height of the economic pyramid. If height is measured by the difference between the incomes of the upper, middle and lower strata of society, then it turns out that over the past 500 years it has either increased or decreased. This means that the rich don't get richer and the poor don't get poorer all the time. Instead of a rectilinear process, there are periodic fluctuations. They are equal to 50, 100 and 150 years. In the same way, world prices fluctuate in history - sometimes falling, sometimes increasing. The connection between two phenomena - poverty and world prices - is not surprising, because price changes contribute to the redistribution of national income in favor of one class or another.

In a society based on private property, there are no social upheavals. His pyramid is not too high, but not too low either. As soon as private property is destroyed, society enters a period of social upheaval. In 1917 the Bolsheviks nationalized the banks, liquidated the rich, reduced the gap between the highest and lowest wages to a ratio of 175:100.

The economic pyramid has become almost flat. Although such cases are rare in history, they serve as a harbinger of the coming catastrophe, after which society seeks to restore the normal form of income distribution. And in communist Russia, the rich, the middle and the poor soon appeared. Humanity must learn a simple truth, says P. Sorokin: either a flat pyramid of universal equality and moderate poverty, or a prosperous society with inevitable inequality. There is no third.

When the profile of the pyramid is excessively stretched, this means that there is excessive social stratification. When the stratification reaches its peak, a social catastrophe follows - a revolutionary leveling fever. Two outcomes are possible: either the society immediately returns to the normal form of stratification, or it goes to it through a “big catastrophe”. The first path is closer to reforms, the second to revolution.

Task 3

The estate system is an excellent field for sociological reflections. Find the necessary historical literature and answer the questions:

1. What duties were assigned to each estate in feudal Europe? Can you spot country differences?

2.What duties were assigned to the peasants?

3. Why did the feudal lord not only exploit, but also take care of his subjects?

4. Why did estates exist in the West, but they did not exist in the East?

N. Smelser

Inequality, stratification, class

The distinction between the haves and the have-nots is one of the most important issues that concern sociologists. They explore it based on an analysis of three variables: inequality, stratification, and class. Let's give some examples.

Inequality: the farmer has gathered a rich harvest and has the opportunity to expand her farm. At the same time, the shepherd suffers great losses, as half of his livestock die from disease. As a result, their financial situation is different.

Stratification: the farmer expands her plot of land, and after her death, each of the children receives a farm of considerable size. But when a shepherd dies, his children inherit almost nothing. This trend is replicated among other farmers and herders.

Class: over the years, farmers are united in a group based on common interests and a sense of superiority over the shepherds; the latter also develop a sense of belonging to a group: they are united by common grievances, for example, that farmers are depriving them of their water supply.

More generally, it looks like this.

Inequality- the conditions under which people have unequal access to social goods such as money, power and prestige.

Stratification is related to the ways in which inequality is apparently transmitted from one generation to another, thus forming different sections of society.

Class due to the existence of social groups with unequal access to wealth, power and unequal prestige. On the basis of their position in society, they sometimes become influential political groups.

Adapted from source: Smelzer N. Sociology // Sociological research. 1992. No. 4. P.79 -80.

Questions to the text

1. Doesn't it seem strange to you to understand N. Smelzer's classes? After all, he considers as such not the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, or the landlords and peasants, but two kindred groups - farmers and shepherds?

2. What binds herders and farmers into social classes?

3. U. N. Smelzer compares a successful farmer and an unfortunate shepherd, whose half of the cattle dies. Well, if they were equally lucky and both got rich, would the farmer and the shepherd unite into one class, or would they be two opposite?

4. Why is inequality measured in terms of people's access to three social goods - money, power and prestige? Is there another way to measure inequality?

Slave hunting

Slave labor in the former USSR is no longer a sensation. Newspapers wrote about slavery and even the film "Reed Paradise" was made. Our correspondent talked to a real slave...

G. Maksimov is only 40 years old, but he looks to be 70 years old. For 5 years of slavery in Checheno-Ingushetia, he shriveled and hunched over. His neck is forever twisted by the collar on which he was kept in the barn. There are not enough fingers on the hands: for every lost sheep they cut off. Tuberculosis, from which he dies in a hospital near St. Petersburg, he received during the second escape. And when they caught him for the first time, they first beat off his kidneys tightly, and then drowned him in a dung pit for several weeks. He and other slaves in Yusup's family were fed rotten stew cooked from the insides of dead animals. Those who died, unable to endure overwork, were thrown into the gorge or left to the jackals. They were hammered into: slavery for life. And so as not to doubt, they burned the stigma. They put a red-hot horseshoe to the cheek of one, burned a brand on the head of the other: ..

Slavery appeared in the late 1950s. The first to hunt for slaves were the children of the Chechens exiled to Kazakhstan. At the Siberian railway stations, with promises of a sweet life, they lured scourges to Kazakhstan. The whips ended up in a real concentration camp in the reed pampas, thousands of kilometers away from their homes. They made building blocks from reeds. Then slaves appeared in the shepherd's camps of the North Caucasus, on the cotton plantations of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The end of the 80s - slave labor is used in the cultivation of drugs. Today, the use of slave labor is becoming massive. According to Krasnoyarsk sociologists, several thousand people are kidnapped from Eastern Siberia alone every year. New industries are emerging: slave prostitutes, donor slaves for organ transplants. Slave settlements today are called family farms. An outsider's entry there is ordered. And corrupt local authorities define them as a return to the original national traditions.

Source: Moscow news. 1991. No. 42. P.15.

Questions to the text:

1. Why is the newspaper material called "hunting for slaves", and, say, not "slavery in the USSR"?

2. Where else was the labor of slaves who were not officially slaves used? We are talking about the history of the USSR.

3. Compare the status of a slave in ancient Greece and the status of a serf in Russia. What are the similarities and differences? Compare them to modern day slaves.

P. Sorokin

Group Mobility Peaks

The study of vertical mobility within the political stratification of different countries reveals periods of particularly pronounced movement. In the history of Russia, such periods were: the second half of the 16th - the beginning of the 17th century. (the reign of Ivan the Terrible and the subsequent interregnum), the reign of Peter the Great and, finally, the last Russian revolution.

During these periods, almost throughout the country, the old political and governmental nobility was destroyed or deposed, and "upstarts" filled the highest ranks of the political aristocracy. It is well known that in the history of Italy these were the XV-XVI centuries. 15th century rightfully called the century of adventurers and rogues. During this time, historical protagonists were often people from the lower classes.

In the history of England, such periods were the following epochs: the conquest of England by William, the civil war of the middle of the 17th century. In the history of the United States - the middle of the 18th century and the period of the civil war In most European countries, the Renaissance and the Reformation represented periods of extremely intense social mobility

Abbreviated by source Sorokin P Man Civilization Society M 1992 S. 386-387

Questions to the text:

1 Do vertical mobility peaks refer only to group mobility

2 By what means did Ivan the Terrible achieve the displacement of entire social groups, the replacement of some boyar clans with others 2

3 And what means did Peter I use to achieve the same goals? Compare his actions with those of Ivan the Terrible

4 Can you give examples of group mobility peaks from Soviet history (1917-1991)?

Questions for the seminar.

1. Measuring inequality.

2. Measuring poverty.

3. Standard of living.

4. Absolute and relative poverty.

5. Poverty.

6. Deviation.

7. Subculture of poverty.

8. Groups of the poor.

TASKS:

“3” Test

1 Choose a definition for the concept of "social stratification".

a) the theory of the movement of individuals from one social stratum to another

b) a system of signs of social stratification, inequality;

c) the concept of the general desire of citizens for the highest labor achievements.

2. Graphically depict vertical or horizontal mobility for the following items:

a) change of profession: the worker became an engineer;

b) moving from one city to another without changing the profession;

c) advanced training within one profession (engineer-leading engineer)

d) raising the level of education (the technician who received the education became the head of the shop)

d) demotion

“4” Take an interest in the work books of your parents. They describe a career step by step. Retirement and hiring records will give you reliable indicators. Try in each case to follow the career and answer the questions: what type of mobility does it belong to, how long did it last, when did it start, was it intermittent or continuous?

“5” - Select specific examples (from national history) for each reason for group mobility.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Determine if the following events were the causes of group mobility:

TOPIC: INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY

Social norms - rules of human behavior 11 society. There are religious, moral, legal norms.

Deviant behavior- deviant behavior that deviates from the norm, a set of those actions of individuals that do not correspond to social norms. Crime, alcoholism, drug addiction are included in the category of deviant behavior, as well as geniuses, outstanding generals, scientists, innovators, etc.

Approaches to solving the causes of deviation:

The theory of "physical types";

psychoanalytic theory (3. Freud);

cultural theories that link deviant behavior to the social environment of the individual's existence. Explanation of deviation

Explanation Type	Deviation theory	Author	Main idea
biological	Physical traits associated with criminal tendencies. A certain body structure, most often found among deviants.	C. Lombroso U.G. Sheldon	Physical features are the cause of deviation.
Psychological	Psychoanalytic theory	Z. Freud	Personal conflicts cause deviation.
Sociological	Anomie	E. Durkheim	Deviation, in particular suicide, occurs as a result of a violation or lack of clear social norms.
Sociological	social disorganization	K. Shaw G. McKay	Deviation of many kinds occurs when cultural values, norms, and social ties are destroyed, weakened, or become contradictory.
	Anomie	R. Merton	Deviation grows when a gap is found between the goals approved in a given culture and the social methods of achieving them.
	Cultural theories	T. Semin N. Miller E. Sutherland Claward & Owlin	The cause of deviation is conflicts between the norms of the subculture and the dominant culture.
	Theory of stigmatization (stigmatization)	G. Becker	Deviance is a kind of stigma that groups in power place on the behavior of less protected groups.
	Radical criminology	Turk Queenie F.W. Taylor Wayne and Young	Deviation is the result of opposition to the norms of capitalist society.

social control

Every society strives to create and maintain social order. Each member of society is obliged to obey not only laws, but also institutional and group norms. That's what social control is for. This is a set of means by which a society or a social group guarantees the conformal behavior of its members, corresponding to the role requirements and social norms. The degree of social control depends on the culture of a given society. its social institutions (state, family, religion, education and production).

The main ways of implementing social control in society:

through socialization (education, training);

through group pressure;

through coercion and is carried out through social institutions.

self control- independent control of the individual over his behavior.

The basic principles of the theory of stratification, developed by the outstanding Russian and later American scientist Pitirim Sorokin in the first quarter of the 20th century, were in fact the theoretical basis for a systematic analysis of socio-economic systems ever functioning on earth. He was named the No. 1 sociologist of the 20th century, and his election as president of the American Sociological Association in 1964 only formalized his recognized world leadership in sociology.
Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin was born in the Russian outback - in the village of Turya, Arensky district of the Vologda province on January 21, 1889, in the family of a craftsman Alexander Prokopyevich Sorokin, a master of church restoration work. Already in the senior classes of the Khrenovskaya church teacher's school, he became interested in illegal Socialist-Revolutionary literature, and in 1906 he was arrested for the first time for illegal activities. In 1909, he entered the St. Petersburg Psychoneurological Institute at the Department of Sociology, and in 1910 he transferred to the University at the Faculty of Law, publishing a series of articles in various journals. And in 1914, his first monographic work, Crime and Punishment, Feat and Reward, was published. After graduating from the university, Sorokin was invited to the Department of Criminal Law and Litigation of the University to prepare for a professorship. In January 1917 he received the title of Privatdozent of St. Petersburg University. After the February Revolution, he was the personal secretary of A.F. Kerensky. In 1916, at his suggestion, the Russian Sociological Society named after I. MM. Kovalevsky".
During the year 917, he wrote a series of articles: "The autonomy of nationalities and the unity of the state", "Forms of government", "Problems of social equality", "Fundamentals of the future world", "Problems of war and the path to peace", "What is a monarchy and what is Republic”, “The Essence of Socialism”, etc. In November 1917 he was elected a deputy of the constituent assembly, and on January 2, 1918 he was arrested by the Bolshevik government for his deputyship.
In 1920 P.A. Sorokin was elected head of the Department of Sociology at Petrograd University and in the same year he published a two-volume monograph "The System of Sociology", and in 1922 he submitted the book "Hunger as a Factor", the set of which was destroyed at the direction of N.I. Bukharin. And in September 1922, among the army of thousands of Russian intelligentsia, he was expelled from the country by the communist government. First in Europe, and then in the USA (Harvard University), he writes his fundamental socio-economic works, which have received worldwide recognition. In 1960, he published his theory of convergence, "The Mutual Rapprochement of the USA and the USSR to a Mixed Socio-Cultural Type", which predicted future events quite accurately. He passed away on February 11, 1968.
Let us briefly consider the main ideas of the theory of stratification by P.A. Sorokin.
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION Concepts and definitions
Social stratification 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. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and obligations, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community. Specific forms of social stratification are varied and numerous. If the economic status of members of a certain society is not the same, if there are both haves and have-nots among them, then such a society is characterized by the presence of economic stratification, regardless of whether it is organized on communist or capitalist principles, whether it is constitutionally defined as a "society of equals" or not . No labels, signs, oral statements are able to change or obscure the reality of the fact of economic inequality, which is expressed in the difference in incomes, living standards, in the existence of rich and poor segments of the population1. If within a group there are hierarchically different ranks in terms of authority and prestige, titles and honors, or there are rulers and ruled, then regardless of the terms (monarchs, bureaucrats, masters, bosses) this means that such a group is politically differentiated, that whatever it proclaims in its constitution or declaration. If members of a society are divided into different groups according to the nature of their activities, occupations, however, some professions are considered more prestigious in comparison with others, or in one professional group, workers are divided into leaders of various ranks and subordinates, then such a group is professionally differentiated regardless of whether superiors are elected or appointed, whether their leadership positions are inherited or due to their personal qualities.
The specific aspects of social stratification are numerous. However, all their diversity can be reduced to three main forms: economic, political and professional stratification. As a rule, they are all closely intertwined. People who belong to the highest stratum in one respect usually belong to the same stratum in other respects, and vice versa. Representatives of the highest economic strata simultaneously belong to the highest political and professional strata. The poor, as a rule, are disenfranchised and are in the lower strata of the professional hierarchy. This is the general rule, although there are many exceptions. So, for example, the richest are not always at the top of the political or professional pyramid, and the poor do not always occupy the lowest places in the political and professional hierarchy. And this means that the interdependence of the three forms of social stratification is far from perfect, because the various layers of each of the forms do not completely coincide with each other. Rather, they coincide with each other, but only partially, that is, to a certain extent.
A family, a church, a sect, a political party, a faction, a business organization, a gang of robbers, a trade union, a learned society - in short, any organizational social group is stratified due to its permanence and organization. Even groups of zealous equalizers consistently fail to create an unstratified group. All this testifies to the danger and inevitability of stratification in any organized group. This remark may seem somewhat strange to many people who, under the influence of grandiloquent phraseology, may believe that at least the societies of the egalitarians themselves are not stratified. This opinion, like many similar ones, is erroneous. Attempts to destroy social feudalism were successful in terms of softening some differences and in changing specific forms of stratification. They have never succeeded in destroying stratification itself. The regularity with which all these attempts failed proves once again the natural character of stratification. Christianity began its history with an attempt to create a society of equals, but very soon it already had a complex hierarchy, and at the end of its path it erected a huge pyramid with numerous ranks and titles, from the almighty pope to the outlaw heretic. The institute of monasticism was organized by St. Francis of Assisi on the principles of absolute equality; seven years have passed and equality has evaporated. Without exception, all the attempts of the most zealous equalizers in the history of mankind have met with the same fate. The failure of Russian communism is just one more example in a long line of similar experiments carried out on a larger or smaller scale, sometimes peacefully, as in many religious sects, and sometimes violently, as in social revolutions past and present. And if, for a moment, some forms of stratification are destroyed, then they reappear in an old or modified form and are often created by the hands of the equalizers themselves.
Real democracies, socialist, communist, syndicalist and other organizations, with their slogan of "equality", are no exception to the rule. This has been shown above for democracies. The internal organization of various socialist and related groups claiming "equality" shows that perhaps no other organization creates such a cumbersome hierarchy and "bossism" as exists in these groups. Socialist leaders treat the masses as a passive tool in their hands, as a series of zeros, intended only to increase the significance of the figure on the left, writes E. Fournier (one of the socialists). If there is some exaggeration in this statement, it is insignificant. At least the best and most competent researchers are unanimous in their conclusions about the enormous development of the oligarchy and stratification within all such groups.
The enormous potential desire for inequality in numerous egalitarians becomes immediately noticeable as soon as they reach for power. In such cases, they often show more cruelty and contempt for the masses than former kings and rulers. This was regularly repeated in the course of victorious revolutions, when egalitarians became dictators. The classical description of such situations by Plato and Aristotle, based on social upheavals in ancient Greece, can be literally applied to all historical incidents, including the experience of the Bolsheviks.
To summarize: social stratification is a constant characteristic of any organized society. "Varying in form, social stratification existed in all societies that proclaimed the equality of people." Feudalism and oligarchy continue to exist in science and art, politics and management, a gang of criminals and egalitarian democracies - in a word, everywhere.
This, however, does not mean that social stratification is qualitatively and quantitatively the same in all societies and at all times. According to its specific forms, disadvantages and advantages, it is different. Social stratification is characterized by qualitative and quantitative differences. The quantitative aspect of social stratification is manifested in its three forms: economic, political and professional.
P.A. Sorokin introduced the concepts of the height and profile of social stratification and the height and profile of the entire "social building". What is its height? What is the distance from the base to the top of the "social cone"? Are the slopes steep or gentle? All these questions relate to the quantitative analysis of social stratification, so to speak, to the face of the architecture of a social building. Its internal structure, its integrity, the subject of qualitative analysis. First, one should examine the height and profile of the social pyramid, and then analyze the internal organization from the point of view of social stratification. The theory of social stratification P.A. Sorokin provides a powerful methodological tool for strategic management both for analyzing the external environment in a strategic perspective and for analyzing the internal patterns of corporate development.

Portal for the student. Self-training

Theory of social stratification and social mobility. P.A.'s theory of social stratification

More on the topic Theory of social stratification P.A. Sorokin (1920) as a strategic vision of socio-economic systems:

Portal for the student. Self-training

More on the topic Theory of social stratification P.A. Sorokin (1920) as a strategic vision of socio-economic systems:

RELATED ARTICLES