Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Ideas of social inequality in public thought about the emergence of sociology

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.

But long before the 19th century, scientists were thinking about the nature of human relations, about the plight of most people, about the problem of the oppressed and the oppressors, about the justice or injustice of inequality.

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,” says Karl Popper. In such a society, people are haunted by fear and uncertainty. A healthy society must be different.

In his work “The State”, Plato argued that the correct state can be scientifically substantiated, and not groped, fearing, believing and improvising.

Plato assumed that this new, scientifically designed society would not only implement the principles of justice, but also ensure social stability and internal discipline. This is how he imagined a society led by rulers (guardians).

Aristotle in "Politics" also considered the issue of social inequality. He wrote that now in all states there are three elements: one class is very rich; the other is very poor; the third is average. This third is the best, since its members are life are most ready to follow the rational principle.It is from the poor and the rich that some grow up as criminals, and others as swindlers.

Realistically reflecting on the stability of the state, Aristotle noted that it is necessary to think about the poor, because the state, where many poor people are excluded from government, will inevitably have many enemies. After all, poverty gives rise to rebellion and crime where there is no middle class and the vast majority of the poor, complications arise, and the state is doomed to death. Aristotle opposed both the power of the poor, dispossessed, and the selfish rule of the rich plutocracy. Better Society is formed from the middle class, and the state, where this class is more numerous and stronger than the other two put together, is best governed, for social equilibrium is ensured.

According to sociologists of all ideological directions, no one in the history of social thought emphasized as clearly as K. Marx that the source of social development is the struggle between antagonistic social classes. According to Marx, classes arise and fight on the basis of different positions and different roles performed by individuals in the production structure of society.

But K. Marx himself rightly noted that the merit of discovering the existence of classes and their struggle among themselves does not belong to him. Indeed, since the time of Plato, but, of course, especially since the bourgeoisie powerfully entered the stage of history in the 18th century, many economists, philosophers, historians have firmly introduced the concept of social class into the social science of Europe (Adam Smith, Etienne Condillac, Claude Saint- Simon, Francois Guizot, Auguste Mignet and others).

However, no one before Marx gave such a deep justification class structure society, taking it out of fundamental analysis the entire system of economic relations. No one before him gave such a comprehensive disclosure of class relations, the mechanism of exploitation, including capitalist society that existed in his time. Therefore, in most contemporary works on the problems of social inequality, stratification and class differentiation, both the supporters of Marxism and the authors who are far from the positions of K. Marx, give an analysis of his theory of classes. Crucial for folding contemporary ideas about the essence, forms and functions of social inequality, along with Marx, had Max Weber (1864 - 1920) - a classic of world sociological theory. The ideological basis of Weber's views is that the individual is the subject of social action.

In contrast to Marx, Weber except economic aspect stratification took into account such aspects as power and prestige. Weber viewed property, power, and prestige as three separate, interacting factors that underlie hierarchies in any society. Differences in ownership give rise to economic classes; differences of power give rise to political parties, and differences of prestige give rise to status groupings or strata. From here he formulated his idea of ​​"three autonomous dimensions of stratification". He emphasized that "classes", "status groups" and "parties" are phenomena related to the sphere of distribution of power within the community.

Weber's main contradiction with Marx is that, according to Weber, a class cannot be the subject of action, since it is not a community. In contrast to Marx, Weber associated the concept of class only with capitalist society, where the market acts as an important regulator of relations. Through it, people satisfy their needs for material goods and services.

However, in the market, people occupy different positions or are in a different “class situation”. Here everyone sells and buys. Some sell goods, services; others sell labor. The difference here is that some own property, while others do not.

Weber does not have a clear class structure of capitalist society, so different interpreters of his work give inconsistent lists of classes.

Given his methodological principles and summarizing his historical, economic and sociological works, one can reconstruct Weber's typology of classes under capitalism as follows:

1. The dispossessed working class. He offers his services on the market and differentiates by skill level.

2. Petty bourgeoisie - a class of small businessmen and merchants.

3. Dispossessed "white-collar workers": technicians and intellectuals.

4. Administrators and managers.

5. Owners who also strive through education for the advantages that intellectuals have.

5.1 The class of owners, i.e. those who receive rent from the ownership of land, mines, etc.

5.2 “Commercial class”, i.e. entrepreneurs.

Weber argued that property owners are a "positively privileged" class. At the other extreme is the "negatively privileged class", here he included those who have neither property nor skills to offer on the market.

There are many stratification criteria by which any society can be divided. Each of them is associated with special ways of determining and reproducing social inequality. The nature of social stratification and the way it is established in their unity form what we call the stratification system.

When it comes to the main types of stratification systems, a description of caste, slaveholding, estate and class differentiation is usually given. At the same time, it is customary to identify them with the historical types of social structure observed in modern world or already irretrievably gone. We adhere to a slightly different approach, considering that any particular society consists of combinations of various stratification systems and many of their transitional forms.

Therefore, we prefer to talk about “ideal types” even when we use elements of the traditional terminology.

Below are nine types of stratification systems that, in our opinion, can be used to describe any social organism, namely:

physico-genetic;

slaveholding;

caste;

estate;

ectaratic;

social - professional;

class;

cultural and symbolic;

cultural and normative;

The first type of physical-genetic stratification system is based on the differentiation of social groups according to “natural” socio-demographic characteristics. Here, the attitude towards a person or group is determined by gender, age and the presence of certain physical qualities- strength, beauty, dexterity. Accordingly, the weaker, those with physical disabilities are considered defective and occupy a humbled social position.

Inequality in this case is affirmed by the existence of the threat of physical violence or its actual use, and then fixed in customs and rituals.

This “natural” stratification system dominated the primitive community, but continues to be reproduced to this day. It is especially pronounced in communities struggling for physical survival or expansion of their living space. The one who is able to carry out violence against nature and people or resist such violence has the greatest prestige here: a healthy young man is the breadwinner in a peasant community living on the fruits of a primitive manual labor; courageous warrior of the Spartan state; true Aryan national - socialist army, capable of producing healthy offspring.

The system that ranks people according to their ability to engage in physical violence is largely a product of the militarism of ancient and modern societies. At present, although devoid of its former significance, it is still supported by military, sports and sexually-erotic propaganda.

The second stratification system - slaveholding - is also based on direct violence. But the inequality of people here is determined not by physical, but by military-physical coercion. Social groups differ in the presence or absence of civil rights and property rights. Certain social groups are completely deprived of these rights and, moreover, along with things, are turned into an object of private property. Moreover, this position is most often inherited and thus fixed in generations. Examples of slaveholding systems are quite varied. This is ancient slavery, where the number of slaves sometimes exceeded the number of free citizens, and servility in Russia during the Russkaya Pravda, this is plantation slavery in the south of the North American United States before the civil war of 1861-1865, and, finally, the work of prisoners of war and deported persons on German private farms during the Second World War.

The methods of reproduction of the slave-owning system are also characterized by considerable diversity. Ancient slavery was maintained mainly by conquest. For early feudal Russia, it was more debt, enslaving slavery. The practice of selling one's own children without being able to feed them existed, for example, in medieval China. There they turned into slaves different kind criminals (including political ones). This practice was practically reproduced much later in the Soviet GULAG (although private slavery was carried out here in hidden non-legal forms).

The third type of stratification system is caste. It is based on ethnic differences, which, in turn, are reinforced by the religious order and religious rituals. Each caste is a closed, as far as possible, endogamous group, which is assigned a strictly defined place in the social hierarchy. This place appears as a result of the isolation of the special functions of each caste in the system of division of labor. There is a clear list of occupations that members of this caste can engage in: priestly, military, agricultural. Since the position in the caste system is inherited, the possibilities of social mobility are extremely limited here.

And the stronger caste is expressed, the more closed this society turns out to be. India is rightfully considered a classic example of a society with a dominance of the caste system (this system was legally abolished only in 1950). Today, although in a smoother form, the caste system is reproduced not only in India, but, for example, in the clan system of the Central Asian states. Explicit features of caste were affirmed in the middle of the twentieth century by the policy fascist states(the Aryans were given the position of the highest ethnic caste, called to dominate the Slavs, Jews, etc.). The role of binding theological doctrines in this case takes over the nationalist ideology.

The fourth type is represented by a class stratification system. In this system, groups differ in legal rights, which, in turn, are strictly related to their duties and are directly dependent on these duties. Moreover, the latter imply obligations to the state, enshrined in law. Some estates are obliged to carry out military or bureaucratic service, others - "tax" in the form of taxes or labor duties.

Examples of developed estate systems are feudal Western European societies or feudal Russia. An estate is, first of all, a legal division, and not, say, an ethnic-religious or economic division. that is also important. that belonging to a class is inherited, contributing to the relative closeness of this system.

Some similarity with the estate system is observed in the ektaratic system representing the fifth type (from French and Greek - “ government”). In it, differentiation between groups occurs, first of all, according to their position in the power-state hierarchies (political, military, economic), according to the possibilities of mobilizing and distributing resources, as well as the prestige they feel, are connected here with the formal ranks that these groups occupy in their respective power hierarchies.

All other differences - demographic and religious - ethnic, economic and cultural play a secondary role. The scale and nature of differentiation (the amount of power) in the ektaratic system is under the control of the state bureaucracy. At the same time, hierarchies can be fixed formally - legally - through bureaucratic tables of ranks, military regulations, assignment of categories government agencies, and may remain outside the scope of state legislation ( good example the system of the Soviet party nomenklatura can serve, the principles of which are not spelled out in any laws). The formal freedom of members of society (with the exception of dependence on the state), the absence of automatic inheritance of positions of power also distinguish the etacratic system from the system of estates.

The etacratic system is revealed with the fact greater strength the more authoritarian character the government takes. In ancient times, societies of Asian despotism (China, India, Cambodia) were a striking example of the etacratic system, located, however, by no means only in Asia (for example, in Peru, Egypt). In the twentieth century, it is actively asserting itself in the so-called socialist societies and, perhaps, even plays a decisive role in them. It must be said that the allocation of a special ektaratic system is not yet traditional for works on stratification typologies.

Therefore, we would like to draw attention to both the historical significance and the analytical role of this type of social differentiation.

This is followed by the sixth, socio-professional stratification system. Here the groups are divided according to the content and conditions of their work. They play a special role qualification requirements required for a particular professional role - the possession of relevant experience, skills and abilities. Approval and maintenance of hierarchical orders in this system is carried out with the help of certificates (diplomas, grades, licenses, patents), fixing the level of qualification and ability to perform certain types activities. The validity of qualification certificates is supported by the power of the state or some other sufficiently powerful corporation (professional workshop). Moreover, these certificates are most often not inherited, although there are exceptions in history. Socio-professional division is one of the basic stratification systems, various examples which can be found in any society with any developed division of labor. This is a system of craft shops medieval city and the rank grid in modern state industry, the system of certificates and diplomas of education, the system of scientific degrees and titles that open the way to more prestigious jobs.

The seventh type is represented by the popular class system. The class approach is often opposed to the stratification approach. But for us, class division is only a particular case of social stratification. Of the many interpretations of the concept of “class”, we will focus in this case on a more traditional one - socio-economic. In this interpretation, classes represent social groups of politically and legally free citizens. Differences between groups are primarily in the nature and extent of ownership of the means of production and produced product, as well as in the level of income received and personal material well-being.Unlike many previous types, belonging to classes - bourgeois, proletarians, independent farmers, etc. - is not regulated

higher authorities, is not established by law and is not inherited. In its purest form, the class system does not contain any internal formal partitions at all (economic prosperity automatically transfers you to a higher group).

Economically egalitarian communities, where class differentiation is completely absent, are a rather rare and unstable phenomenon. But for the most part human history class divisions are still of a subordinate character. They come to the fore, perhaps, only in bourgeois Western societies. BUT greatest heights the class system reaches into the liberal-spirited United States of America.

Eighth type - cultural - symbolic. Differentiation arises here from differences in access to social meaningful information, unequal opportunities to filter and interpret this information, the ability to be a bearer of sacred knowledge (mystical or scientific). In ancient times, this role was assigned to priests, magicians and shamans, in the Middle Ages - to church ministers, who make up the bulk of the literate population, interpreters of sacred texts, in modern times - to scientists, technocrats and party ideologists. Claims to communicate with divine forces, to possess scientific truth on the expression of the state interest existed always and everywhere. And a higher position in this respect are occupied by those who have the best opportunities to manipulate the consciousness and actions of other members of society, who can prove their rights to true understanding better than others and own the best symbolic capital.

Simplifying the picture somewhat, we can say that pre-industrial societies are more characterized by theocratic manipulation; for industrial - partocratic; and for post - industrial - technocratic.

The ninth type of stratification system should be called cultural-normative. Here differentiation is built on differences of respect and prestige arising from the comparison of lifestyles and norms of behavior followed by this person or group. Attitude towards physical and mental labor, consumer tastes and habits, manners of communication and etiquette, special language (professional terminology, local dialect, criminal jargon) - all this forms the basis of social division. Moreover, there is not only a distinction between “us” and “them”, but also a ranking of groups (“noble - not noble”, “decent - not decent”, “elite - ordinary people - bottom”). The concept of elites is surrounded by a certain mysterious veil. They talk a lot about it, but often, they do not outline any clear denoting boundaries.

The elite is not only a category of politics. In modern society, there are many elites - political, military, economic, professional. Somewhere these elites are intertwined, somewhere they compete with each other. It can be said that there are as many elites as there are areas of social life. But whatever area we take, the elite are a minority opposed to the rest of society. its middle and lower layers as a kind of “mass”. At the same time, the position of the elite as the upper class or caste can be fixed by a formal law or religious code, or it can be achieved in a completely informal way.

Elitist theories arose and were formed to a large extent as a reaction to radical and socialist teachings and were directed against various currents of socialism: Marxist, anarcho-syndicalist. Therefore, Marxists, in fact, were very skeptical about these theories, did not want to recognize them and apply them to the material of Western societies. For this would mean, firstly, the recognition that the lower strata are a weak or not at all organized mass that needs to be controlled, a mass incapable of self-organization and revolutionary action, and secondly, recognition to some extent of the inevitability and “naturalness "such a sharp inequality. As a result, one would have to radically revise views on the role and nature of the class struggle.

But the militaristic approach is directed against democratic parliamentarism. He is generally anti-democratic in nature. Democracy and accessories presuppose the rule of the majority and the universal equality of people as independent citizens, organized enough to realize their own goals and interests. And because of this, the champions of democracy treat any attempts at elite rule rather coldly.

Numerous approaches to the concept can be divided into two main groups - authoritative and meritocratic. In accordance with the former, the elite are those who have decisive power in a given society, and in accordance with the latter, those who have certain special virtues and personal qualities, regardless of whether they have power or not.

In the latter case, the elite is distinguished by talent and merit. Sometimes domineering and meritocratic approaches are conventionally referred to as the “Lasswell line” and “Pareto line”. (Although the first approach might just as well be called the "Mosca line" or "Mills line")

One group of researchers understands the elite as layers that have the highest positions of power or the highest formal power in organizations and institutions. Another group refers to the elite of charismatic personalities, divinely inspired, capable of leadership, representatives of the creative minority.

In turn, power approaches are divided into structural and functional. Those who choose a structural approach that is simpler from an empirical point of view consider the elite to be the circle of persons holding the highest positions in the institutions under consideration (ministers, directors, military leaders).

Those who dwell on the functional approach set themselves a more difficult task: to identify groups that have real power in making socially important decisions (many representatives of these groups, of course, may not hold any prominent public posts, remain in the “shadow”) .

Similar Documents

Brief biography and characteristics scientific works M. Weber - antipositivist sociologist. Fundamentals of the non-classical type of scientific sociology. The concept of social action as the core of M. Weber's creativity. Basic principles of rationalization public life.

abstract, added 12/09/2009


Basic Principles of the Methodology sociological science one of the most influential theorists M. Weber. Social action as a subject of sociology, the study of personality behavior. Weber's theory of rationalization in sociological interpretations of politics and religion.

test, added 10/30/2009


The study of the classical theories of modern sociology: the theories of O. Comte, K. Marx, E. Durkheim and M. Weber. Analysis of the concept of social stratification, a set of large social groups arranged hierarchically according to the criterion of social inequality.

abstract, added 01/10/2012


Methodology of sociological knowledge of Max Weber. Essence of the theory of "social action". Bureaucracy as a pure type of legal domination. The focus of the work of M. Weber, his concept. The place of creativity of a sociologist in the development of managerial thought.

term paper, added 06/17/2014


Unequal life chances and opportunities to meet needs are the basis of social inequality. The main mechanisms of social inequality. Principles of social policy. The essence of the theory of functionalism and conflict. The iron law of the oligarchy.

presentation, added 12/13/2016


The development of sociological ideas about society from Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli and Hobbes, the theoretical postulates of Comte and Marx. Durkheim as a pioneer social statistics in sociology. Weber's contribution to the theory and methodology of sociological trends.

abstract, added 06/07/2009


Classes and Contradictions in Capitalism by K. Marx. "Capitalist spirit" and types of capitalism in M. Weber. Criticism of Marxist and Weberian claims. The main opposites of the understanding of the capitalist system and political power in Marx and Weber.

term paper, added 01/25/2016


Descriptions of the ideas of social inequality in social thought before the emergence of sociology. Characteristics of the family, state, linguistic, racial, religious and property groups of the population. The study of the model and system of social stratification.

abstract, added 05/19/2011


Prerequisites for the emergence of sociology in the 19th century, the main ideas of its founders (Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber). Social Research in the USA and Kazakhstan. The main stages in the development of sociology in Russia.

presentation, added 04/11/2013


The history of the development of sociology as a science in the periods of antiquity, the Middle Ages and the New Age. Consideration of the problems of society and social behavior in the works of Comte. The essence of the sociological concepts of Durkheim, M. Weber, Marx, Kovalevsky, Sorokin.

Social inequality, stratification and social mobility

TOPIC 4. Social class structure of society

The main groups in the stratification structure of society

Social class structure of society

Subjects , carriers of social relations are social communities and groups. It is the subjects that bind the main spheres of social life into a single societal system, so the analysis of the social structure of society is the central problem of sociology.

In the most general way societal structure -it is a stable connection of such elements of the socio-cultural system as classes, strata and groups, which differ in their place in the system of social inequalities of society.

Therefore, it is first necessary to find out the origins of social inequality and its impact on the social differentiation of people in society.

Social inequality, stratification and social mobility

Social inequality has existed throughout history human civilization. The origins of social inequality are many modern researchers see in natural differences people according to physical data, temperament, strength of motivation. Initially emerging inequality is usually highly unstable and does not lead to institutional consolidation. For example, strong, strong-willed, goal-oriented person can be a leader and subjugate the members of the group, receiving more material benefits, honor until a stronger and more ambitious applicant appears. The authority of the leaders of tribal social structures had to be constantly maintained successful achievement group goals.

The next stage in the formation of social inequality is the consolidation of the existing situation in the conditions of social division of labor and exchange. In society, groups are differentiated, unequal by nature of work(workers of mental and physical labor), by social roles(father, doctor, salesman, political figure), by type of settlement and way of life(urban and rural population).

Consolidation of inequality is carried out through institutionalization and the regulatory framework that establishes the place of each individual in the social structure. Even natural differences take on a socially institutionalized form. Women are socially unequal to men, younger - older. A stable system of social statuses appears that determines the ranks of individuals according to such criteria as property, access to power, etc.

Causes of social inequality sociologists explain in different ways. Functionalists, starting with E. Durkheim, point to the division of functions according to their significance for a particular society. Hierarchy Based social functions a corresponding hierarchy of social groups unequal to each other is formed.

Marxists believe that inequality is not only a consequence of the division of labor, but also of property, the form of property and the way it is owned.

Social exchange theories argue that inequality results from unfair, unequal sharing of outcomes. human activity. M. Weber was the first to substantiate the importance of identifying unequal status groups that differ in social prestige, belonging to certain political circles (parties), and access to power.

Inequality has many faces and manifests itself in various parts of the social system: in the family, at home, at work, in organizations, and large groups. It is a necessary condition for the organization of social life in the types of social systems known to us. Inequality is ordered by social institutions, because it gives stability to social relations and stimulates the development of the productive forces of society. The reproduction of inequality leads to the stratification of society.

Social stratification -it is a hierarchically organized structure of social inequality that exists in a certain society, in a certain historical period of time.

The hierarchically organized structure of social inequality can be represented as a division of the whole society into strata (this means a layer). The stratification of society into strata can be compared with the geological layers of the soil. At the same time, in comparison with natural stratifications, social implies: rank bundle when the upper layers are in a privileged position in relation to the lower ones; fewer top layers.

A carefully developed theory of stratification was created by our compatriot P.A. Sorokin, who believed that it was impossible to give a single set of criteria for belonging to any stratum and saw three stratification structures in society: economic, professional and political. He used the criteria identified by his predecessors and contemporaries: property, income, profession, power, social roles, and so on.

As P.A. Sorokin imagined social stratification society?

First of all, he distinguished one-dimensional stratification, carried out by selecting groups for any one sign e.g. income. Further, in the course of multidimensional stratification, groups are identified that have a whole set of common characteristics, for example, women of a certain nationality, age, with low incomes.

According to P.A. Sorokin, in the modern world there are millions of sociocultural systems in which it is possible to distinguish both microgroups (dyads, triads) and supersystems, global religious associations(a billion Catholics, several billion Muslims). This set of social systems is classified according to many bases.

Among the one-dimensional groups, there are biosocial: racial, gender, age; sociocultural: clan, territorial neighborhood, linguistic, ethnic groups, states, professional groups, economic groups, religious associations, political organizations, ideological groups (scientific, educational, ethical, leisure and entertainment groups), nominal elite groups (leaders, geniuses, historical figures).

P.A. Sorokin refers to multilateral (combination of several values) groups: family, clan, tribe, nation, estate and classes.

This scheme is not particularly disputed in sociology, although other theories of stratification have been proposed.

In the works of American sociologists, there are up to 90 signs of stratification. AT different periods history, first one, then another foundation of social division comes to the fore. The ancient Egyptians spent a huge portion of their national income on serving the dead, including them in their ranking system. Religion has played a significant role in stratification in Russia for many centuries. Russian schismatics (nobles, merchants, peasants) went into the fire for the right to be baptized in their own way.

According to the views American sociologist E.O. Wright, in modern capitalist production, there are three types of control over economic resources, allowing to identify the main strata.

1. Control over investments or money capital.

2. Control over land and industrial means of production.

3. Control over labor and power.

The capitalist class controls all three types of resources, while the workers control none.

Frank Parkin, a British sociologist, a follower of M. Weber, considers property, control over monetary resources, race, nationality, language, religion - as special social partitions that separate strata. For example, in South Africa until recently, white unions excluded blacks from membership in order to maintain their privileged position.

The German sociologist R. Dahrendorf proposed to put the concept of "authority" as the basis of social stratification, which, in his opinion, most accurately characterizes power relations and the struggle between groups for a prestigious place in the stratification system. R.Dahrendorf divides modern society on the rulers and the governed. In turn, the former are divided into two subgroups: managing-owners and managing-managers. The managed group is also heterogeneous. It can be divided into skilled and unskilled workers. Between the two main strata is an intermediate "new middle class" - the product of the assimilation of the labor aristocracy and employees.

The most influential point of view on the process of formation of social strata can be considered the theory of stratification by K. Davis and W. Moore - supporters functional approach E. Durkheim.

According to this theory, every society must solve the problem of placing and motivating individuals in the social structure in accordance with their functionality. For the distribution of people according to social statuses and their motivation, remuneration is used, which reproduces both income inequality and the statuses themselves. How harder job the more professional training it requires, the higher the status rank and pay. However, there is another group of statuses that are not functionally significant, but, nevertheless, are highly rewarded. These are hard-to-fill statuses, i.e. unprestigious, unhealthy work. Religious activities are also important, so the clergy are rewarded more than ordinary workers. The reward is not always money. It can be more honor, respect, insignia, orders.

Thus, from the point of view of the functionalist theory, inequality and status distribution on the stratification scale depends, first of all, on the functional significance of this status, the requirements for the performance of the role ( professional quality) and difficulties in filling social status.

Sociology knows four main historical systems of social stratification.

Slavery - the most pronounced form of social inequality, in which some people belong to others as property. As the main, mass system of stratification, slavery disappears in the 19th century, but even today elements of the slave trade persist in some third world countries.

castes associated with the culture of the Indian subcontinent, where they are elaborate and associated with the Hindu religion. Religion and traditions fix belonging to a caste so strongly that Brahmins, for example, generally avoid any contact with the untouchables, and those, in turn, are mainly engaged in animal husbandry.

Caste-like systems of stratification arose in other countries when a policy of racial segregation was pursued. For example, in the United States, after the abolition of slavery, the degree of separation of blacks from whites remained so strong that the stratification system was in fact a caste system.

Estates were part of European feudalism and other traditional civilizations. The place of estates in the stratification system was fixed by law, all estates had different rights, duties, clothes, etc. Places in the hierarchy were distributed as follows: aristocracy, nobility, clergy, merchants, free peasants, servants, artists, etc.

Classes differ primarily in economic opportunities, are impersonal, mobile and independent of legal and religious norms.

The strata must not be considered in a frozen, unchanging position, but in constant movements and displacements. These movements in sociology are called "social mobility".

social mobility - is any transition of an individual, group, social facility from one social position to another, from stratum to stratum, or within one stratum.(Under the social object, P.A. Sorokin understands property, cultural objects).

Horizontal mobility - this is the movement of an individual (social object) from one group to another, located at the same level (change of residence, family, religion). Status, income, prestige do not change. If such a move occurs up(promotion, increase in income), then there is vertical mobility. Deprivation of status, bankruptcy, loss of respect, deprivation of awards are examples downward vertical mobility.

Due to the fact that the social movements of people and social objects are carried out both individually and jointly, there are individual and group vertical mobility.

According to the figurative expression of P.A. Sorokin, “the first case of decline resembles the fall of a man from a ship; the second is a ship that sank with all on board. The mechanism of infiltration in vertical mobility is associated with the action of the main social channels (elevators). Under them P.A. Sorokin understands the main social institutions: the army, the education system, political and economic organizations, marriage and family, property.

For example, an individual chooses a military career because it guarantees a stable, gradual rise from one stratum to another, an increase in income, status, prestige. War can accelerate the movement of this social elevator, since it implies the expulsion due to the death of those who occupy higher ranks, provides an opportunity to show military prowess, receive awards, etc.

In the spirit of the positivist tradition, P.A. Sorokin proposes to distinguish between the absolute and relative intensity of mobility (the number of people moved per unit of time), calculate the total mobility index, etc. His work "Social Mobility" is still considered the official textbook in American universities.

The positivism of P.A. Sorokin is also clearly manifested in the formulation of the main laws of stratification. Here are some examples:

1. Any society is stratified; an unstratified society is a utopia.

2. No individual, no group can permanently maintain the same place in the system of stratification.

3. The narrower the boundaries of stratification, the more likely social stagnation, the cessation of development; the wider the boundaries of stratification, the more likely social explosions and revolutions.

To measure social distances in the social hierarchy, P.A. Sorokin proposed the term "decile coefficient", meaning the difference in income between the richest 10% and the poorest 10%.

Changes in the individual's position in the stratification system can occur not only under the influence of vertical and horizontal mobility, but also as a result of the reorganization of the social structure, the introduction new system stratification. New industries, services, new professions appear or disappear.

Mass movements horizontally and vertically are associated with profound changes in economic system society, with a change in ideological guidelines, the emergence of new social groups.

Here Wright begins to modify the theory J. Remer and fixes three types of exploitation - exploitation based, respectively, on ownership of the means of production, on the organizational hierarchy and on the possession of qualification diplomas (the first, in his opinion, is more characteristic of capitalism, the second - for statism(state socialism), and three for (real) socialism). The last two types of exploitation arising from the monopoly possession of organizational and qualification resources by modern managers and experts, according to Wright, are embodied in terms of their wages, which, in his opinion, are frankly rent-based. (We have, therefore, a creative replacement for the old Marxist theory of "productive and unproductive labor »).

Finally, Wright's borrowing in the heat of the polemical struggle becomes more and more obvious. Weberian issues and methodology. This is both a transition to the level of individual consciousness, and the importance of formal qualification for processes. class formation, and slipping statements about the role of career trajectories as a dynamic aspect class positions. Many points of contact obviously played an important role in provoking burning discussion of Wright with neo-Weberians.

5. The life chances of social groups are determined not only by their current position in different markets, but are seen as the product of specific career opportunities. The prospects for social mobility become an internal factor in determining the position of different groups.

6. The most interesting and difficult moment is the analysis of status positions determined by the prestige of education and profession, lifestyle, sociocultural orientations and norms of behavior, as well as fixing their connection with market positions. Status groups are real communities that carry out collective action, as opposed to classes, which represent only a possible basis for joint action.

Conflict groups (classes) as subjects of ICA arise from the awareness by quasi-groups of their opposite int

When considering the class-stratification theory, which reveals the process of stratification of society into social classes and strata, we see that this stratification is based on the unequal access of people to material goods, power, education, prestige, which contributes to the hierarchical structure of society, i.e. placement of some layers above or below others. Thus, the problem of equality and inequality characterizes the process of stratification.

Social inequality- these are the conditions under which people have unequal access to such social benefits as money, power, prestige, education, etc.

There is no single answer to the question of what causes inequality in sociology. Representatives of philosophical and sociological trends are trying to explain this process from their positions.

Thus, Marxism explains the social inequality existing in society economic organization. From the Marxist point of view, inequality is the result of the fact that people who control social values ​​(mainly the means of production, wealth and power) benefit for themselves. Such a situation can give rise to discontent and lead to class struggle. This so-called conflict theory.

Supporters of the theory of functionalism do not agree with the Marxist theory. They consider social inequality as a condition for the existence of society, which makes it possible to encourage the most useful types of labor and the best representatives of society. Thus, M. Durkheim, in his work “On the Division of Social Labor”, is one of the first to explain inequality by the fact that in all societies some types of activity are considered more important than others. All the functions of society - law, religion, family, work, etc. - form a hierarchy according to how highly they are valued. And people themselves are talented in different ways. In the process of learning, these differences are intensified. In order to attract the best and gifted, society must promote social rewards for their merits.

M. Weber bases his theory of inequality on the concept status groups who enjoy honor and respect and have unequal social prestige.

According to P. Sorokin, the cause of social inequality is property, power, profession.

A peculiar approach to explaining social inequality - in reputation theory of L. Warner. He determined the belonging of people to one or another stratum, based on the assessment of their status by other members of society, that is, reputation. Conducting research, he came to the conclusion that people themselves are accustomed to dividing each other into superior and inferior. Thus, the cause of inequality is the psyche of people. (See: Ryazanov, Yu. B. Social inequality / Yu. B. Ryazanov, A. A. Malykhin // Sociology: textbook. - M., 1999. - P. 13).

By stating the fact of social inequality in society and revealing its causes, many sociologists, and not only functionalists, justify it. So, P. Sorokin noted that inequality is not only an objective reality of social life, but also an important source of social development. Equalization in income, in relation to property, power deprives individuals of an important internal incentive for action, self-realization, self-affirmation, and society - the only energy source of development. But life proves that there are different inequalities, when one works, to put it mildly, has everything and even more, and the other, while working, barely drags out a beggarly existence. Such inequality cannot be easily justified.

Determining the criteria for inequality and social stratification is one of the most important methodological problems in the theory of stratification. Even before the emergence of sociology, attempts were made to describe the structure of society on the basis of the position of various groups in relation to the state, power, authority, access to the distribution of life's goods, etc. The first deep and systematic substantiation of the criteria of social inequality was given by K. Marx, whose name is firmly associated with the concepts of "class" and "class approach" in modern sociology and social knowledge.

K. Marx considered the basis and main criterion for social inequality and social stratification to be the division of labor, which determines the unequal position of individuals in social production, the difference in the roles they perform and the size of the share of social wealth they receive. In the process of the development of society, there was a professional specialization, a division into skilled and unskilled, performing and managerial, physical and mental labor. With the emergence of private property, the division into those who possess it and those who are deprived of it and are in various forms of dependence on the owners is connected. Thus, in a slave-owning society, the slaves themselves are the property of the slave-owners; in a feudal society, where the main factor of production is land, there is a division into land owners (feudal lords) and dependent peasants who are forced to pay rent for the use of land. AT bourgeois society K. Marx contrasted the class of property-owning capitalists with hired workers deprived of property and therefore forced to sell their labor. Specific historical classes depend on the mode of production underlying the social system.

Due to the common position in the system of social production, classes, according to K. Marx, have common economic interests, from which the common political interests, etc. follow. At the same time, the interests of classes whose positions are opposite (owners and those who are deprived of property) also have opposite interests. K. Marx and his followers called such classes antagonistic, i.e. irreconcilable. Therefore, classes are characterized by conflict relations with each other, and the struggle between classes is considered by Marxists as the main driving force community development. However, the classes are not always and far from immediately aware of their interests. A class in its infancy, which has not yet realized the objective community of interests that stems not from specific local circumstances, but from the unity of position in the economic mode of production, is called class-in-itself. After the class develops a single "class consciousness" and there is an awareness of objective interests, they take shape in an ideology, political position and political organization, he becomes classes-for-itself.

Many followers, as well as opponents, who recognized the great heuristic value of K. Marx's theory of classes, criticized him for the lack of clear definitions, and tried to give their own interpretations of the class. The definition given by V. I. Lenin in The Great Beginning (1918): "Classes are called large groups people, differing in their place in the historically determined system of social production, in their relation ( for the most part enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, according to their role in public organization labor, and consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are such groups of people from which another can appropriate labor due to the difference in their place in a certain way of social economy.

The class theory of social stratification proposed by K. Marx can be applied to any society in which there is a developed division of labor and private property. It does not deny other types of stratification, such as class stratification, but shifts the focus of research interest to the analysis of ownership relations for the means of production, explaining all other forms of inequality as secondary. At the same time, the class theory in Marx's interpretation considers the whole diversity of social groups and their relations through the prism of ownership of the means of production. Then social groups whose status is not directly deducible from such relations (clergy, intelligentsia, bureaucracy, military, etc.) have to be considered as "secondary" in relation to the "main" classes: for example, the intelligentsia as a "stratum" in the bourgeois society, etc. Such an approach leads to a schematization, a certain simplification of the real social structure, and forces us to assume that as one mode of production develops or another, the main classes crystallize: in a capitalist society, small independent producers, artisans either go bankrupt and join the ranks of the proletariat, or grow rich and become bourgeois.

M. Weber substantiated the theory of stratification based on the pluralism of criteria. M. Weber classifies the bases of stratification as follows.

• 1. Inequality in the distribution of economic benefits and the realization of economic interests, which determines the division of society into classes. By classes, he, unlike K. Marx, understands a multitude of people united by a common "chance" of obtaining a surplus product in the market of goods and services, as well as life experience and the ability to "dispose of goods or skills in order to generate income within a given economic order." The most important factor the appearance of "chance" in a market economy is property - as we see, in this M. Weber agrees with K. Marx. Ownership determines the ability to engage entrepreneurial activity and compete successfully for the appropriation of the surplus product. Those who are deprived of property (slaves, serfs, hired workers of various kinds) are divided into classes depending on their qualifications and ability to provide certain services on the market. Members of a class have many and varied interests based on their "opportunities" within a given economic order, but they are not necessarily expressed in a single "class interest" that determines the joint actions of individuals belonging to the class. On the contrary, the interests determined by the "chance" in the market, more often lead, according to M. Weber, to joint actions of representatives of different classes to achieve their goals, for example, entrepreneurs and employees in a capitalist enterprise must negotiate among themselves to achieve their economic goals. The main contradictions that arise in relations between classes, according to M. Weber, are determined by the inequality of opportunities to realize their own "chances" in the market, for example, in the formation of an acceptable price for labor, access to loans, etc., and not in a matter of principle presence or absence of property. Thus, the class, according to M. Weber, reflects economic stratification, which is not the only one, and is supplemented by other forms.
• 2. Correction of class situations by relations of "status groups", or strata, which are based on the inequality of prestige, "honors" granted by society to one or another group, which M. Weber also calls "social evaluation". The German sociologist emphasizes that class and status do not necessarily coincide, the richest do not necessarily enjoy the greatest prestige. It often turns out that the same status group includes both the haves and the have-nots. M. Weber calls the main content of "honor" the common style of life of those who belong to the same status group, for example, gentlemen who attend the same club. This commonality is the boundary of the status group, which is expressed in the rejection of relations with representatives of other groups, for example, from marriage. Social markers of belonging to a status group can be the privileges of using certain objects, goods, performing any actions: wearing costumes and jewelry, drinking "special" foods and drinks, entertainment, arts, etc. Thus, status groups are associated with the isolation of various social circles, with emphasis on "prestigious" and "non-prestigious". M. Weber notes that in his contemporary society, "disqualified" groups include those associated with physical labor in one form or another, especially heavy and dirty.

"Social status" M. Weber calls "real claims to positive or negative privileges in relation to social prestige, if it is based on one or more of the following criteria: a) lifestyle; b) formal education, consisting in practical or theoretical education and assimilation of an appropriate way of life; c) the prestige of birth and profession.

Thus, M. Weber practically identifies the concept of social status with belonging to a stratum and distinguishes it from class belonging as an expression of economic chances and interests. Strat and class are not identical to each other, although they are interconnected by many different dependencies. So, in itself, the presence of ownership or a managerial position does not guarantee a high status, although it can contribute to its acquisition. There are hereditary statuses determined by the inheritance of privileges and prestige.

3. Unequal distribution of power, leading to the division into "political parties" ". The party unites people of similar beliefs, which are not necessarily determined by class and status, and they are not necessarily focused on the realization of the interests of certain classes or strata. However, parties arise only in societies (communities) that have rational organization power, and reflect the struggle for power within the community.

M. Weber's three-dimensional model of social stratification underlies modern approaches that involve taking into account the many bases and criteria for dividing society into classes.

Another classical theory of stratification is the theory P. A. Sorokina, who was a consistent critic of the one-dimensional theory of K. Marx.

P. A. Sorokin identified three main forms of stratification:

• 1) economic, consisting in the uneven distribution of material wealth;
• 2) political, due to the uneven distribution of power;
• 3) professional, based on unequal value different professions for society and on the inequality of their prestige and the amount of remuneration they receive.

All three forms of stratification have relative autonomy: political leader is not necessarily the owner of huge capital, and a large entrepreneur, the owner of a multimillion-dollar fortune, is not necessarily directly involved in political life and holds high positions. However, all three forms of stratification are interconnected with each other: representatives of the highest political circles, as a rule, have highly qualified and a prestigious profession and have a considerable fortune, and representatives of big business, one way or another, also have political influence. And vice versa: the poor, as a rule, have non-prestigious professions and do not occupy high positions in the political sphere.

P. A. Sorokin argued with K. Marx and his followers, insisting on the universality of social stratification, which he considered an inevitable and necessary attribute of social life. Any social group stratified in one way or another. None of the attempts to destroy economic, political or professional stratification has ever been successful in human history.

P. A. Sorokin’s concept of multidimensional stratification is also associated with the concept he introduced social space", which in principle differs from geometric or geographical space. Master and slave may be physically close, but the social distance between them will be huge. Moving in geographical space does not always lead to a change in social position, and vice versa, a change in social position does not always lead to movement in geographic space.

Development sociological theories social stratification in the 20th century. went in the direction of complicating the system of criteria that make it possible to describe the social structure of society more accurately and in detail.