Davis-moore thesis of social stratification

This paper explores the Davis-Moore thesis in greater detail and casts a light on the debate it has fostered. By understanding the forces behind its development, the reader gains a better grasp of many of the intricacies of the class systems that continue today in modern, industrialized societies. Throughout history, countless societies have been established to give greater and equitable power to the citizens, only to have the various social and economic subgroups of those systems experience a less egalitarian shift.

Davis-moore thesis of social stratification

Davis and Moore state: The most important positions are rewarded the most--the least important are rewarded the least. In general those positions convey the best reward, and have the highest rank which a have the greatest importance for the society and b require the greatest training or talent.

Rather it draws a high income because it is functionally important and the available personnel is for one reason or another scarce.

Causes of Inequality: Analytical Strategies -- Robert Max Jackson

Davis-moore thesis of social stratification, every society, no matter how simple or complex, must differentiate persons in terms of both prestige and esteem, and must therefore possess a certain amount of institutionalized inequality. High income, power, prestige of a particular position are due to functional importance or scarcity of trained personnel.

Summary of the Davis-Moore Thesis: Social positions have varying degrees of functional importance. Talented and trained individuals are scarce because acquisition of training and skills requires people to be sufficiently motivated to pursue them.

Stratification, or unequal distribution of rewards ensures that the most talented and trained individuals will fulfill the social roles of greatest importance. Criticism of the Davis-Moore Thesis: The Nature of Social Mobility: Some rewards are not functionally determined at all, but rather must be understood within the context of wealth ownership and institution of inheritance.

Inept progeny of rich tycoons took over companies while intelligent children of workers went uneducated. Modern societies allocated their collective labor forces inefficiently, wasting talented but poor people in humble positions and suffering from the inept sons of the privileged in powerful positions.

To remedy this problem, Durkheim advocated using public schooling to sift and winnow children according to their native abilities, educationally prepare them according to their potential--what later became known as tracking--and see that they ended up in jobs that paid accordingly.

Davis and Moore claimed that their theory was applicable to all forms of society.

Davis-Moore Thesis

Critics of the Davis-Moore viewpoint argued that it did not make much sense in non-competitive societies--for example feudalism, where all positions are distributed not by merit but by birth.

And, more importantly what about those aspects of a class society that do not operate like merit systems?

Davis-moore thesis of social stratification

The distribution of positions cannot be understood merely by achievement but achievement itself is conditioned by ascription of status. Opportunities for achievement are not distributed equally.

Class itself can be though of as implying a set of life chances and obstacles to social mobility.

Davis-moore thesis of social stratification

We must also consider the problem of deskilling and the control of workers see Braverman--the detailed division of labor.

Scarcity of talent is not an adequate explanation of stratification. There is in stratification systems artificial limits to the development of whatever potential skills there are in society. For example, wealth, education, professional associations, etc. The universality of stratification does not mean it is necessarily beneficial or inevitable.

Writings: Analyzing Davis-Moore thesis.

Just because stratification is universal does not mean it is a vital aspect or system need of society. Stratification is not positively functionally for a society--it is dysfunctional.

Tumin states see Levine, p.In Davis and Moore, following an earlier formulation by Davis, proposed a functional theory of stratification that was intended to account for what they contended was the “universal necessity” for social inequality in any social order. Beginning with an article by Tumin in , the Davis.

Stratification and the Three P's. Did you ever live in a home where the basement was really cold and the upstairs was hot? I did while growing up; we had cold layers of air in . The Davis-Moore Thesis Overview In , a publication known as Girl's Home Companion published an article in which it offered its view of how social and economic classes interact with one another.

Functionalism on stratification: the Davis-Moore thesis: a. With particular respect to the issue of social stratification or social inequality, the functionalist view argues that social inequality is necessary because it fulfills vital system needs.

The Davis-Moore thesis, though open for debate, was an early attempt to explain why stratification exists. The thesis states that social stratification is necessary to promote excellence, productivity, and efficiency, thus giving people something to strive for.

Functionalism on stratification: the Davis-Moore thesis: a. With particular respect to the issue of social stratification or social inequality, the functionalist view argues that social inequality is necessary because it fulfills vital system needs.

What is the Davis Moore theory