Social stratification and social mobility. Theories of social stratification Basic concepts of the theory of social stratification

PREFACE from Vladimir Tochilin

2.1. To understand where they came from (and why - more than one) you need to know the history of the issue of inequality of people in social and economic terms. We have no evidence that in distant pre-literate antiquity it was noticed inequality of people in relation to material and spiritual benefits, but in the ancient period they were of interest to all thinkers, and even then they came to the conclusion that the source of economic inequality is. After two millennia, one would expect a scientific explanation emergence of social stratification, but we have not only an abundance and diversity of terms, but also a bunch of theories: -, theory of separation of people or theory of social differentiation, theory of power, theory of elites who only state stratification of society. believes that the main reason for the failure of orthodox economic theories and sociology is the fact that their founding fathers didn't manage it on its own. (See (1) and (2) Yu.I. Semenov)

2.2. (or theories of stratification of people) are based on recognition of fact CLASSES OF PEOPLE one society, usually according to two criteria: - (1) welfare (measured by the volume of property owned by a person or the level of income) AND/OR(2) the position of a person at a certain step on the hierarchical ladder (reflected in or rank), which is recognized. In fact, adherents of these theories admit the existence of certain fixed levels of income, which allow people between levels to be mentally united into one welfare layer(stratum). We can say that everything theories of social stratification are presented in the form of a multi-storey building in which there are clearly defined FLOORS, the residents of which have approximately the same level of well-being. All difference between theories of social stratification consists only of criteria that explain the reasons why people have this or that amount of welfare, but even modern theories of social stratification The main cause of economic inequality is recognized - social inequality people in the hierarchy of social structure.

2.3. : Social inequality- there is a system of differentiation of members of society according to the criterion of their ability to satisfy their needs. It is objective and exists initially, but is applied in situations of separation, as well as - according to their availability to material and social benefits. The essence of social inequality consists in the form vertical social hierarchy, thanks to which members with different statuses have unequal access to limited resources of material and spiritual consumption.

THEORIES OF SOCIETY DIVISION

3.1. We must understand that in ancient times the connection POWER AND MONEY(more precisely, the dependence of a person’s well-being on his position in the SOCIAL HIERARCHY of SOCIETY, since this principle also covers the pre-money period) - miss it was difficult. Even the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (427 - 347 BC) in dialogues about the ideal structure of the state, wrote about the stratification of society into rich and poor. Moreover, as he believed, Plato was “the first political ideologist who thought in terms of classes.” Plato's views on the best form of government changed over time, but he was always sure that “just as there are three parts in the soul - the rational part in the head, the passionate part in the heart, the desired part in the liver, so in the state there should be three (four) estates (γένος)”:

Upper class: Only the wise can take care of the right way of life for all citizens. According to Plato, the head of the state should be philosophers (φιλόσοφοι) or philosophizing kings.
Guardian class(φύλαξ): this class is responsible for the internal and external security of the state (class of warriors).
Class of other citizens(demos: artisans, businessmen, peasants): their task is to ensure the supply of the state with what is necessary (the breadwinner class).

3.2. According to Plato, stratification of people had a reason in the division of labor, in accordance with the natural inclinations of man (). Plato's ideas were transformed from a monarchical form of government to an ideal state, which should be led by philosophers, who, thanks to their talent, should form a class of aristocracy, the only representatives of which were allowed to govern the state.

3.3. The citizens of this state should be instilled with the myth that they are all brothers, but they are not equal, since when the gods created people in the depths of mother Earth, they mixed gold with some people, silver with others, and copper and iron with others . The method of selection for rulers is exams, and the most important elevator in an ideal state is the school elevator. Inequality between people in an ideal state is not hereditary. Capable children can move into the upper classes through examination selection. Plato proposed artificial selection of people and selection of marriage couples...

3.4. It was easy for Plato to explain social stratification of people the activity of the gods, who, when creating people in the bowels of the earth, mixed certain metals - thereby predetermining to each person his natural qualities, which predetermined his entire fate, in the sense of his position in society, and therefore his property and social status.

3.5. Ancient philosophers were statesmen, and therefore they thought a lot about the problem of security and stability, which, as they believed, depended on the social peace within society. It is clear that another ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who was a student of Plato, also considered it. Aristotle conducted social division the Greek population into three elements: one class - very rich; the other is very poor; the third is average. He paid the greatest attention to the middle class - the class of owners, on which the stability of the state depended, since it was this class that was interested in preserving the foundations. Poverty is a source of rebellion and crime, and therefore Aristotle considered a situation dangerous for the stability of the state when the poor class would outnumber the middle class. Aristotle considered the best form of state to be Polity, in which the majority rules, but in the interests of the common good. The “average” element here dominates in everything: in morals - moderation, in property - average wealth, in power - the middle stratum. Literally: - “A state consisting of average people will have the best political system” .

The concept of social stratification

4.1. Social stratification of society in the Roman Empire was a very obvious fact, but ancient thinkers did not even try to find reasons for social stratification of society. The principles of scientific knowledge began to take shape already in the Middle Ages, and Europe became the place where science emerged, which was due to the uniqueness of its development. Here it should be noted that identity of power and wealth (money) manifested itself quite openly precisely in the East, where, thanks to the availability of money, management was carried out precisely with the help. The eastern monarch received money through taxes, and this allowed him to pay for both the devotion of the aristocrats and the services of the state's administrative apparatus. In Europe, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, feudalism was formed, the cause of which was outflow of the bulk of money(in the sense of gold and silver) to the eastern part of the empire, which today is called by the term - Byzantine Empire. Dependence of money on power in Europe was clouded by the fact that the LEAD could pay for the loyalty of the commander of a unit of his army of invaders, which had captured a certain society, only by allocating to his comrade-in-arms a certain territory - a feud, from the population of which this commander, now called a feudal lord, could “feed” himself and support his squad . In the absence of money, the economic situation was ensured by the withdrawal and redistribution of products in kind.

4.2. Already in the Middle Ages it was clear that the problem of the difference in the economic status of the oppressed and the oppressors was connected with people, determined by their status in the hierarchy of society. Moreover, the early feudal society of Europe was precisely developing towards the “anthill”, since in the system of division of labor ossified by the postulates of the church, a son could only inherit the place of his father. According to the logic of development under the yoke of the Catholic Church, it was in Europe that the system for separating people, similar to the caste structure of India, when people from one caste are separated by a gulf from members of another. But it didn’t work out, because for supremacy in Europe, money was freed from being tied to power.

4.3. The uniqueness of the development of Europe broke the historical pattern: - a single European empire should have emerged, and as a result of the thousand-year confrontation between emperors and popes, who distributed privileges to their allies - individuals, classes, and cities - fragmentation into small states was preserved, free cities appeared, and most importantly - money became untied from power, which resulted in the emergence of large personal fortunes among people outside the hierarchy of power. If in the East the feudal lord remained the owner of all the money of his subjects, which was considered given to them for temporary use, so that at any moment the hierarch had the right to take it for his own needs, then in the Western European empire the German nation appeared free - in the sense Not dependent on feudal lords- fortunes owned by both individuals and social groups, for example, guilds of merchants or money changers (bankers). As a result, in Europe it arises among people of the same class, which destroys foundations of social stratification based on class.

4.4. The cooling of the climate caused the reformation, which removed the shackles of the Catholic Church, and the Protestant ethic became the basis for the emergence in Europe of special enterprises, today called the word - firm, in which the management rose an order of magnitude compared to manufactories, and the spread of capitalist relations broke the feudal inequality criterion- as belonging to a certain class upon birth. Population growth increases the role of cities, because excess population from rural areas moves there, so that agricultural countries are gradually disappearing in densely populated Western Europe. Compared to the countries of the East, in Europe there really are many different social elevators for the transition of people to higher, and therefore wealthier, strata of society. (In the terminology of Pitirim Sorokin, it intensifies and horizontal and vertical mobility, if mobility is understood as the movement of individuals from one social group to another. ) If earlier the aristocracy, which had a monopoly right to govern the state, received a large part of the social product as a bonus to its monopoly position in the power structure, then after the weakening of the connection between power and money, it began to become related to rich families from the trading and financial classes. As a result, equality before the law is recognized regardless of class origin; the state, due to the desire to rely on broad sections of the population, is covered with a veil of democracy, allowing other sections of society to govern. Under capitalism social stratification system gets more complicated, but the essence of social stratification remains the same.

4.5. A brief digression into European history is necessary to understand why everything theories of social stratification describe stratification of people only in Western countries. The fact is that after he explained in his book that the source of all wealth is only, he needed to explain why the results of labor are distributed so unfairly. From this problem arose the whole, which could not explain, realizing that the source of inequality was in the social hierarchy, which in the 19th century the founding fathers of all orthodox economic theories could not accept initially, since the hierarchy contradicted their chosen concept of primitive society as a HERDS of people. A situation has arisen where sociology is already fully explaining inequality, although orthodox science has denied it throughout history, and today it seems to agree, but in principle is not able to explain why people have a hierarchy in every community.

5.0. The next part of the article is reprint of PARTS text Chapter 9. Inequality, stratification and class from the Textbook by Neil Smelser - SOCIOLOGY. I WARN the reader that Neil Smelser, as a representative of Western sociology, ignores the scientific work of Pitirim Sorokin, although many of the provisions of today's Western stratification theories taken specifically from his works. Therefore, it is located in a separate article, the link to which the reader will find at the end of this article.

Neil Joseph Smelser

theories of social stratification

5.1. THE NATURE OF INEQUALITY: Although all sociologists recognize that inequality is widespread in society, they define its essence and causes differently. In this section we will discuss several opposing views.

FUNCTIONALISM THEORIES: RECOGNIZING THE BEST

5.2. THEORIES OF FUNCTIONALISM: One of the earliest explanations for inequality was proposed by Emile Durkheim. In On the Division of Social Labor (1893), Durkheim concluded that in all activities some activities are considered more important than others. In one society, achieving religious salvation is highly valued, as was the case for the Puritans in colonial times. Another may consider material wealth to be a social value. All functions of society - law, religion, family, work, etc. can form a hierarchy according to how highly they are valued.

5.3. The second aspect of Durkheim's theory is that people have different degrees of talent - some are more gifted than others. With training, these differences intensify. Durkheim believed that in a prosperous society, the most talented should perform the most important functions. To attract the best and brightest, society must promote social reward for their merits.

5.4. In 1954, Kingsley Davis and Wilbur Moore published a theory developed from Durkheim's concept. Like Durkheim, they believed that inequality helps society /278/ ensure conditions in which the most important activities are performed by the most skilled. In primitive societies, warriors and healers usually have the highest status; in more complex societies, engineers and doctors tend to be highly valued.

5.5. The most important activities vary depending on the characteristics of the social system. Positions that are essential in one society may be unnecessary in another. A hunter who hunts fur-bearing animals is highly valued among peoples living in the Arctic latitudes, but he would find himself without work in a tribe living near the tropics. However, some functions remain basic for everyone. These include religion, government, and in more complex societies, technology. Religious activity is leading because on its basis common beliefs and values are formed.

5.6. Religious leaders help to understand the meaning of life and death - they create a moral code that people follow to find salvation. Because this function is so important, religious leaders are usually rewarded more than ordinary members of society. This is not necessarily a matter of financial reward, since many members of the clergy or religious orders do not receive much money; the social reward is recognition and respect.

5.7. Governance is another key social function. Rulers have significantly more power than those they rule. For the ruling stratum, increased power is a reward, but they often become owners of a larger share of wealth, their prestige is higher than that of mere mortals.

5.8. Another leading area of focus is technology, according to Davis and Moore. "Technicians" operate in special areas - for example, in the field of improving military and agricultural equipment. Since this type of activity requires long and thorough training, society should provide large material benefits to technical specialists to stimulate people's desire to make efforts in this direction (Davis and Moore, 1945).

THEORIES OF CONFLICT: PROTECTING THE PRIVILEGES OF AUTHORITY

6.1. Conflict theorists disagree with the idea that inequality is a natural way of ensuring the survival of society. Not only do they point out the shortcomings of functionalist approaches (is it fair, for example, that soap merchants earn more than people who teach children to read?), but they also argue that functionalism is nothing more than an attempt to justify the status quo. In their opinion, this is the essence of inequality: it is the result of a situation where people who control social values (mainly wealth and power) are able to extract benefits for themselves (Tumin, 1953).

Stratification according to Marx

6.2. Many ideas on the problem of social inequality are drawn from Marxist theories of stratification and class. According to Marx, human history can be divided into periods depending on the way in which the production of goods is carried out - he called this the mode of production. During the period of feudalism, the main mode of production was agriculture: the nobleman owned the land, and his subjects cultivated it. In the capitalist period, business owners pay their employees, who use the money they earn to buy goods and services according to their wants and needs.

6.3. The mode of production determines the economic organization of each formation. Marx considered economic organization to be the fundamental aspect of social life. It includes technology, division of labor and, most importantly, the relationships that develop between people in the production system. These relationships play a key role in the Marxist concept of classes.

6.4. Marx argued that in any type of economic organization there is a ruling class that owns and controls the means of production (factories, raw materials, etc.). Through economic power, the ruling class decides the fate of those who work for it. In a feudal society, the nobles exercise control over the serfs; in a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) control the proletariat (workers). Let's give an example from modern life: the bourgeois are the owners of factories and their equipment (means of production), and the proletariat is usually represented by people working on the assembly line. This division of society into classes is the basis of Marx's theory. Marx also argued that history is a sequence of changes in which one class system (for example, feudalism) is transformed into another /280/ (for example, capitalism). During the transformation at the new stage of development, some features of the previous stage are preserved. For example, in England during the period of capitalism, the aristocracy continued to own land; this was a legacy of the feudal era. Marx also recognized that there was a division among the main classes - thus, within the bourgeoisie, shopkeepers and merchants differed in their position in the social hierarchy from the owners of the most important means of production (factories and land). Finally, Marx took into account the existence of the lumpen proletariat - criminals, drug addicts, etc., completely thrown out of society.

6.5. According to Marx, the essence of the relationship between the ruling and exploited classes is that the ruling class exploits the working class. The form of this exploitation depends on the method of production. Under capitalism, property owners buy workers' labor. It is the labor of workers that creates a product from raw materials. When this product is sold, property owners make a profit because it can be sold for more than it costs to produce. Marx emphasized that surplus value is created by workers:

6.6. PRODUCT COST - the cost of technical equipment and raw materials + workers' wages + owner's profit (surplus value).

6.7. Marx concluded that workers would eventually understand that surplus value goes into the pockets of the owners of the means of production, not into their own. Once they understand this, they will see that they are being exploited. This will lead to deep, inevitable conflict between workers and owners. Marx predicted that as capitalism developed, the bourgeoisie would become richer and the proletariat poorer. The conflict will intensify, and eventually the workers will make a revolution. The revolution will become worldwide, leading to the overthrow of capitalism and the transition to socialism.

6.8. Marx's prediction did not come true; capitalism did not lead to the results he expected. Firstly, there was a significant stratification within the proletariat. The economy has seen a noticeable increase in the service sector; being wage earners, people from this sector do not necessarily identify themselves with the working class. Giorgiano Gagliani (1981) suggested that non-manual workers ("white collar") - from secretaries to engineers - are interested in an alliance with the capitalists: in return for political support, employers pay them higher wages than manual workers. Marx's theory /281/ is also weakened by the fact that the government and the capitalists themselves have become more sensitive to the needs and demands of workers due to political pressure and through the system of collective bargaining. Workers in the United States have high wages and bonuses, and they also receive unemployment benefits. For these reasons, they are unlikely to be inspired by Marx's call: “Proletarians have nothing to lose except their chains. They will gain the whole world. Workers of all countries, unite!”

Michels stratification

7.1. Other critics accepted the basic principles of Marx's theory but questioned the idea that economic organization was the main cause of conflict between classes. In his study of the activities of trade unions and political parties of the late XIX - early XX centuries. Robert Mikels proved that oligarchy (the power of a few) develops in any case if the size of the organization exceeds a certain value (say, increases from 1000 to 10,000 people). This theory is called the "iron law of oligarchy" ( Mikels, 1959). The tendency towards concentration of power is mainly due to the structure of the organization. A huge number of people who make up an organization cannot discuss the issue in order to take action. They place responsibility for this on a few leaders whose power is increasing.

Dahrendorf stratification

8.1. This “iron law” is characteristic of the organization of all social life, and not just the economy. Ralph Dahrendorf (1959) argues that class conflict is determined by the nature of power. It is not caused by economic relations between superiors and subordinates; rather, its main reason is the power of some over others. It is not only the power of employers over workers that creates the basis for conflict; the latter can arise in any organization (hospital, military unit, university) where there are superiors and subordinates. /282/

WEBER'S THEORY OF STRATIFICATION

WEBER'S THEORY: WEALTH - PRESTIGE - POWER

9.1. Weber stratification: Max Weber, who wrote his scientific works several decades after Marx (1922-1970), unlike him, did not consider the organization of the economy to be the basis of stratification. Weber highlighted three main components of inequality. He saw them as interrelated and yet independent in essential respects. The first component is wealth inequality. Wealth means more than just your salary; The rich often do not work at all, but receive large incomes through property, investments, real estate or stocks and securities. Weber pointed out that representatives of different social classes - peasants, workers, merchants - have unequal opportunities for earning income and purchasing goods.

9.2. Until this moment Weber's theory coincides with Marx's theory. However, Weber felt that it was not all about wealth. He revealed second component of inequality- groups of people are honored and respected to varying degrees and have unequal prestige; he entered concept of status groups.

9.3. It's not at all difficult to understand features of status groups. Their members lead a special way of life. There is a noticeable similarity in their manner of speaking and style of clothing; they throw similar parties, drink similar types of drinks, etc. In the official directory Preppy(Bernbach, 1980) describes in detail the characteristics of one of the status groups. Preppy - prestigious status group, its members come from wealthy homes, their tastes require great expenditure. But not all status groups consist only of rich people; they can include people of very different incomes.

9.4. A number of factors influence a person. Wealth plays an important role, but equally important is prestige, which may be completely independent of wealth. For example, college professors, ministers, and government officials who earn $40,000 a year have higher prestige than a pornographic movie theater owner who makes more money. The mafia leader is rich, but he social prestige minimal (except for its small group).

9.5. In addition to wealth and prestige, Weber noted third factor of stratification. We are talking about something that is essentially political in nature. This refers to a person's ability to either carry out plans, take actions or pursue certain policies even in the face of objections from other people and. Weber /283/ took into account the important role of political parties and groups united by common interests in the formation of society.

WARNER'S THEORY: CLASS AND REPUTATION

10.1. Warner stratification: According to the theories discussed above, or is the result of specific economic and social conditions. The opposite point of view is presented in a unique stratification concept - reputation theory- W. Lloyd Warner (Warner, Lunt, 1941). During the 1930s and 1940s, Warner conducted a detailed study of the class system in the settler community, which he called " Yankee City".

10.2. The analysis of this system was carried out on the basis of statements made by community members about each other. Thus, people themselves determined the class affiliation of certain residents. If a grocery store owner believed that a bank employee was socially superior to him, Warner "took him at his word." That's it" reputation theory", since Warner determined the class affiliation of people based on the assessment of their status by other members of the community, i.e. their reputation.

Warner identified six different classes in " Yankee City":

upper upper class included rich people. But the main thing was the “noble” origin;
V lower upper class also included people of high income, but they did not come from aristocratic families. Many of them had only recently become rich, boasted of it and were eager to flaunt their luxurious clothes, luxury jewelry and cars;
upper middle class consisted of highly educated people engaged in intellectual work and business people with high incomes: doctors, lawyers, capital owners;
lower middle class represented mainly clerical workers and other “white collar” workers (secretaries, bank tellers, clerks);
upper stratum of the lower class consisted of "blue collar" workers - factory workers and other manual workers;
finally, lower class included the poorest and most excluded members of the community, very similar to the lumpenproletariat that Marx wrote about. /284/

FOUR POINTS OF TREIMANN'S THEORY

11.1. In addition to Warner, there were other stratification researchers who focused on the analysis of prestige, but they characterized prestige in terms of people's attitudes toward certain occupations. In a study conducted in 1956, residents of various countries (from the United States to New Zealand) were asked to rate the prestige of various professions. Very similar answers were received (Inkeles and Rossi, 1956). The researchers concluded that in countries where an industrial production system has developed, there is a demand for the same professions: engineers, mechanics, accountants, etc. These professions and the people who master them enjoy approximately the same prestige throughout the world.

11.2. It is noteworthy that the characteristics of prestige hardly change over time. In 1966, a group of researchers concluded that there had been no significant change in assessments of professional prestige in the United States since 1925 - doctors and other professionals remained at the top of the pyramid, shoe shiners and prostitutes still occupied a place at the base (Hodge, Siegel and Rossi, 1966). In 1977, Donald J. Treiman analyzed 85 studies of occupational prestige by scientists from 53 countries and concluded that assessments of prestige were very similar throughout the world. Based on the results of his analysis, Treiman developed a theory to explain why these estimates are so similar. Treiman's theory consists of four main statements.

11.3. The first is due to the fact that the basic needs of people (food, clothing and shelter) are the same in all societies. In addition, life in modern societies requires tools, weapons, political and military organizations. All over the world the problems associated with producing these things are similar. As a result, in all such societies there is approximately the same.

11.4. Second position Treiman's theories is that in conditions some people have greater ownership of material resources and control over their use than others. In other words, the result of a specialized division of labor is different - doctors are more skilled and have more power than assembly line workers, in addition, they have higher earnings and own more property.

11.5. The third statement of Treiman's theory captures the privileges of those who have power in any society. People /285/ occupying a high position often have very noticeable political influence, which they can use to their advantage. For example, the president of a jet engine company may be able to influence the government to approve airline safety standards that favor the development of the aviation industry.

11.6. The fourth and final position of Treiman's theory is a consequence of the three previous ones. Since privileges are valued everywhere, the professions associated with them are considered prestigious.

11.7. Treiman's theory combines elements of several other concepts. Like Davis and Moore, the emphasis here is on the differences in the degrees of importance of different professions, in addition, it is reflected here Marx's point of view, emphasizing the role of the division of labor. In exploring the relationship between power, privilege, and prestige, Treiman drew on aspects of Warner's "reputation theory." The only one element of stratification What he failed to explain is the question of how those with power are able to maintain their advantages.

CONCLUSIONS

12.1. All the theories we have looked at have some kind of starting point, but there are different approaches to the subject. Views differ on what is the main component of inequality - wealth, power or prestige? What are they? The sharpest differences are found between the Davis-Moore approach and conflict theory. Davis and Moore consider it a consequence of the normal development of society; supporters of the conflictological approach - the result of selfish tricks of influential groups seeking to maintain the status quo. However, a careful analysis reveals: there is reason to believe that these theories are not mutually exclusive, that in any given society stratification system may well result from a combination of different social forces. /286/

13.1. AFTERWORD: The question of stratification of society throughout the 20th century was one of the main ones in the ideological struggle of capitalist states against the socialist bloc, respectively, problem of stratification of society became the subject of study of social sciences, since the theory of class struggle after the Great Socialist Revolution in Russia received material embodiment in the form of the emergence of the USSR, as the first socialist state, breaking postulate about the eternity of capitalism. Appearance problems of social stratification in the field of view of Western sociologists occurred due to the increased popularity, which, in contrast to, which was formulated long before Marx, and which can be considered only one of the many developed before him theories of stratification of society, affected not only the interests of rich people, but also the interests of states, which instinctively from the first moment the emergence of each state, strive in every possible way to hide their essence as .

13.2. people according to property and social criteria already in the 19th century did not require proof, so the ELITES supported such vague theories only because Weber's theory of social stratification recognized the existing situation as unchanged. But, if Weber blurred by reducing stratification to smaller groups than Marx’s classes, as groups of people only leading the same way of life (in practice, united by belonging to the same profession), then in modern sociology - the criterion of class membership has been brought to the point of absurdity, since a theory has become popular in the West in which people’s belonging to a certain class is determined by the assessment of their status by other members of the community.

13.3. Another direction of the ideological struggle of the elites of capitalist states against the idea of a socialist revolution was attempts to soften the severity by formulating the theory of convergence (rapprochement), in line with which lay

Keywords

CAPITAL / SYMBOLIC CAPITAL/ TRUST / FORMATION / SOCIAL STRATIFICATION/ P. BOURDIE / K. MARX / CAPITAL / SYMBOLIC CAPITAL / TRUST / FORMATION / SOCIAL STRATIFICATION / PIERRE BOURDIEU / KARL MARX

annotation scientific article on sociological sciences, author of the scientific work - Marina Vladimirovna Demidova

The relevance of the work is due to changes in modern social space. Purpose of the work: identifying new social classes and their stratification in the conditions of symbolic capitalism. Research methods. Philosophical analysis of modern social stratification carried out on the basis of the ideas of P. Bourdieu and K. Marx. Comparative and formational approaches and the synthesis method were used as the research methodology. The concepts of habitus, capital, socio-economic formation, mode of production are used in their alternative interpretation, determined by the modern global social context. Results. The specificity of the interaction between symbolic and material capitals, the rhizomic form of symbolic social stratification, the presence of symbolic and real levels of society. The main mode of production of symbolic capitalism is symbolic capital as a strategy for functioning in society through trust. The author has identified new characteristics of existence symbolic capital, a symbolic stratification of society was developed, consisting of two main classes of symbolic capitalists and symbolic workers. Development of the symbolic hypothesis social stratification is achieved by identifying the features of modern social interaction both at its local and global levels. As a result of the study, definitions of new concepts reflecting the identified characteristics were formulated; trends in strategy development are noted symbolic capital in global society; Practical recommendations for using the results obtained are given. Conclusions. The emerging modern global society is gradually moving away from traditional types of social structures and acts as a social structure based on the principles of functioning symbolic capital, which underlies the habitus, which regulates and directs the development of society. Symbolic capital acts as a strategy through which social reality is constructed, consisting of relationships in society. New social classes and symbolic social stratification, adapted to modern social realities.

Text of scientific work on the topic “Social stratification under symbolic capitalism: a philosophical approach”

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION UNDER SYMBOLIC CAPITALISM:

PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH

Demidova Marina Vladimirovna,

Ph.D. Philosopher Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Volga Region Institute of Management named after. P.A. Stolypin - branch of RANEPA under the President of the Russian Federation, Russia, Saratov, 410031, st. Sobornaya, 23/25.

Email: [email protected]

Results. The specificity of the interaction of symbolic and material capitals, the rhizomic form of symbolic social stratification, the presence of symbolic and real levels of society are revealed. The main method of production of symbolic capitalism is symbolic capital as a strategy for functioning in society through trust. The author has identified new characteristics of the existence of symbolic capital, developed a symbolic stratification of society, consisting of two main classes - symbolic capitalists and symbolic workers. The development of the hypothesis about symbolic social stratification is achieved by identifying the features of modern social interaction both at its local and global levels. As a result of the study, definitions of new concepts reflecting the identified characteristics were formulated; trends in the development of the strategy of symbolic capital in global society are noted; Practical recommendations for using the results obtained are given. Conclusions. The emerging modern global society is gradually moving away from traditional types of social structures and acts as a social structure based on the principles of the functioning of symbolic capital, which underlies the habitus, which regulates and directs the development of society. Symbolic capital acts as a strategy through which social reality is constructed, consisting of relationships in society. New social classes and symbolic social stratification are being formed, adapted to modern social realities.

Keywords:

Capital, symbolic capital, trust, formation, social stratification, P. Bourdieu, K. Marx.

The desire to structure society, to streamline it by building a hierarchy and ways of interaction in it, has been present in society since ancient times. Plato's theory of the ideal state is a textbook example of this. Over time, society develops, which leads to a change in its stratification.

Compared to all historically previous types of society and the stratifications characteristic of them, modern society is fundamentally different, since in the process of globalization its structuring, functioning and social interactions go far beyond national boundaries. This leads to a blurring of the boundaries of a particular society, its hierarchical structure and, as a consequence, the formation of a new social stratification acceptable for the functioning of a society on a global scale.

If we understand globalization as interstate social functioning based on information and communication technologies, then, in our opinion, the modern initial stage of the formation of a global society acts as a social structure based on the principles of functioning of symbolic capital, which underlies the habitus, which regulates and directs the development of society . This

We called the stage in the development of society symbolic capitalism. If we follow the concept of historical development and the theory of classes by K. Marx (1818-1883), we can consider this stage a new socio-economic formation, following the capitalist one, since the communist one is currently absent, but there is a new mode of production - symbolic capital, underlying this formation.

Symbolic capital is a strategy for accumulating trust and social functioning based on it. The author of the concept of “symbolic capital” - the modern French philosopher and sociologist P. Bourdieu (1930-2002) in 1980 defined it as “the capital of honor and prestige that is produced by the institution of the clientele, to the same extent that it is itself produced by it ". Ten years later, the American researcher E. Toffler called informational capital “symbolic capital”; in a broad sense, it is knowledge identified with wealth. In this interpretation, E. Toffler relies on the idea of intellectualization of labor, which has developed since the second half of the twentieth century. This interpretation implies an understanding of wealth as the possession of a large amount of information. But, on our

view, no matter how great it may be, the priority in social interaction belongs not to the quantity, but to the quality of information that is or is not credible as the basis of social interaction and production.

This is evidenced by the modern socio-economic system, in which symbolic capital, in the interpretation of P. Bourdieu, is one of the main development strategies. Concepts such as “reputation” and “image” come to the fore as components of symbolic capital. Reputation is a real value characteristic of a subject. The image is perfect. The purpose of deliberate imagery of a subject is to obtain monetary and symbolic benefits. These include benefits of political, social and other nature. The more trustworthy the reputation and image are, the greater the benefits will be.

Today, sponsorship is becoming more and more common as a technique for managing the image of an organization. Also, reputation and success are the main components of show business and the service business in general, and not just material production, which was the focus of K. Marx’s concept of economic development.

The specifics of the functioning of capital, according to K. Marx, are determined by the relation “commodity-product-money-commodity”. The unit of measurement of such capital is money as an equivalent to the value of the product; the value of money is determined by the amount of labor invested in the creation of the product. The result of the functioning of this capital is profit, expressed in money or property available to its owner, measured in money as the equivalent of capital that brings profit in the form of money. The advantage of the existence of capital based on physical labor is the material support of money in the form of property: “capital is not a thing, but... a production relation that is represented in a thing... Capital is the means of production converted into capital, which themselves are as much capital in themselves as gold or silver in themselves are money.” The prospect for the development of such capital is property and material accumulation, and, accordingly, economic wealth, leading to the political power of a particular society. Social stratification, according to K. Marx, is based on two classes: 1) those who own the means of production (capitalists) and 2) those who do not own them (workers engaged in manual labor, that is, the proletariat). The relationship between capitalists and workers is determined by the process of production and circulation of capital.

P. Bourdieu, like K. Marx, insisted on the social nature of capital. But he interpreted social relations differently. Therefore, his interpretation of social stratification and capital differs from the interpretation of K. Marx.

P. Bourdieu considered symbolic capital to be the basis for the existence of an archaic society, where social interaction is based on relationships of trust, which he characterized as the “economy of good faith.” The replacement for money here is mutual services; economic capital can only act as recognition in the process of its transformation on the basis, for example, of “gratitude for benefits.” Symbolic capital as a strategy for accumulating capital of honor and prestige solved the problem of the constant availability of labor as help, as well as the presence of allies and acquaintances, to whom members of society held on through obligations, debts of honor, rights accumulated over time and could be realized under certain circumstances.

Along with symbolic capital, P. Bourdieu identified three more types of capital: economic, cultural and social. But if any of these capitals has special recognition in society, then it automatically becomes symbolic.

Structuring the social space based on the characteristics of domination and subordination, P. Bourdieu identified two classes in society: “businessmen” (those who have a lot of economic capital, but little cultural capital) and “intellectuals” (those who have a lot of cultural capital, but little economic capital). capital). There may be a struggle between them for dominance. It is carried out at the intersection of fields of different types of capital. But since it is symbolic capital that has the ability to be all types of capital, if they have special recognition in society, it becomes key in this struggle, which P. Bourdieu called the “field of power.” The structure of the field is a system of social relations, the main meaning of which lies in the concept of “habitus”. The habitus of a social system is a way of life that comes from the particular life experiences of a particular social group.

Features of the interpretation of symbolic capital by P. Bourdieu are as follows. The specifics of the functioning of symbolic capital are determined by the “service-trust-service” relationship. The unit of measurement of such capital is a service as an equivalent of trust; the value of trust is determined by the quantity and, most importantly, the quality of the labor invested in creating trust. The result of the functioning of this capital is trust expressed in services. The advantage of the existence of symbolic capital is its mobility. The reason is the informational nature of the existence of symbolic capital. The prospect for the development of symbolic capital is information accumulation leading to the symbolic power of a particular society.

If we try to consider modern globalizing society from the standpoint of the principles of social interaction, then first we must

Let us turn to the analysis of modern society, its stratification and the peculiarities of the functioning of capital of both forms.

Researchers of modern stratification of society often identify the formation of new social groups in it.

Thus, in the work of domestic scientists Z.T. Golenkova and Yu.V. Goliusova “New social groups in modern stratification systems of global society” presents and explores a new social group - the “precariat”. The basis for identifying this group was social and labor relations, namely the lack of a stable social and labor status for this group of people. “...This group cannot be built into any of the existing socio-structural systems. It stands apart, but has two-way connections with any stratification system." The precariat “has minimal relations with the state and the employer in terms of stability and security...”, it is a social group marginalized in the labor sense. It includes not only freelancers, but also people who live on odd jobs. To identify the reasons for the formation of this class, the authors of the article turn to the international experience of studying the precariat. This experience shows that most often the reasons for the formation of this group are the impossibility, inability, and sometimes simply the unwillingness of people to function in the current social and labor circumstances. This situation leads to the marginalization of part of society and, as a consequence, its instability. In the point of view of the authors of the article, there is an idea about modern changes in the world of work that are of an information and knowledge nature, which, perhaps, is, according to Z.T. Golenkova and Yu.V. Goliusova, the reason for the formation of the precariat.

Another social group - the “creative class” - is the subject of interest of the modern American philosopher R. Florida, who described it in 2005 in the work “The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent”. The creative class is understood here as the creative elite, leading the entire society. This class is a key factor in economic development, according to R. Florida. But, in our opinion, the idea of the existence of a creative elite leading society was voiced a long time ago, in 1929, by the Spanish philosopher J. Ortega y Gasset in his work “The Revolt of the Masses”. He structured society according to the principle of creative activity and passivity, thereby identifying two levels in the structure of society: the creative elite and the masses. R. Florida, rather, concretized this idea in relation to the economic sphere of social development.

Most often among researchers of the modern structure of society the concept of “cognition” is heard.

riat”, proposed by E. Toffler. The cognitariat is a class of intellectual workers, the number of which increases with the increasing intellectualization of work. A new social stratum - “people of fame” - is the subject of research by the domestic scientist L.E. Grinina. The appearance of this layer in society is associated with the growing importance of personal fame.

Having summarized the above theories of stratification and the functioning of modern society, we see that they were implemented for some reason. In one of our studies, “Socio-philosophical aspects of symbolic capital management,” an attempt was made to analyze modern society from the perspective of symbolic capital management. As a result, we proposed our idea of symbolic stratification of modern society, carried out according to the principle of the functioning of symbolic capital in it. This makes it possible to study the basic principles of the functioning of society under symbolic capitalism. In the symbolic stratification of such a society, two basic classes are distinguished: symbolic capitalists (those who already have symbolic capital) and symbolic workers (those who are just starting to earn it). “The wealth of symbolic capitalists is not necessarily measured in monetary terms, but primarily by the presence of symbolic capital as a credit of trust and the specifics of its implementation.”

Due to the development of information technology, the mode of production, which is the basis for the existence of society, has become more information-based and based on the strategy of accumulating trust. Therefore, labor is intellectualized, which leads to social conflict as a result of the process of discrepancy between productive forces (to a large extent material) and production relations (to a large extent information-knowledge). This leads to social changes, and more specifically, to the formation of new social classes in accordance with the symbolic stratification of society: 1) not adapted to a given social situation (symbolic workers, including the “precariat”) and 2) adapted to it (symbolic capitalists , including cognitariat, creative class, “famous people”). These classes are very mobile, have their own patterns of social interaction and, most importantly, a new environment of interaction - information.

This situation is complicated by the fact that a globalizing society is increasingly driven by the values of democracy, which presupposes choice as a manifestation of a personal position in relation to the world. Accordingly, there is an increase in the activation and legitimation of differences in views on the world, that is, social, political, cultural and other types of inequality, which, in turn,

turn, is a tendency to complicate social stratification, multiply new classes both at the local and global levels. The symbolic social stratification under construction is far from traditional linear, vertical, horizontal, pyramidal, spiral and other structures in form. It looks more like a network or rhizome.

Therefore, “network branches” can also be distinguished within this stratification. This is a symbolic elite, consisting of: “symbolic oligarchs with enormous credit, symbolic tyrants - those who abuse their symbolic capital, symbolic aristocrats as the noble and privileged elite of society.

Also in this stratification, one can distinguish a symbolic mass that has much less symbolic capital. She is driven, passive in terms of earning symbolic capital, has a lesser degree of responsibility for her actions, and therefore does not inspire much trust, and, most importantly, is not distinguished by a creative approach to the implementation of her ideas, and therefore is intellectually inert. A special place in this stratification is occupied by the class of social simulacra that simulate their social belonging to one or another symbolic stratum (usually capitalist) with the help of image and RI technologies.” Such social stratification is characteristic of modern society both at the local and global levels.

But, in our opinion, despite the importance of symbolic capital for modern globalization, it cannot exist separately from material capital. The reason is the fact that symbolic capital cannot exist separately from its carriers, which are social units. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to the existence of a sign without a referent, which in terms of material capital means the existence of money without its property support. This means that symbolic society is a complete simulation. Rather, it would be more correct to talk about the formation today of two levels of society - real and symbolic (informational). Each level has its own patterns of functioning, arising from the physical or intellectual characteristics of the labor participation of individuals in the life of society. Here money is an informational expression of the material, property and intellectual spheres of society.

The emerging modern global society is gradually moving away from traditional types of social structures and acts as a social structure based on the principles of the functioning of symbolic capital, which underlies the habitus, which regulates and directs the development of society. Symbolic capital acts as a strategic

gy, through which social reality is constructed, consisting of relationships in society. Their goal is “to establish or reaffirm the social bonds of individuals or groups.” F. Fukuyama, who studied the features of the economic, political, and cultural development of different countries based on the development of trust relations in them, came to the conclusion about its increasing role in modern national and international relations. In our opinion, the importance of trusting relationships in global society will only increase over time, since their presence significantly simplifies social interaction, leveling out the negative risks of communication.

Thus, as a result of the research, the author for the first time identified and formulated in new concepts the features of modern social interaction both at the local and global levels. These include the following:

1) Modern globalizing society represents the emergence of a new socio-economic formation - symbolic capitalism.

2) The main way of producing symbolic capitalism is symbolic capital as a strategy for functioning in society through trust.

3) Social stratification under symbolic capitalism consists of two main classes: symbolic capitalists (those who already have symbolic capital) and symbolic workers (those who are just starting to earn it). The remaining classes - cognitariat, creative class, “famous people”, precariat, etc. - are derived from the first two.

4) Symbolic social stratification is rhizomic in form; within it one can also distinguish a symbolic elite, a symbolic mass, and social simulacra.

5) With the globalizing modern society, two of its levels are being formed: real and symbolic (informational). Each level has its own patterns of functioning, arising from the physical or intellectual characteristics of the labor participation of individuals in the life of society.

This research is incomplete. The development and specification of issues of social interaction within the presented symbolic stratification of society are outlined as prospects.

The results obtained during the study can be useful in social work and economic practice. They can also help optimize social, economic, political and cultural processes both at the local and global levels. In particular, improving democratic institutions and processes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Marx K. Capital. T. I: The process of capital production // K. Marx, F. Engels Soch. T. 23. 2nd ed. - M.: State. Publishing house of political literature, 1960. - 900 p.

2. Marx K. Capital. T. II: The process of circulation of capital // K. Marx, F. Engels Soch. T. 24. 2nd ed. - M.: State. Publishing house of political literature, 1961. - 643 p.

3. Marx K. Capital. T. III: The process of capitalist production, taken as a whole // K. Marx, F. Engels Soch. T. 25. Part I. 2nd ed. - M.: State. Publishing house of political literature,

1961. - 1078 p.

4. Marx K. Capital. T. III: The process of capitalist production, taken as a whole // Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 25. Part II. 2nd ed. M.: State. Publishing house of political literature,

5. Bourdieu P. Practical meaning. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2001. -562 p.

6. Toffler E. Metamorphoses of power. - M.: LLC Publishing House "AST", 2003. - 669 p.

7. Demidova M.V. Symbolic capital: social and philosophical analysis // Sociology, political science, philosophy and history in the modern world. - Novosibirsk: Siberian Association of Consultants, 2012. - P. 64-70.

8. Ivanov M.M. Symbolic capital of an employee as a means of career realization: dis. ...cand. sociol. Sci. - M., 2011. -170 p.

9. Mestnikov A.A. Development of the venture investment market: a sociological approach: dis. . Ph.D. sociol. Sci. - M., 2011.- 130 p.

10. Mestnikov A.A. Investment of symbolic capital as an instrument of state innovation policy // Labor and social relations. - 2010. - No. 6. - P. 113-119.

11. Mestnikov A.A. Innovation discourse as a factor in the modernization of the Russian economy // Innovations. - 2010. -№3(137). - pp. 54-57.

12. Bourdieu P. On symbolic power // Sociology of social space. - M.; St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2007. - pp. 87-96.

13. Bourdieu P. Sociology of social space. - M.; St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2007. - 288 p.

14. Golenkova Z.T., Goliusova Yu.V. New social groups in modern stratification systems of global society // Sociological science and social practice. -2013. - No. 3. - P. 5-15.

15. Florida R. The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent. - New York: Harper Business, 2005. - 350 p.

16. Ortega y Gasset H. Uprising of the masses. - M.: AST, 2008. - 347 p.

17. Grinin L.E. “People of fame” - a new social class? // Socis. - 2004. - No. 12. - P. 46-54.

18. Demidova M.V. Social and philosophical aspects of symbolic capital management // Innovations in science: material. XVI International correspondence scientific and practical work. conf. Part II. - Novosibirsk: SibAK, 2013. - pp. 15-25.

19. Schrader H. Economic anthropology. - St. Petersburg: Petersburg Oriental Studies, 1999. - 192 p.

20. Fukuyama F. Trust: social virtues and the path to prosperity. - M.: AST, 2004. - 732 p.

Received 05/30/2014

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION UNDER CONDITIONS OF SYMBOLIC CAPITALISM: PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH

Marina V. Demidova,

Cand. Sc., Volga Region Institute of Administration at Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, 23/25, Sobornaya street, Saratov, 410031, Russia. Email: [email protected]

The relevance of the research is caused by the change of contemporary social space.

The main aim of the research is to single out new social classes and to stratify them in symbolic capitalism.

The methods used in the research. Philosophical analysis of contemporary social stratification has been carried out on the grounds of Pierre Bourdieu"s and Karl Marx"s ideas. Comparative approach and synthesis method were used as a research methodology. The author has used such concepts as habitus, capital, socioeconomic formation, production process in its alternative interpretation determined by the modern global social context.

The results. The author determined particular characteristics of interaction between symbolic and physical capital, rhizomic form of symbolic social stratification, presence of symbolic and real level of society Symbolic capital as a strategy of functioning in society through trust acts as the main mode of production of symbolic capitalism. The author identified new features of symbolic capital existence and developed symbolic stratification of society, which consists of the two main classes - symbolic capitalists and symbolic workers. Development of hypothesis regarding symbolic social stratification is achieved through identification of modern social interaction features at both local and global levels. The author singled out new characteristics of symbolic capitalism existence and developed the symbolic society stratification. The definitions of new concepts, which reflect identified features, were formulated. The paper describes the trends of symbolic capital strategies development in the global community. It also introduces practical guidelines for the obtained results usage.

Conclusions. Modern global society under development is gradually leaving behind the traditional types of social order and acting as a social order based on the principles of functioning of symbolic capital underlying habitus which regulates and guides the development of the society. Symbolic capital serves as a strategy through which social reality consisting of social relationships is constructed. New social classes and symbolic social stratification adapted to contemporary social realities are formed.

Capital, symbolic capital, trust, formation, social stratification, Pierre Bourdieu, Karl Marx.

1. Marx K. Kapital. Protsess proizvodstva kapitala. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo politiches-koy literatury, 1960. 900 p.

2. Marx. K. Capital. Protsess obrashcheniya kapitala. Marx. K., Engels F. Sochineniya. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo politicheskoy literatury, 1961. 643 p.

3. Marx. K. Capital. Protsess kapitalisticheskogo proizvodstva, vsyaty v tselom. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo politicheskoy literatury, 1961.1078 p.

4. Marx. K. Capital. Protsess kapitalisticheskogo proizvodstva, vsyatyy vzelom. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo politicheskoy lite-ratury, 1962. 552 p.

5. Bourdieu P. Le Sens Pratique. Paris, Minuit, 1980. 475 p.

6. Toffler A. Power shift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century. New York, Bantam Books, 1990. 586 p.

7. Demidova M.V. Simvolichesky capital: sotsialno-filosofsky ana-liz. Sotsiolo-giya, politologiya, filosofiya i istoriya v sovremennom mire. Novosibirsk, Sibirskaya assotsiatsiya konsultantov, 2012. pp. 64-70.

8. Ivanov M.M. Simvolichesky kapital rabotnika kak sredstvo reali-satsii karery. Dis. Kand. nauk. Moscow, 2011. 170 p.

9. Mestnikov A.A. Razvitie rynka venchurnykh investitsy: sotsiolo-gicheskiy podkhod. Dis. Kand.nauk. Moscow, 2011. 130 p.

10. Mestnikov A.A. Vlozhenie simvolicheskogo kapitala kak instrument innovatsionnoy politiki gosudarstva. Trud i sot-sialnye otnosheniya - Labor and Social Relations, 2010, no. 6, pp. 113-119.

11. Mestnikov A.A. Innovatsionny diskurs kak faktor modernisatsii rossiyskoy ekonomiki. Innovatsii - Innovations, 2010, no. 3 (137), pp. 54-57.

12. Bourdieu P. Sur le pouvoir symbolique. Annales. Economic. Société. Civilisations, 1977, no. 3, pp. 405-411.

13. Bourdieu P. Sociologiya socialnogoprostranstva. St. Petersburg, Moscow: Aleteyya, 2007. 288 p.

14. Golenkova Z.T., Goliusova Yu.V. Novye sotsialnye gruppy v sov-remennykh stratifikatsionnykh sistemakh globalnogo obshche-stva. Sotsiologicheskaya nauka i sotsialnayaprakti-ka - Social study and social practice, 2013, no. 3, pp. 5-15.

15. Florida R. The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent. New York, Harper Business, 2005. 350 p.

16. Ortega y Gasset J. Vosstanie mass. Moscow, AST Publ., 2002. 509 p.

17. Grinin L.E. “Lyudi izvestnosti” - new social sloy? [“People of popularity” - a new social class?]. Sotsiologicheskie issledova-niya - Sociological researches, 2004, no. 12, pp. 46-54.

18. Demidova M.V. Sotsialno-filosofskie aspekty upravleniya simvo-licheskim kapitalom. Innovatsii v nauke: Materialy XVI Mezhdynarodnoy zaochnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konfe-rentss. Novosibirsk, Sibirska-ya assotsiatsiya konsultantov, 2013. P. II, pp. 15-25.

19. Shrader H. Economic anthropology. St. Petersburg, Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 1999. 192 p.

20. Fukuyama F. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York, Free Press, 1995. 457 p.

Social inequality in society is most often understood as stratification – distribution of social groups in a hierarchically ordered rank (in ascending or descending order of some characteristic).

The term “social stratification” was introduced into scientific circulation by our former compatriot and then the famous American sociologist P. Sorokin, who borrowed this concept from geology. Stratification necessarily emphasizes the ordering of social layers and has a Russian conceptual analogue - stratification according to some criterion (wealth, power, prestige, etc.).

Theories of social inequality are divided into two fundamental areas: functionalist And conflictological (Marxist).

Functionalism , in the traditions of E. Durkheim, derives social inequality from the division of labor: mechanical (natural, gender and age) and organic (arising as a result of training and professional specialization).

Since stratification is seen as a product of the division of labor, functionalists believe that social inequality is determined primarily by importance and prestige of functions performed for society.

If stable societies of the modern type are analyzed from this angle, this conclusion will be confirmed to a high degree. Indeed, profession has become the defining criterion of social stratification and the professional status of an individual or social group is closely related to such bases of stratification as income (property), power (position in the management system) and prestige (recognition of the social significance of this work).

In Marxism the focus is on issues of class inequality and exploitation. Inequality is determined by different attitudes towards property. Social structure: 2 main classes - proletarians and bourgeoisie + residual class - peasantry. One class exploits the other - as a result, social antagonism arises between the two classes, which can be overcome through a socialist revolution that will destroy private property.

M. Weber's theory . He supported K. Marx's idea of dividing society into 2 classes. This division is based on the economic factor; it is supplemented by a number of other factors: the prestige of the profession, qualifications, income level, the presence of a diploma, the status of a person, and party affiliation.

Empirical theory of social stratification . Within its framework, three approaches are distinguished:

self-assessment or class identification method: the sociologist asks the respondent to determine his place on a certain scale.

method of assessing the situation: the sociologist invites the respondent to act as an expert and assess the class affiliation of another person.

“objective” method: the sociologist operates with some objective criteria of social differentiation. Most often, the prestige of the profession, the level of power, the level of income.

A significant drawback of this theory is the lack of a developed theoretical framework and the presence of elements of subjectivity.

West German sociologist R. Dahrendorf proposed to base social stratification on the concept "authority", which, in his opinion, most accurately characterizes the relationship of power and the struggle between social groups for power. Based on this concept, D. divides all modern society into managers and managed . In turn, managers are divided into 2 subgroups: managing owners and managing non-owners, i.e. bureaucratic managers. The governed are also divided into at least 2 subgroups: the highest - the labor aristocracy and the lowest - low-skilled workers. Between these two social groups there is an intermediate “new middle class” - a product of the assimilation of the labor aristocracy and employees with managers.

In a living, dynamic society there is always internal movement, since individuals and the communities they form, as a rule, strive to occupy a higher social position. This internal movement, changing individual or status (a priori, institutional) positions, is called social mobility. Social mobility is a set of social movements of people, i.e. changes by an individual or group in social status, place occupied in the stratification structure of society.

The question of why social inequalities and differences exist is central to sociology. There are various answers to this, presented in sociological theories.

Conflict theory of stratification

Conflict theorists believe that stratification in society exists because it benefits individuals and groups who have power over others. If functionalists identify the common interests of members of society, conflictologists focus on the differences in interests. From their point of view, society is an arena where people fight for privilege, prestige and power, and groups with advantages secure it through coercion.

Conflict theory is largely based on the ideas of Karl Marx. He argued that to understand any society, a historical approach is necessary, i.e. To understand the mechanism of a particular economic system, you need to know what preceded this system, as well as the processes that contributed to its development. According to Marx, the level of technology and the method of organizing production determine the evolution of society. At each stage of history, these factors determine the group that will dominate society and the groups that will obey it.

K. Marx, having given a deep justification for the class structure of society, emphasized that the source of social development is the struggle between antagonistic social classes. The reason for the class struggle - the irreconcilable clash of interests of workers and capitalists, in his opinion, is the capitalist’s desire to obtain surplus value. Marx defined surplus value as the difference between the value created by workers (expressed in the labor time embodied in the goods they produce) and the value they receive (expressed in the subsistence level provided by wages). Capitalists do not create surplus value; they appropriate it by exploiting the workers. Therefore, according to Marx, capitalists are thieves who steal the fruits of workers' labor. The accumulation of capital (wealth) comes from surplus value and is the key - and even the incentive - to the development of modern capitalism. Ultimately, the class struggle will end with workers overthrowing the capitalist class and establishing a new, just social order.

No class exists in isolation and independently of the other classes to which it opposes. As a result of the struggle against the capitalists, the “objective” class interests of the workers turn into a subjective awareness of “real” circumstances, and they acquire class consciousness. Consequently, according to Marxist theory, in order for the working class to act in the historical role of the overthrower of capitalism, it must become a class “not only anti-capitalist”, but also a class “for itself”, i.e. the class struggle must be raised from the level of economic necessity to the level of conscious purpose and effective class consciousness.

Marx's ideas were taken up by his followers, who tried to interpret his concept of classes, giving their own definitions. Thus, V.I. Lenin proposed the following definition of classes: “Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relation to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy.”

American sociologist Charles Anderson, having analyzed the views of K. Marx, lists the following criteria of social class:

· general position in the economic mode of production;

· specific way of life;

· conflictual and hostile relations with other classes;

· social relations and community that transcend local and regional boundaries;

· class consciousness;

· political organization.

However, critics of Marxism believe that the simplicity of Karl Marx's views is misleading. Conflict is a common characteristic of human life that is not limited to economic relationships. As Ralf Dahrendorf wrote: “Conflict seems to exist not only in social life, but wherever there is life.” Dahrendorf considers group conflict to be an inevitable aspect of social life.

Marxist theory impoverishes the picture even in the sphere of property: the division of society into capitalists and proletariat hides and distorts other dynamic processes. Thus, throughout history, debtor and creditor, consumers and sellers, etc. have opposed each other. And racial and ethnic differences, the division of workers into skilled and unskilled, and the existence of various unions are characteristic of modern developed societies.

Ownership of the means of production is only one source of power. Another source is control over people - possession of controls. This situation can be illustrated by the example of the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe. Milovan Djilas, a Yugoslav Marxist and associate of President Tito, wrote that the new class of communists consisted of those who had special privileges and economic benefits due to the possession of an administrative monopoly. The new elite has become the party bureaucracy, which formally uses and manages both nationalized and socialized property and the entire life of society. The role of bureaucracy in society, i.e. monopoly control of national income and national wealth puts it in a special privileged position.

Even in modern developed countries a person can prosper without owning property. To a large extent, power is ensured by position held in large transnational corporations, and not by property. Not only do employees own relatively little property, but their influence lasts only as long as they hold a particular position. A very similar picture is observed in the government.

M. Weber's theory of inequality

M. Weber represents the classical stage in the formation of the sociology of inequality.

While Marx emphasized the importance of economic factors as determinants of social class, Weber noted that economic interests are only a special case of the category of “value.” In contrast to Marx, Weber, in addition to the economic aspect of stratification, also 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 related to 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 distribution of power within a community."

Classes, according to Weber, a set of people who have similar life chances, determined by their power, which gives them the opportunity to receive benefits and have income. Property is an important, but not the only criterion of class. For Weber, the defining aspect of the class situation is the market, the types of opportunities an individual has in the market, i.e. opportunities to own goods and earn income in the conditions of the goods and labor market. A class is people who are in the same class situation, i.e. having a common position in the economic sphere: similar professions, the same income, approximately the same financial situation. It follows that it is not common - group (like Marx) interests, but the interests of the average person included in the class, the desire of him and others like him to gain access to the market, benefits and income that serve as the source of class struggle.

Weber does not have a clear class structure of capitalist society, but taking into account his methodological principles and summarizing his historical, economic and sociological works, we can reconstruct Weber's typology of classes under capitalism as follows.

1. The working class, deprived of property. It offers its services on the market and differentiates itself by level of qualifications.

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

3. Dispossessed white collar workers - technical specialists and intellectuals.

4. Administrators and managers.

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

5.1. The owner class, that is, those who receive rent from the ownership of land, mines, etc.

5.2. "Commercial class", that is, entrepreneurs.

For Weber, class conflict over the distribution of resources was a natural feature of any society. He did not even try to dream of a world of harmony and equality. From his point of view, property is only one of the sources of differentiation of people, and its elimination will only lead to the emergence of new ones.

M. Weber never discussed the question of a possible revolutionary action of the masses because, unlike Marx, he doubted the likelihood that workers could “rise” to “real” class consciousness and unite in a common class struggle against the system that exploits them. This can happen, according to Weber, only if the contrast in life chances is no longer perceived by workers as inevitable and if they understand that the cause of this contrast is the unfair distribution of property and the economic structure as a whole.

The qualitative difference between Weber and Marx begins with the introduction of the second main measure of stratification - status, which is a positive or negative assessment of honor (respect) - prestige received by an individual or position (position). Because status makes it difficult to perceive how much more valuable some are than others, people's value is much greater than their economic benefit. Status may depend on religion, race, wealth, physical attractiveness, or social agility. M. Weber developed a holistic doctrine about the conditions necessary for the formation of status groups. Status groups are based on some shared amount of socially ascribed prestige (or honor). If differences in property lead to differences in life chances, then differences in status, says Weber, lead, as a rule, to differences in lifestyle, i.e. in behavior and principles of life. The lifestyle is determined by the “subculture” common to the group and is measured by “status prestige”. In this regard, a status group is capable of pursuing a fairly conscious line of behavior, since through the standards of behavior contained in its common subculture, it is able to control and even direct the behavior of its members.

Status groups acquire prestige (honor) mainly through usurpation: they lay claim to certain rewards and enforce their claims in the form of certain norms and styles of behavior and special advantages for engaging in certain exclusive activities. And although in modern society groups do not have a legal basis, the corresponding legal privileges do not take long to appear, because status groups stabilize their position by gaining economic power.

Power - the last criterion of stratification M. Weber defines as the ability of an individual or group to realize their will even with the resistance of others. Power can be a function of the possession of resources in economic, status and political systems; both class and status are resources for wielding power. From the moment people want to achieve higher status, they strive to orient their behavior in such a way as to gain approval from those whose status they assess as higher. According to Weber, the key sources of power in contemporary societies do not lie in the ownership of the means of production. The increasing complexity of industrial societies leads to the development of huge bureaucracies. In this regard, even economic institutions are involved in close dependent relationships with the administrative and military bureaucracies of the state. Increasingly, key power resources are becoming rigidly hierarchical large-scale bureaucracies.

The third form of association that Weber paid attention to was the party. Believing that the reasons for dividing society into clans lie in economics and that the basis for the existence of status groups is prestige, he characterized parties as associations of people based on convictions. The behavior of the party is well understood, since this group is a subject of history, a dynamic moment in all kinds of transformations taking place in society. Parties are the embodiment of power. They exist only in communities that have some kind of rational order and staff who would monitor the implementation of this order.

Thus, Weber’s interpretation of social inequality suggests that three types of stratification hierarchies exist and interact on the same human material, appearing in different configurations.

Functionalist theory of stratification

According to the functionalist theory of social inequality, stratification exists because it is beneficial to society. This theory was most clearly formulated in 1945 by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, and was later modified and improved by other sociologists.

Davis and Moore argue that social stratification is not only universal, but also necessary, so no society can do without stratification and classes. A system of stratification is required in order to fill all the statuses that make up the social structure and to provide individuals with incentives to perform the duties associated with their position.

In this regard, society must motivate people on two levels:

1) it should encourage individuals to occupy a variety of positions, since not all duties associated with different statuses are equally beneficial to the human body, equally important for social survival, and require the same abilities and talents. If social life were different, it would not matter much who occupied what position, and the problem of social status would be much less;

2) when these positions are filled, society must awaken in people the desire to fulfill the corresponding roles, because the responsibilities associated with many positions are considered by the people occupying them as onerous and, in the absence of motivation, many would not cope with their roles.

These social realities led Davis and Moore to the view that society must have, firstly, certain goods that can be used as incentives for its members, and secondly, a way to distribute these goods among different statuses. Inequality is the emotional stimulus that society has created in order to solve the problem of filling all statuses and forcing their holders to perform their respective roles in the best possible way. Because these goods are built into the social system, social stratification can be considered a structural feature of all societies.

Based on the economic model of supply and demand, K. Davis and W. Moore concluded that the highest paid positions are: those occupied by the most talented or qualified workers (supply); those that are functionally most important (demand). Thus, in order to have enough doctors, society must guarantee them high salaries and prestige. If this does not happen, then, according to Davis and Moore, one should not expect anyone to undergo a complex and expensive course of study in medicine. So, employees in high-paying positions should receive the rewards they receive; otherwise, positions will remain unclaimed and society will disintegrate.

Thus, the basic ideas of the concept of K. Davis and W. Moore are as follows:

1. Some positions in society are more functionally important than others;

2. Only a small number of people in any society have the abilities to perform these more responsible functions;

3. To encourage gifted people to bear difficult loads and acquire knowledge and skills, society gives them access to scarce and necessary goods;

4. This unequal access to benefits results in different strata enjoying unequal prestige and respect.

5. Prestige and respect, as well as rights and advantages, create institutionalized inequality, that is, stratification.

6. Consequently, social inequality between strata on these grounds is positively functional and inevitable in any society.

The structural-functional approach to stratification has been subject to serious criticism, since the ideas presented are not always confirmed by the facts of real life. The fact is that the appropriation of goods and services by owners of property and power is often inadequate to the cost of labor and demonstrated talents. In addition, critics argue that a person is born into a privileged or unprivileged position: a person's place in society largely depends on the family into which he was born. Thus, almost two-thirds of managers in 243 large American companies grew up in families of the upper middle class or upper stratum of society. Based on these and similar data, conflict theorists argue that society is organized in such a way that individuals maintain a rank that is determined by birth and independent of ability.

Critics also note that many of the most important jobs in the United States - in government, science, technology and education - are not very well paid. Thus, employees of large corporations earn much more than the President of the United States, members of the Cabinet of Ministers and Supreme Court justices. Another question that arises is whether garbage collectors, despite their low wages and low prestige as a profession, are more important to the life of the United States than famous athletes who earn seven-figure incomes.

Empirical stratification studies

From general judgments about the nature and character of social inequality, sociologists gradually moved to empirical research that reveals the real picture of social life. Their widespread development is associated primarily with the activities of American sociologists.

Lloyd Warner, in his book Yankee City, presented the first large-scale empirical study of social stratification in the United States. Warner followed the Weberian tradition regarding status groups. He attempted to develop a Standard Index of Status Characteristics, starting from such points as education, place of residence, income and origin. All these factors, from Warner's point of view, are used by Americans when assessing their social value, when choosing friends for themselves and for their children.

In contrast to Marx, Warner relied more on "subjective" criteria for stratification, i.e. on how members of a particular community (community) assess each other’s social status, rather than on such “objective” differences as, for example, income.

Warner's main contribution lies in the division of American society into classes consisting of individuals with the same prestigious rank. It was Warner who came up with the idea of having a six-class structure instead of the usual two or three classes.

Warner defined classes as groups that members of society believe exist and are placed at higher or lower levels respectively.

Another American sociologist, Richard Centers, wrote that social class is what people collectively think it is. “Classes are psychological groupings, largely subjective in nature, dependent on class consciousness (i.e., a sense of group membership), and the boundaries of class (as a psychological phenomenon) may or may not coincide with logical boundaries in the objective or stratification sense. Centers determined the class division of American society by randomly asking people what social class they belonged to.

This is the first direction in Western literature on stratification, whose representatives put forward prestige as the leading criterion, embodied in a certain collective opinion about the “higher - lower” position of individuals or groups.

Among non-psychological interpretations of classes, the concept according to which class divisions are based on professional differences has become particularly widespread. In American sociology, one of the first to develop this concept was Elba M. Edwards, who came up with it in 1933. He identified the following “classes” in American society:

.1. Persons who have received special education.

2. Owners, managers and officials:

a) farmers (owners, tenants);

b) wholesalers and retailers;

c) other owners, managers and officials.

3. Clerks and similar service workers.

4. Qualified workers and craftsmen.

5. Semi-skilled workers:

a) semi-skilled workers in industry;

b) other semi-skilled workers.

6. Unskilled workers:

a) agricultural workers;

b) industrial and construction workers;

c) other workers;

d) servant.

Thus, in this case, according to the author, a functional classification of the population is presented, which can be applied to social status or used as an economic index.

The English sociologist S. Preis proposed the following scheme for the social division of the population of England.

1. Highest social group:

a) higher and professional administration;

b) managers;

2. Average social group: top-ranking controllers, equal persons who are not engaged in physical labor;

3. Lowest social group:

a) semi-skilled workers;

b) unskilled workers.

This grouping is neither purely professional nor class or functional. The groupings of Edwards, S. Preis and many other authors are a mixture in which it is really difficult to distinguish classes with their interests and different places in the economic life of society.

Wright Mills, the author of the famous book “The Power Elite,” occupies a special place among stratification researchers. He argued that power is the main point in social relations.The economic elite unites with military circles (military elite); and they together form a kind of power elite, which considers itself a privileged group and considers its interests to be the most important and different from the interests of those who are not part of this elite. American social, economic, domestic and foreign policies reflect the joint decisions of these three elites - the economic, military and power elites.

Among the theories of one-dimensional stratification, when classes are distinguished according to one dominant characteristic, it is necessary to note the organizational theory of classes put forward by A.A. Bogdanov, who argued that the essence of class relations lies in the relationship between the organizers of production and the organized. At the same time, Bogdanov highly appreciated the role of the organizers. This concept was developed in Western sociology.

ABOUT However, in modern sociology, supporters of theories of classes and strata based on multiple criteria predominate. The impetus for the widespread use of multicriteria stratification was the works of P.A. Sorokin. A class, according to P.A. Sorokin, is a set of persons similar in profession, property status, scope of rights, and, therefore, having identical social and legal interests.

P.A. Sorokin created his original theory of stratification and first published it in the book “Social Mobility” (1927), which is considered a classic work for world sociology on the problems of stratification and mobility. According to P. Sorokin, there is something that can be designated by the term “social space”. This is a kind of universe consisting of the population of the Earth. Determining a person’s social position means identifying the totality of his connections with all groups of the population and within each of these groups, i.e. with its members; These connections and the totality of positions within each of them constitute the system of social coordinates that allows us to determine the social position of any individual. It follows that people belonging to the same social groups and performing almost identical functions within each of them are in the same social position. On the contrary, the greater and more significant the differences between groups, the greater the social distance between different people.

P. Sorokin believed that in order to determine a person’s social status, it is necessary to know his citizenship, nationality, attitude to religion, marital status, origin, economic status, affiliation with political parties, etc. In addition, since there are completely different positions within the same group (for example, the president and the average citizen in the same state), it is also necessary to know the position of a person within each of the main population groups. Therefore, unlike three-dimensional geometric space, social space is multidimensional, because there are numerous groupings of people according to social characteristics.

Hence the approach of P.A. Sorokina to the definition of stratification. 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 duties, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community.

Specific forms of stratification are numerous, but all their diversity can be reduced to three main ones - economic, political and professional. As a rule, they are all closely intertwined. People who belong to the upper stratum according to one of the parameters usually belong to it according to others, and vice versa. The theory of stratification proposed by P. Sorokin influenced all subsequent developments related to this problem.

Social stratification (from the Latin stratum - layer and facere - to do) is a reflection of the existing multidimensionality, the structure of certain differences that exist among different groups of people (classes and layers) in a certain society.

According to E. Giddens, “stratification is a geological strata of a definite character,” which is arranged “in a hierarchy, with the privileged near the top and the unprivileged near the bottom.” Based on this, the phenomenon of social stratification can be interpreted from the perspective of unequal access to material and intangible resources, which is also manifested in the unequal distribution of rights, responsibilities and privileges, as well as the presence or absence of influence and power.

The basis of all theories of social stratification are ideas about social groups as the most basic and simple element of the social hierarchy system. At the same time, positions regarding this pattern differ significantly. Some researchers are of the opinion that a group is a real and empirically fixed community that unites people in certain common patterns.

According to other authors, this category is a status position that can be occupied by a number of people in a relatively recognized value scale in a given society, which acts as prestige. The third category of authors interprets the group from the position of a certain community to which a person can identify himself in the process of self-identification. Since nowadays social characteristics and positions are diverse categories, one individual may belong to several groups, which often have a large number of differences in various parameters.

Social stratification expresses universal signs of differences and stratification in society. Researcher P. A. Sorokin noted that the existence of an unstratified society is impossible, and such societies have never existed. This applies to all types of communities, including the simplest and most primitive in terms of organization.

Sources of social stratification

The sources of social stratification include:

Existing differences in the social status of people, which is expressed in individual skills and characteristics, which are expressed in biological, physical and mental structures.
Social divisions of labor, which are associated with the process of structuring labor processes, resulting in the connection of its components as a result of the exchange of labor results.
Organization of life processes and status-role positions, which are established due to the specifics of the implementation of necessary functions in certain social systems.
Value systems and cultural standards prevailing in society, which determine the significance of certain types of work, which at the same time make established social inequality legitimate.
Establishing mechanisms for the distribution (and protection, regulation and maintenance) of patterns of social inequality.

It is customary among sociologists to recognize inequality as an important characteristic of the social distribution of individuals in society, but at present there is no single interpretation of the nature of this pattern, since today it is common to identify a large number of different definitions of the phenomenon of social stratification. There are four of the most authoritative of them: the theory of K. Marx, the stratification system of M. Weber and the functionalism of P. A. Sorokin. Each of them should be discussed in more detail.

Theory of K. Marx

K. Marx's theory of class division had a significant influence on both existing ideas about stratification and their subsequent development. Despite the fact that there is no precise definition of this pattern in his work, it is K. Marx who is considered the founder of the idea and development of the theory of existing socio-economic differences between certain individuals, and at the same time, it is now customary to use it to characterize the social position of various social groups in society. The author’s great merit is the fact that he interpreted the category “class” in the aspect of economics.

Key concepts of K. Marx's theory:

A class is a defined group of individuals who are in equal positions in relation to the means of production.
As class differences, one should highlight the fact that while some classes have access to certain means of production, others do not have access to them, and, based on this, they are subject to exploitation.
The presence or absence of property for some classes is a reflection of access to power, education and culture, while for others, identical conditions reflect the inaccessibility of the designated categories.
The presented patterns have a significant impact on the emergence of polarly different class interests and values among these classes, in which case the presented contradictions can be expressed in the form of class conflicts and class struggle.
The struggle of different classes extends to all social spheres of life (such as economics, politics, ideology, etc.), which is the reason for the seizure of power by the initially lower class, together with a change in production methods, which include proprietary relations.

K. Marx studied the interaction of various social groups, using as an example the capitalist society that existed during his life - in the mid-19th century, within which there was a confrontation between the working class, which acted as the exploited and the bourgeois class, which was considered the exploiter.

Within the framework of the theory of K. Marx, the bourgeoisie represents the last level of class influence, since the result of the confrontation between workers and capitalists is the victory of the proletarians, whose pursued goals include achieving general equality - namely: the absence of certain classes in society. Despite the fact that real socialism generally refuted K. Marx’s theory regarding the future development of classes, the concept he created had a significant influence on the development of ideas and ideas about the phenomenon of social stratification.

Status theory of M. Weber

M. Weber’s status theory formally continues the strategy of thought that was laid down in Marxism, but it does not explain social inequality so unilinearly and categorically. M. Weber identified three main factors, the interaction of which is expressed in the possibility of a characterological description of the positions of an individual and a group.

Thus, the economic criterion is the initial one in the theoretical concept of M. Weber. Just like Marx, the author uses the term “class”, but at the same time expands its semantic meaning. S. Weber identified the following as the main sources that form economic classes:

high material condition.
profession.
skill level.

High financial status in one interpretation is a reflection of income, in another – a combination of movable (transport, securities) and immovable (real estate, jewelry, works of art) categories. A true material state - wealth - can only be considered when we are talking not about income, but about accumulated property, and, in particular, real estate. Based on this, although the income of wealthy individuals in a crisis situation may decrease to a certain extent, their true wealth in this case may suffer only to a small extent.

Based on the shape and scale of their financial condition, some people can afford to give up work or become managers in running their own business. In situations where the material condition is small, there is a need for work as a means of earning material wealth, where the level of specialty and professional qualifications increases, which also causes unequal conditions and opportunities in the implementation of the profession and earning income for different people.

According to M. Weber, the social factor is expressed by status; this term has gained recognition not only in the field of sociology, but also in social psychology, political science and other sciences.

Social status is a certain position of a person or a social community in relation to other people or groups, which is established on the basis of socially significant characteristics for specific social systems (such as gender, age, specialty, etc.). Social status interacts with other patterns due to a certain system of duties and rights.

It was M. Weber who is the founder of the idea of status groups, in each of which there is a correspondence with a certain position in the status hierarchical organization of society. Thus, as status group-forming characteristics, he identified:

individual life style.
specific education and organization of classes.

Prestige (from the French prestige - charm, enchantment) is usually called a relative assessment of the social significance of certain objects that are shared by society or by members of groups on the basis of accepted systems and value norms. Prestige, as an evaluative category, expresses the level of social approval by individuals of certain social patterns. M. Weber noted that categories such as “prestige” and “respect” are very rare, since they cannot be bought with money and, in general, these patterns are relative categories.

The criterion of power is usually associated with the ability to realize one’s own position within the framework of certain relations in society, even despite the disagreement of other members of the group or representatives of other groups. According to the position of M. Weber, wealth, or individual prestige in a particular society, or the joint influence of the presented factors can largely contribute to the achievement of maximum influence by an individual. However, the implementation of the presented patterns in practice is not mandatory. In addition, having certain powers is largely considered a very prestigious act, which can become a source of wealth and income redistribution.

The power factor proposed by M. Weber is very significant, since the main source of its driving force is a specific interest in something, which can oppose any other types of interests, together with the expression of its social forces. It should be borne in mind, however, that this interest can only be realized in a situation of party unification of people.

M. Weber interpreted this pattern in an expanded sphere, including in this concept not only associations based on the political factor, but also included in this category various trade unions, groups with various initiatives and professional communities - that is, all groups whose collective actions can allow them to implement their authority. Both belonging to a certain party and a certain status can significantly influence the economic situation of the life of specific groups and individuals. An individual endowed with power has expanded opportunities to improve his own social status, together with the extraction of additional material benefits. Those who are located at a lower level in the systems of social hierarchies have only limited rights in choosing competing parties.

The theory of social stratification by P. A. Sorokin

The theory of social stratification by P. A. Sorokin is a classic direction in the study of the problem of the existence of social inequality. Thus, being a person who was forcibly expelled from the country by the Soviet government, P. A. Sorokin, starting in 1923, lived and worked in the USA. It was he who became the founder of the ideas about the existence of social space, according to which any movement of an individual within their boundaries is determined by his position in relation to surrounding individuals. P. A. Sorokin identified the following stages that allow a person to find his place in a certain social space:

Belonging to a certain group.
Group relationships within a particular society.
The relationship of the represented society with other societies, which together constitute the human community.

P. A. Sorokin was an adherent of identifying certain criteria that influence the status of an individual in specific hierarchical systems. A significant role was assigned to such categories as: marital status, nationality, profession and affiliation with specific political parties. According to his views, a combination of various criteria helps determine the coordinates of a particular person in society.

In the context of the ideas he developed, vertical and horizontal criteria in social space were formulated. Thus, people who belong to identical social groups (for example, residents of Yekaterinburg) have significant differences in their vertical social status. This inequality can manifest itself in many factors, for example: in the level of education, in the level of income, in the organization of the labor management system, as well as the system of executive labor activity, together with other factors.

It should be noted that the horizontal parameter in social space can be either related or not related to social inequality, which, in turn, can be caused by a number of conditions, including: settlement, territorial, climatic and others.

There are significant differences in the living conditions and social opportunities and prospects of urban and rural residents, metropolitan and provincial residents, residents of large and small cities, people who live in the Far North, the Far East and residents of the Russian central zone. At the same time, in a large number of developed Western countries, these differences are often neglected. Thus, in Canada, indicators of the comfort and financial well-being of residents mostly have no connection with their place of residence: they can live either in the southern part of the country or in the Arctic Circle.

Despite all the differences in the forms of stratification observed in a certain community at a specific stage of their historical development, according to the views of P. A. Sorokin, three main ones can be distinguished in them, in each of which internal differentiation occurs according to the following characteristics:

economic stratification (differences in income and standard of living, the presence of both rich and poor segments of the population).
political stratification (differences in rank and prestige, titles and honors, the presence of managers and those who are governed).
professional stratification (differences in occupation, activity, professional status, division into those who manage and those who are managed).

In real life, the presented signs have a close relationship, despite the fact that they do not completely correspond to each other. Based on this, at the political top there may be a person who has a low cultural level and a low level of education (for example, in the former Soviet Union), while people with high qualifications may have an income that does not differ much from the level of the established subsistence level ( for example: medical workers, teachers and scientists in the conditions of modern Russia).

According to P. A. Sorokin, stratification processes never stop. They cause changes in the social status of people within specific groups, as well as in the mutual relationship of various groups in the context of the whole society. The researcher gave special warnings regarding those situations in which changes become excessive and become a threat to the stability of the functioning of the entire system.
The merit of the theories of P. A. Sorokin is that the concept of “social stratification” was introduced into scientific circulation.

Functionalism

Representatives of this approach (American sociologists K. Davis, W. Moore, T. Parsons, B. Barber) made a significant contribution to the formation of views on social inequality. Despite this, the basis of their position is still formed by certain ideas that were first voiced by Emmille Durkheim in his work “On the Division of Social Labor” (1893). The essence of his ideas was as follows:

Identical types of activities may have different values, which are determined in the specific social conditions and cultural traditions of a particular community.
The functions that are implemented in relation to certain spheres of social life (laws, labor, family, etc.) will in any case form a certain hierarchy.
There is a relationship between talents that manifest themselves to varying degrees in people and the functions they perform in conditions of certain encouragement of their activities from a social position.

In the 20th century, the basic ideas of the concept that Durkheim put forward were used in some theories that interpreted functionalism in terms of a way of treating social processes.

The most famous was the joint work done by K. Davis and W. Moore (1945), according to whose views, all types of social order determine the existence of social positions that objectively have greater functional significance compared to others. They set high criteria for the level of qualifications and training of specialists, as a result of which there is a need for appropriate remuneration to stimulate gifted individuals in the development of their abilities. The implementation of this pattern occurs through a combination of material incentives and increased social significance (prestige) of certain types of activities.

His own concept was put forward by Talcott Parsons, who, in the context of functionalism, determined that the stratification factors of modern Western society differ from those used by traditional society. The statuses that a person acquires are of greater significance in comparison with those that are innate and prescribed; thanks to them, a hierarchy of material rewards and prestige is formed, which correspond to their functional meanings for society. Of particular importance was Parsonson's establishment of public consensus regarding the value of certain professions.

conclusions

The four presented explanations of the phenomenon of social stratification are now commonly used as an interpretation of its modern actions. At the same time, these approaches are actively criticized. Some opponents point out that they poorly take into account the presence of gender differences that are determined by sexual characteristics (an example is theorists of modern feminism, who note the fact that the situation is often ignored in which women are most often the victims of social inequality). According to other opponents, in the indicated approaches insufficient attention is paid to the increasing social multi-ethnicity, which is due to the increase in migration processes between countries and continents.

If you notice an error in the text, please highlight it and press Ctrl+Enter