With particular respect to the issue of social stratification or social inequality, the functionalist view argues that social inequality is necessary because it fulfills vital system needs. Summary of the Davis-Moore Thesis: Criticism of the Davis-Moore Thesis: To remedy this problem, Durkheim advocated using public schooling to sift and winnow children according to their native abilities, educationally prepare them according to their potential–what later became known as tracking–and see that they ended up in jobs that paid accordingly. Retrieved from ” https: High income, power, prestige of a particular position are due to functional importance or scarcity of trained personnel. Filling the positions within a social structure is a basic need of any society.
They assume it is beneficial then try to explain how it must be beneficial. Opportunities for achievement are not distributed equally. Retrieved from ” https: Davis and Moore claimed that their theory was applicable to all forms of society. The most important positions are rewarded the most–the least important are rewarded the least. Talented and trained individuals are scarce because acquisition of training and skills requires people to be sufficiently motivated to pursue them.
Society must distribute its members among the various positions in society.
Davis–Moore hypothesis – Wikipedia
Critics of the Davis-Moore viewpoint argued that it did not make much sense in non-competitive societies–for example feudalism, where all positions are distributed not by merit but by birth.
These critics have suggested that structural inequality inherited wealth, family power, etc.
To remedy this problem, Durkheim advocated using public schooling to sift and winnow children according to their native abilities, educationally prepare them according to their potential–what later became known as tracking–and see that they ended up in jobs that paid accordingly.
We must also consider the problem of deskilling and the control of workers see Braverman –the detailed division of labor. The distribution of positions cannot be understood merely by achievement but achievement itself is conditioned by ascription of status.
Moore in a paper published in Hence, every society, no matter how simple or complex, must differentiate persons in terms of both prestige and esteem, and must therefore possess a certain amount of institutionalized inequality. Not all positions are equally pleasant, equally importantor equal in terms of required talent and ability.
Criticism of the Davis-Moore Thesis: Societies are stratified because inequality fulfills an important need of all social systems. Opportunities for achievement are not distributed equally.
There is in stratification systems artificial limits to the development of whatever potential skills there are in society. There must be rewards to provide inducements and those rewards must be distributed unequally to assure that all positions get filled. Some rewards are not functionally determined at all, but rather must be understood within the context of wealth ownership and institution of inheritance.
Views Read Edit View history. Each part of a society exists because it has a vital function to perform in maintaining the existence or stability of society as a whole; the existence of any part of a society is therefore explained when its function for the whole is identified. The Davis—Moore hypothesissometimes referred to as the Davis—Moore theoryis a central claim within the structural functionalist paradigm of sociological theory, and was advanced by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E.
High income, power, prestige of a particular position are due to functional importance or scarcity of trained personnel. They assume it is beneficial then try to explain how it must be beneficial. Societies are complex systems of interrelated and interdependent parts, and each part of a society significantly influences the stratifkcation.
This is accomplished through the unequal distribution of rewards. This argument has been criticized as fallacious from a number of different angles.
Why are some positions in society higher than others? Modern societies allocated their collective labor forces inefficiently, wasting talented but poor people in humble positions and suffering from the inept sons of the stratkfication in powerful positions.
The Nature of Social Mobility: Scarcity of talent is not an adequate explanation of stratification. It is argued that if abilities were inherent, there would be no need of a reward system.
The Functionalist View of Stratification: It must solve the problem of motivation at two levels: Main principles of structural functionalism: With particular respect to the issue of social stratification or social inequality, the functionalist view argues that social inequality is necessary because it fulfills vital system needs.
As a structural functionalist theory, it is also associated with Talcott Parsons and Robert K.