The Funcional Theory Of Stratification And Its Critics.docx 1j4k1j

The Funcional Theory of Stratification and Its Critics The functional theory of stratification as artculated by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945) is perhaps the best-known single piece of work in stuctural-functionaltheory. Davis and Moore made it clear that they regarded social stratification as toth universal and necessary. They argued that no society is ever unstratified, or totally classles. Stratification is, in their view, a functional necessity. All societies need such a system, and this need brings into existence a system of stratification. They also viewed a stratification system as a structure, pointing out that stratification refers not to the individuals in the stratification system but rather to a system of poitions. They focused on how certain positions come to carry with them different degrees of prestige, not on how individuals come to occupy certain positions. Given this focus, the major functional issue is how a society motivates and places people in their “proper” positions in the stratification system. This is reducible to two problems. First, how does a society instill in the “proper” individuals the desire to fill certain positions? Second, once people are in the right positions, how does society then instill in them the desire to fulfill the requirements of those positions? Proper social placement in society is a problem for there basic reasons. First, some positions are more pleasant to occupy than than others. Second, some positions are more important to the survival of society than others. Third, different social positions require different abilities and talents. Although these issues apply to all social positions, Davis and Moore were conterned with the functionallymore important positions in society. The positions that rank high whithin the stratification system are presumed to be those that are less pleasant to occupy but more important to the survival of society and that require the greatest ability and talent. In addition, society must attact sufficient rewards to these positions so that enough people will seek to occupy them and the individuals who do come to occupy them will work diligently. The converse was implied by Davis and Moore but was not discussed. That is, low-ranking positions in the stratification system are presumed to be more pleasant and less important and to require less ability and talent. Also, society has less need to be sure that individuals occupy these positions and perform their duties with diligence. Davis and Moore did not argue that a society consciously develops a stratification system in order to be sure that the high-level positions are filled, and filled adequately. Rather, they

made it clear that stratification is an “unconsciously evolved device.” However, it is device that every society does, and must, develop if it is to survive. To be sure that people occupy the higher-ranking positions, society must, in Davis and Moore’s view provide these individuals with various rewards, including great prestige, a high salary, and sufficient leisure. For example, to ensure enough doctors for our society, we need to offer them these and other rewards. Davis and Mooreimplied that we could not expect people to undertake the “burdensome” and “ expensive” process of medical education if we did not offer such rewards. The implication seems to be that people at the top mustreceive the rewards that they do. If they did not, those positions would remain understaffed or unfilled and society would crumble. The structural-functionaltheory of stratification has beensubject to much criticismsince its publication in 1945. (Sociological Theory: 230)

Functionalist Theory Although functionalism has had many articulate spokesmen, including Talcott Parsons, who elaborated functionalist theory in a number of books and articles (1937, 1951), perhaps the most important functionalist theorist has beeb Robert Merton. Among his contributions has been a critical analysis of several basic functionalist concepts (1957). The first is the “functional unitypostulate,” the idea that social system are necessarily tightly integrated. In place of this postulate, Merton argued, should be an emphasis on different forms and levels of integration must be empirically determined to exist, not simply presumed to in here in the system. A second target of Merton’s criticism was the idea of “functional universality,” which held that any social item (such as Malinowski’s magic) that existed in the social system must be an integral part of the system. Merton held that social items, like the appendix, might have no apparent function or even be dysfunctional. In addition, he distinguished between manifest functions, the recognized consequences (either functional or dysfunctional). For example, the manifestfunction of the public school system is to teach students reading, writing, and other basic skills; one talent function is to contribute to social order by inculcating certain values as well-“fair play.” Respect for the rights of others, avoidance of violence, and so on. Finally, Merton questioned Malinowski’s original idea that each cultural item fulfilled a vital and indispenseble role. To the earliner functionalists, the very esisterice of a custom or institution

was taken as evidence that it met an important need, and much of early functionalist theory (such the work of Parsons) was aan attempt to identify exactly which institutions and customs were universal “functional requisites.” In contrast, Merton stresses that the variety of structures that have developed in human society is more significant than any universals that might be hypothesized to exixt.

Social Penetration Theory Social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973) is another theory that attempts to develop a broad set of ideas relevant to the growth of interpersonal relationships. The term social penetration refers to overt interpersonal behaviors that occur in social interaction as well as internal subjective processes that precede, accompany, and follow overt exchange. Altman and Taylor were concerned with the entire range of interpersonal events occurring during the development of social relationships. Their stated goal was to describe the development and dissolution of such relationships and what happens as individuals form and manage various types of interrelationships. They attempted to answer such questions as: what kinds of things do two people reveal about themselves at different stages of a relationship? Do their activities differ at different points in the history of the relationship? Does emotional involvement vary from early to late periods in the development of a relationship? In dealing with these kinds of questions, they suggested that three general classes of factors play a role in hastening or restraining the growth of interpersonal relationship: 1. Personal characteristitics of participants. 2. Outcomes of exchange. 3. Situational context. (Theory of Social Psychology, 1982: 153)

DAFTAR PUSTAKA McGraw.Hill Eogakusha, Theory of Social Psychology. 1982. Random House, Society Today.1982 McGraw.Hill Companies, Sociological Theory. Avenue of the Aamericas New York, 2004.