1. INTRODUCTION
Social stratification is a central theme in sociology. It explains social stratification into the poor, the wealthy and the rich.
Considering the subject of sociology, we discovered a close connection between three fundamental concepts of sociology - social structure, social composition and social stratification. We expressed the structure through a set of statuses and likened it to the empty cells of a honeycomb. It is located, as it were, in a horizontal plane, and is created by the social division of labor. In a primitive society there are few statuses and a low level of division of labor; in a modern society there are many statuses and a high level of organization of the division of labor.
But no matter how many statuses there are, in the social structure they are equal and functionally related to each other. But now we have filled the empty cells with people, each status has turned into a large social group. The totality of statuses gave us a new concept - the social composition of the population. And here the groups are equal to each other, they are also located horizontally. Indeed, from the point of view of social composition, all Russians, women, engineers, non-partisans and housewives are equal.
However, we know that in real life, human inequality plays a huge role. Inequality is the criterion by which we can place some groups above or below others. Social composition turns into social stratification - a set of vertically arranged social layers, in particular, the poor, the wealthy, the rich. If we resort to a physical analogy, then the social composition is a disorderly collection of iron filings. But then they put a magnet in, and they all lined up in a clear order. Stratification is a certain “oriented” composition of the population.
What “orients” large social groups? It turns out that society has an unequal assessment of the meaning and role of each status or group. A plumber or a janitor is valued below a lawyer and a minister. Consequently, high statuses and the people who occupy them are better rewarded, have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should be higher. That's what we got four main dimensions of stratification - income, power, education, prestige. And that's it, there are no others. Why? But because they exhaust the range of social benefits that people strive for. More precisely, not the benefits themselves (there may just be a lot of them), but access channels to them. A house abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a holiday in the Canary Islands, etc. - social benefits that are always in short supply (i.e. highly respected and inaccessible to the majority) and are acquired through access to money and power, which in turn are achieved through high education and personal qualities.
Thus, social structure arises from the social division of labor, and social stratification arises from the social distribution of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits.
And it is always unequal. This is how the arrangement of social strata arises according to the criterion of unequal access to power, wealth, education and prestige.
2. MEASURING STRATIFICATION
Let us imagine a social space in which The vertical and horizontal distances are not equal. This or roughly this is how P. Sorokin thought about social stratification - the man who was the first in the world to give a complete theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, and confirmed his theory with the help of a huge empirical material extending over the entire human history.
Points in space are social statuses. The distance between the turner and the milling machine is one, it is horizontal, and the distance between the worker and the foreman is different, it is vertical. The master is the boss, the worker is the subordinate. They have different social ranks. Although the matter can be imagined in such a way that the master and the worker will be located at an equal distance from each other. This will happen if we consider both of them not as a boss and a subordinate, but only as workers performing different labor functions. But then we will move from the vertical to the horizontal plane.
Interesting fact
Among the Alans, the deformation of the skull served as a true indicator of the social differentiation of society: among tribal leaders, elders of clans and priesthood, it was elongated.
Inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. She has four measuring rulers, or axes coordinates All of them arranged vertically and next to each other:
income,
power,
education,
prestige.
Income is measured in rubles or dollars that an individual receives (individual income) or family (family income) over a period of time, say one month or year.
On the coordinate axis we plot equal intervals, for example, up to $5,000, from $5,001 to $10,000, from $10,001 to $15,000, etc. up to $75,000 and above.
Education is measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university.
Let's say primary school means 4 years, junior high - 9 years, high school - 11, college - 4 years, university - 5 years, graduate school - 3 years, doctorate - 3 years. Thus, a professor has more than 20 years of formal education behind him, while a plumber may not have eight.
power is measured by the number of people affected by the decisions you make (power- opportunity
Rice. Four dimensions of social stratification. People occupying the same positions on all dimensions constitute one stratum (the figure shows an example of one of the strata).
impose your will or decisions on other people regardless of their wishes).
The decisions of the President of Russia apply to 150 million people (whether they are implemented is another question, although it also concerns the issue of power), and the decisions of the foreman - to 7-10 people. Three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars, years, people. Prestige stands outside this series, since it is a subjective indicator.
Prestige is respect for status established in public opinion.
Since 1947, the US National Opinion Research Center has periodically conducted surveys of ordinary Americans selected from a national sample to determine the social prestige of various professions. Respondents are asked to rate each of 90 professions (occupations) on a 5-point scale: excellent (best),
Note: The scale ranges from 100 (highest score) to 1 (lowest score). The second column "scores" shows the average score received by this type of activity in the sample.
good, average, slightly worse than average, worst activity. List II included almost all occupations from the chief judge, minister and doctor to plumber and janitor. By calculating the average for each occupation, sociologists obtained a public assessment of the prestige of each type of work in points. Arranging them in hierarchical order from the most respected to the least prestigious, they received a rating, or scale of professional prestige. Unfortunately, in our country, periodic representative surveys of the population on professional prestige have never been conducted. Therefore, you will have to use American data (see table).
Comparison of data for different years (1949, 1964, 1972, 1982) shows the stability of the prestige scale. The same types of occupations enjoyed the greatest, average, and least prestige during these years. Lawyer, doctor, teacher, scientist, banker, pilot, engineer received consistently high marks. Their position on the scale changed slightly: the doctor was in second place in 1964, and in first in 1982, the minister was in 10th and 11th places, respectively.
If the upper part of the scale is occupied by representatives of creative, intellectual labor, then the lower part is occupied by representatives of predominantly physical unskilled workers: driver, welder, carpenter, plumber, janitor. They have the least status respect. People occupying the same positions along the four dimensions of stratification constitute one stratum.
For each status or individual one can find a place on any scale.
A classic example is the comparison between a police officer and a college professor. On the education and prestige scales, the professor ranks above the policeman, and on the income and power scales, the policeman ranks above the professor. Indeed, the professor has less power, the income is somewhat lower than that of the policeman, but the professor has more prestige and years of training. By marking both with dots on each scale and connecting their lines, we get a stratification profile.
Each scale can be considered separately and designated as an independent concept.
In sociology there are three basic types of stratification:
economic (income),
political (power),
professional (prestige)
and many non-basic, for example, cultural-speech and age.
Rice. Stratification profile of a college professor and a police officer.
3. BELONGING TO THE STRATE
Affiliation measured by subjective and objective indicators:
subjective indicator - a feeling of belonging to a given group, identification with it;
objective indicators - income, power, education, prestige.
Thus, large fortune, high education, great power and high professional prestige are necessary conditions for you to be classified as one of the highest stratum of society.
Stratum is a social stratum of people who have similar objective indicators on four stratification scales.
Concept stratification (stratum - layer, facio- I do) came to sociology from geology, where it denotes the vertical arrangement of layers of various rocks. If you cut the earth's crust at a certain distance, you will find that under the layer of chernozem there is a layer of clay, then sand, etc. Each layer consists of homogeneous elements. The same goes for a stratum - it includes people who have the same income, education, power and prestige. There is no stratum that includes highly educated people with power and powerless poor people engaged in unprestigious work. The rich are included in the same stratum with the rich, and the middle ones with the average.
In a civilized country, a major mafioso cannot belong to the highest stratum. Although he has very high incomes, perhaps high education and strong power, his occupation does not enjoy high prestige among citizens. It is condemned. Subjectively, he may consider himself a member of the upper class and even qualify according to objective indicators. However, he lacks the main thing - recognition of "significant others".
“Significant others” refer to two large social groups: members of the upper class and the general population. The higher stratum will never recognize him as “one of their own” because he compromises the entire group as a whole. The population will never recognize mafia activity as a socially approved activity, since it contradicts the morals, traditions and ideals of a given society.
Let's conclude: belonging to a stratum has two components - subjective (psychological identification with a certain stratum) and objective (social entry into a certain stratum).
Social entry has undergone a certain historical evolution. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. With the advent of slavery, it unexpectedly intensified. slavery- a form of the most rigid consolidation of people in unprivileged strata. Castes-lifelong assignment of an individual to his (but not necessarily unprivileged) stratum. In medieval Europe, lifelong affiliation was weakened. Estates imply legal attachment to a stratum. Traders who became rich bought titles of nobility and thereby moved to a higher class. Estates were replaced by classes - open to all strata, not implying any legitimate (legal) way of being assigned to one stratum.
4. HISTORICAL TYPES OF STRATIFICATION
Well known in sociology four main types of stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies, and the last type is open.
Closed is a society where social movements from lower to higher strata are either completely prohibited, or substantially limited.
Open called a society where movement from one stratum to another is not officially limited in any way.
Slavery- an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality.
Slavery has evolved historically. There are two forms of it.
At patriarchal slavery (primitive form) the slave had all the rights of a junior member of the family: he lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free people, and inherited the owner’s property. It was forbidden to kill him.
At classic slavery (mature form) the slave was completely enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and had no family. It was allowed to kill him. He did not own property, but was himself considered the property of the owner (a “talking instrument”).
Ancient slavery in Ancient Greece and plantation slavery in the USA before 1865 are closer to the second form, and servitude in Gusi of the 10th-12th centuries is closer to the first. The sources of slavery differ: the ancient one was replenished mainly through conquest, and servitude was debt slavery, or indentured servitude. The third source is criminals. In medieval China and the Soviet Gulag (extra-legal slavery), criminals found themselves in the position of slaves.
At the mature stage slavery turns into slavery. When they talk about slavery as a historical type of stratification, they mean its highest stage. Slavery - the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the property of another, and when the lower layer is deprived of all rights and freedoms. This does not exist in castes and estates, not to mention classes.
Caste system not as ancient as the slave system, and less widespread. While almost all countries went through slavery, of course to varying degrees, castes were found only in India and partly in Africa. India is a classic example of a caste society. It arose on the ruins of the slaveholding in the first centuries of the new era.
Castecalled a social group (stratum), membership in which a person owes solely to his birth.
He cannot move from his caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. The caste position is enshrined in the Hindu religion (it is now clear why castes are not very common). According to its canons, people live more than one life. Each person falls into the appropriate caste depending on what his behavior was in his previous life. If he is bad, then after his next birth he must fall into a lower caste, and vice versa.
In India 4 main castes: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), Shudras (workers and peasants) and about 5 thousand minor castes and sub-castes. The untouchables are special - they do not belong to any caste and occupy the lowest position. During industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is increasingly becoming class-based, while the village, in which 7/10 of the population lives, remains caste-based.
Estates precede classes and characterize the feudal societies that existed in Europe from the 4th to the 14th centuries.
Estate- a social group that has rights and obligations that are fixed by custom or legal law and are inheritable.
A class system that includes several strata is characterized by hierarchy, expressed in inequality of position and privileges. The classic example of class organization was Europe, where at the turn of the 14th-15th centuries society was divided into upper classes(nobility and clergy) and unprivileged third estate(artisans, merchants, peasants). In the X-XIII centuries there were three main classes: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia, from the second half of the 18th century, the class division into nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistines (middle urban strata) was established. Estates were based on land ownership.
The rights and duties of each class were determined by legal law and sanctified by religious doctrine. Membership in the estate was determined inheritance. Social barriers between classes were quite strict, so social mobility existed not so much between, but within classes. Each estate included many strata, ranks, levels, professions, and ranks. Thus, only nobles could engage in public service. The aristocracy was considered a military class (knighthood).
The higher a class stood in the social hierarchy, the higher its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were fully tolerated. Individual mobility was sometimes allowed. A simple person could become a knight by purchasing a special permit from the ruler. As a relic, this practice has survived in modern England.
5. Social stratification and prospects for civil society in Russia
In its history, Russia has experienced more than one wave of restructuring of the social space, when the previous social structure collapsed, the world of values changed, guidelines, patterns and norms of behavior were formed, entire strata perished, and new communities were born. On the threshold of the 21st century. Russia is once again going through a complex and contradictory process of renewal.
In order to understand the changes taking place, it is first necessary to consider the foundations on which the social structure of Soviet society was built before the reforms of the second half of the 80s.
The nature of the social structure of Soviet Russia can be revealed by analyzing Russian society as a combination of various stratification systems.
In the stratification of Soviet society, permeated with administrative and political control, the ethacratic system played a key role. The place of social groups in the party-state hierarchy predetermined the volume of distributive rights, the level of decision-making and the scope of opportunities in all areas. The stability of the political system was ensured by the stability of the position of the power elite (“nomenklatura”), the key positions in which were occupied by the political and military elites, and the economic and cultural elites occupied a subordinate place.
An ethacratic society is characterized by a fusion of power and property; predominance of state ownership; state-monopoly mode of production; dominance of centralized distribution; militarization of the economy; class-stratified stratification of a hierarchical type, in which the positions of individuals and social groups are determined by their place in the structure of state power, which extends to the overwhelming majority of material, labor, and information resources; social mobility in the form of selection, organized from above, of the most obedient and loyal people to the system.
A distinctive characteristic of the social structure of a Soviet-type society was that it was not class-based, although in terms of the parameters of the professional structure and economic differentiation it remained superficially similar to the stratification of Western societies. Due to the elimination of the basis of class division - private ownership of the means of production - classes were gradually destructured.
A monopoly of state property, in principle, cannot produce a class society, since all citizens are hired workers of the state, differing only in the amount of powers delegated to them. The distinctive features of social groups in the USSR were special functions, formalized as the legal inequality of these groups. Such inequality led to the isolation of these groups and the destruction of “social elevators” that served for upward social mobility. Accordingly, the life and consumption of elite groups became increasingly iconic, reminiscent of the phenomenon called “prestigious consumption.” All these features make up a picture of a class society.
Class stratification is inherent in a society in which economic relations are rudimentary and do not play a differentiating role, and the main mechanism of social regulation is the state, dividing people into legally unequal classes.
From the first years of Soviet power, for example, the peasantry was formalized into a special class: its political rights were limited until 1936. The inequality of rights of workers and peasants manifested itself for many years (attachment to collective farms through the system of a passport-free regime, privileges for workers in receiving education and promotion, registration system, etc.). In fact, employees of the party and state apparatus have become a special class with a whole range of special rights and privileges. The social status of the massive and heterogeneous class of prisoners was secured in the legal and administrative order.
In the 60-70s. in conditions of chronic shortages and limited purchasing power of money, the process of leveling wages is intensifying, with a parallel fragmentation of the consumer market into closed “special sectors” and an increasing role of privileges. The material and social situation of groups involved in distribution processes in the spheres of trade, supply, and transport has improved. The social influence of these groups increased as shortages of goods and services worsened. During this period, shadow socio-economic ties and associations arise and develop. A more open type of social relations is being formed: in the economy, the bureaucracy acquires the opportunity to achieve the most favorable results for itself; the spirit of entrepreneurship also embraces the lower social strata - numerous groups of private traders, manufacturers of “leftist” products, and “shabab” builders are formed. Thus, a doubling of the social structure occurs, when fundamentally different social groups bizarrely coexist within its framework.
Important social changes that occurred in the Soviet Union in 1965 - 1985 are associated with the development of the scientific and technological revolution, urbanization and, accordingly, an increase in the general level of education.
From the early 60s to the mid 80s. More than 35 million residents migrated to the city. However, urbanization in our country was clearly deformed: the massive movements of rural migrants to the city were not accompanied by a corresponding development of social infrastructure. A huge mass of extra people, social outsiders, has appeared. Having lost touch with the rural subculture and unable to join the urban one, migrants created a typically marginal subculture.
The figure of a migrant from village to city is a classic model of the marginal: no longer a peasant, not yet a worker; the norms of the village subculture have been undermined, the urban subculture has not yet been assimilated. The main sign of marginalization is the severance of social, economic, and spiritual ties.
The economic reasons for marginalization were the extensive development of the Soviet economy, the dominance of outdated technologies and primitive forms of labor, the inconsistency of the education system with the real needs of production, etc. Closely related to this are the social causes of marginalization - hypertrophy of the accumulation fund to the detriment of the consumption fund, which gave rise to an extremely low standard of living and commodity shortages. Among the political and legal reasons for the marginalization of society, the main one is that during the Soviet period in the country there was a destruction of any social ties “horizontally”. The state sought global dominance over all spheres of public life, deforming civil society, minimizing the autonomy and independence of individuals and social groups.
In the 60-80s. an increase in the general level of education and the development of an urban subculture gave rise to a more complex and differentiated social structure. In the early 80s. specialists who received higher or secondary specialized education already accounted for 40% of the urban population.
By the beginning of the 90s. In terms of its educational level and professional positions, the Soviet middle class was not inferior to the Western “new middle class.” In this regard, the English political scientist R. Sakwa noted: “The communist regime gave rise to a peculiar paradox: millions of people were bourgeois in their culture and aspirations, but were included in a socio-economic system that denied these aspirations.”
Under the influence of socio-economic and political reforms in the second half of the 80s. Great changes have taken place in Russia. Compared to Soviet times, the structure of Russian society has undergone significant changes, although it retains many of the same features. The transformation of the institutions of Russian society has seriously affected its social structure: relations of property and power have changed and continue to change, new social groups are emerging, the level and quality of life of each social group is changing, and the mechanism of social stratification is being rebuilt.
As an initial model of multidimensional stratification of modern Russia, we will take four main parameters: power, prestige of professions, income level and level of education.
Power is the most important dimension of social stratification. Power is necessary for the sustainable existence of any socio-political system; it combines the most important public interests. The system of government bodies in post-Soviet Russia has been significantly restructured - some of them have been liquidated, others have just been organized, some have changed their functions, and their personnel have been updated. The previously closed upper stratum of society opened up to people from other groups.
The place of the monolith of the nomenklatura pyramid was taken by numerous elite groups that were in a competitive relationship with each other. The elite has lost much of the leverage of the old ruling class. This led to a gradual transition from political and ideological methods of management to economic ones. Instead of a stable ruling class with strong vertical ties between its levels, many elite groups were created, between which horizontal ties intensified.
An area of management activity where the role of political power has increased is the redistribution of accumulated wealth. Direct or indirect involvement in the redistribution of state property in modern Russia is the most important factor determining the social status of management groups.
The social structure of modern Russia retains the features of the former étacratic society, built on power hierarchies. However, at the same time, the revival of economic classes on the basis of privatized state property begins. There is a transition from stratification according to the basis of power (appropriation through privileges, distribution in accordance with the place of the individual in the party-state hierarchy) to stratification of the proprietary type (appropriation according to the amount of profit and market-valued labor). Next to the power hierarchies, an “entrepreneurial structure” appears, which includes the following main groups: 1) large and medium-sized entrepreneurs; 2) small entrepreneurs (owners and managers of firms with minimal use of hired labor); 3) independent workers; 4) hired workers.
There is a tendency to form new social groups that claim high places in the hierarchy of social prestige.
The prestige of professions is the second important dimension of social stratification. We can talk about a number of fundamentally new trends in the professional structure associated with the emergence of new prestigious social roles. The range of professions is becoming more complex, and their comparative attractiveness is changing in favor of those that provide more substantial and quicker material rewards. In this regard, assessments of the social prestige of different types of activity change, when physically or ethically “dirty” work is still considered attractive from the point of view of monetary reward.
The newly emerged and therefore “scarce” in terms of personnel, the financial sphere, business, and commerce are filled with a large number of semi- and non-professionals. Entire professional strata have been relegated to the “bottom” of social rating scales - their special training turned out to be unclaimed and the income from it is negligible.
The role of the intelligentsia in society has changed. As a result of the reduction in state support for science, education, culture and art, there was a decline in the prestige and social status of knowledge workers.
In modern conditions in Russia there has been a tendency to form a number of social strata belonging to the middle class - these are entrepreneurs, managers, certain categories of the intelligentsia, and highly skilled workers. But this trend is contradictory, since the common interests of the various social strata that potentially form the middle class are not supported by the processes of their convergence according to such important criteria as the prestige of the profession and income level.
The income level of various groups is the third significant parameter of social stratification. Economic status is the most important indicator of social stratification, because the level of income influences such aspects of social status as the type of consumption and lifestyle, the opportunity to do business, advance in career, give children a good education, etc.
In 1997, the income received by the top 10% of Russians was almost 27 times higher than the income of the bottom 10%. The wealthiest 20% accounted for 47.5% of total cash income, while the poorest 20% received only 5.4%. 4% of Russians are super wealthy - their income is approximately 300 times higher than the income of the bulk of the population.
The most acute problem in the social sphere at present is the problem of mass poverty - almost 1/3 of the country's population continues to live in poverty. Of particular concern is the change in the composition of the poor: today they include not only the traditionally low-income (disabled people, pensioners, people with many children), the ranks of the poor have been supplemented by the unemployed and the employed, whose wages (and this is a quarter of all employees in enterprises) are below the subsistence level. Almost 64% of the population have incomes below the average level (average income is considered to be 8-10 times the minimum wage per person) (see: Zaslavskaya T.I. Social structure of modern and certain society // Social sciences and modernity. 1997 No. 2. P. 17).
One of the manifestations of the declining standard of living of a significant part of the population is the growing need for secondary employment. However, it is not possible to determine the real scale of secondary employment and additional jobs (bringing even higher income than the main job). The criteria used today in Russia provide only a conditional description of the income structure of the population; the data obtained are often limited and incomplete. Nevertheless, social stratification on an economic basis indicates that the process of restructuring of Russian society continues with great intensity. It was artificially limited in Soviet times and is being developed openly
The deepening processes of social differentiation of groups by income level is beginning to have a noticeable impact on the education system.
The level of education is another important criterion for stratification; education is one of the main channels of vertical mobility. During the Soviet period, higher education was accessible to many segments of the population, and secondary education was compulsory. However, such an education system was ineffective; higher schools trained specialists without taking into account the real needs of society.
In modern Russia, the breadth of educational offerings is becoming a new differentiating factor.
In new high-status groups, obtaining a scarce and high-quality education is considered not only prestigious, but also functionally important.
Newly emerging professions require more qualifications and better training and are better paid. As a consequence, education is becoming an increasingly important factor at the entrance to the professional hierarchy. As a result, social mobility increases. It depends less and less on the social characteristics of the family and is more determined by the personal qualities and education of the individual.
An analysis of the changes taking place in the system of social stratification according to four main parameters speaks of the depth and inconsistency of the transformation process experienced by Russia and allows us to conclude that today it continues to retain the old pyramidal shape (characteristic of pre-industrial society), although the substantive characteristics of its constituent layers have changed significantly.
In the social structure of modern Russia, six layers can be distinguished: 1) the upper one - the economic, political and security elite; 2) upper middle - medium and large entrepreneurs; 3) middle - small entrepreneurs, managers of the production sector, the highest intelligentsia, the working elite, military personnel; 4) basic - the mass intelligentsia, the bulk of the working class, peasants, trade and service workers; 5) lower - unskilled workers, long-term unemployed, single pensioners; 6) “social bottom” - homeless people released from prison, etc.
At the same time, a number of significant clarifications should be made related to the processes of changing the stratification system during the reform process:
Most social formations are mutually transitional in nature and have fuzzy, vague boundaries;
There is no internal unity of newly emerging social groups;
There is a total marginalization of almost all social groups;
The new Russian state does not ensure the security of citizens and does not alleviate their economic situation. In turn, these dysfunctions of the state deform the social structure of society and give it a criminal character;
The criminal nature of class formation gives rise to growing property polarization of society;
The current level of income cannot stimulate labor and business activity of the bulk of the economically active population;
In Russia there remains a layer of the population that can be called a potential resource of the middle class. Today, about 15% of those employed in the national economy can be classified as belonging to this layer, but its maturation to a “critical mass” will take a lot of time. So far in Russia, the socio-economic priorities characteristic of the “classical” middle class can only be observed in the upper layers of the social hierarchy.
A significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, which requires a transformation of the institutions of property and power, is a long process. Meanwhile, the stratification of society will continue to lose rigidity and unambiguity, taking the form of a blurred system in which layer and class structures are intertwined.
Of course, the formation of a civil society should be the guarantor of the process of renewal of Russia.
The problem of civil society in our country is of particular theoretical and practical interest. In terms of the nature of the dominant role of the state, Russia was initially closer to the eastern type of society, but in our country this role was expressed even more clearly. As A. Gramsci put it, “in Russia the state represents everything, and civil society is primitive and vague.”
Unlike the West, a different type of social system has developed in Russia, which is based on the efficiency of power, rather than the efficiency of property. One should also take into account the fact that for a long time in Russia there were practically no public organizations and such values as the inviolability of the individual and private property, legal thinking, which constitute the context of civil society in the West, remained undeveloped; social initiative belonged not to associations of private individuals, but to the bureaucratic apparatus.
From the second half of the 19th century. the problem of civil society began to be developed in Russian social and scientific thought (B.N. Chicherin, E.N. Trubetskoy, S.L. Frank, etc.). The formation of civil society in Russia begins during the reign of Alexander I. It was at this time that separate spheres of civil life emerged that were not associated with military and court officials - salons, clubs, etc. As a result of the reforms of Alexander II, zemstvos, various unions of entrepreneurs, charitable institutions, and cultural societies emerged. However, the process of formation of civil society was interrupted by the revolution of 1917. Totalitarianism blocked the very possibility of the emergence and development of civil society.
The era of totalitarianism led to the grandiose leveling of all members of society before the all-powerful state, the washing out of any groups pursuing private interests. The totalitarian state significantly narrowed the autonomy of sociality and civil society, securing control over all spheres of public life.
The peculiarity of the current situation in Russia is that the elements of civil society will have to be created largely anew. Let us highlight the most fundamental directions in the formation of civil society in modern Russia:
Formation and development of new economic relations, including pluralism of forms of ownership and the market, as well as the open social structure of society determined by them;
The emergence of a system of real interests adequate to this structure, uniting individuals, social groups and strata into a single community;
The emergence of various forms of labor associations, social and cultural associations, socio-political movements that make up the main institutions of civil society;
Renewing relationships between social groups and communities (national, professional, regional, gender, age, etc.);
Creation of economic, social and spiritual prerequisites for creative self-realization of the individual;
Formation and deployment of mechanisms of social self-regulation and self-government at all levels of the social body.
The ideas of civil society found themselves in post-communist Russia in a unique context that distinguishes our country both from Western states (with their strongest mechanisms of rational legal relations) and from Eastern countries (with their specificity of traditional primary groups). Unlike Western countries, the modern Russian state does not deal with a structured society, but, on the one hand, with rapidly forming elite groups, and on the other, with an amorphous, atomized society in which individual consumer interests predominate. Today in Russia, civil society is not developed, many of its elements are crowded out or “blocked”, although over the years of reform there have been significant changes in the direction of its formation.
Modern Russian society is quasi-civil; its structures and institutions have many of the formal characteristics of civil society formations. There are up to 50 thousand voluntary associations in the country - consumer associations, trade unions, environmental groups, political clubs, etc. However, many of them, having survived at the turn of the 80-90s. a short period of rapid growth, in recent years they have become bureaucratic, weakened, and lost activity. The average Russian underestimates group self-organization, and the most common social type has become the individual, closed in his aspirations to himself and his family. Overcoming this state, caused by the process of transformation, is the specificity of the current stage of development.
1. Social stratification is a system of social inequality, consisting of a set of interconnected and hierarchically organized social layers (strata). The stratification system is formed on the basis of such characteristics as the prestige of professions, the amount of power, income level and level of education.
2. The theory of stratification allows you to model the political pyramid of society, identify and take into account the interests of individual social groups, determine the level of their political activity, the degree of influence on political decision-making.
3. The main purpose of civil society is to achieve consensus between various social groups and interests. Civil society is a set of social entities united specifically by economic, ethnic, cultural, etc. interests realized outside the sphere of state activity.
4. The formation of civil society in Russia is associated with significant changes in the social structure. The new social hierarchy differs in many ways from the one that existed during Soviet times and is characterized by extreme instability. Stratification mechanisms are being restructured, social mobility is increasing, and many marginal groups with an uncertain status are emerging. Objective opportunities for the formation of a middle class are beginning to emerge. For a significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, a transformation of the institutions of property and power is necessary, accompanied by a blurring of boundaries between groups, changes in group interests and social interactions.
Literature
1. Sorokin P. A. Man, civilization, society. - M., 1992.
2. Zharova L.N., Mishina I.A. The history of homeland. - M., 1992.
3. HessIN., Markgon E., Stein P. Sociology. V.4., 1991.
4. Vselensky M. S. Nomenclature. - M., 1991.
5. Ilyin V. I. The main contours of the system of social stratification of society // Rubezh. 1991. No. 1. P.96-108.
6. Smelser N. Sociology. - M., 1994.
7. Komarov M. S. Social stratification and social structure // Sociol. research 1992. No. 7.
8. Giddens E. Stratification and class structure // Sociol. research 1992. No. 11.
9. Political Science, ed. Prof. M.A. Vasilika M., 1999
9. A.I. Kravchenko Sociology - Ekaterinburg, 2000.
The concept of social stratification. Conflictological and functionalist theory of stratification
Social stratification- this is a set of social layers arranged in a vertical order (from Latin - layer and - I do).
The author of the term is an American scientist, a former resident of Russia, Pitirim Sorokin. He borrowed the concept of “stratification” from geology. In this science, this term refers to the horizontal occurrence of various layers of geological rocks.
Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin (1889-1968) was born in the Vologda region, in the family of a Russian, a jeweler and a Kome peasant woman. He graduated from St. Petersburg University, Master of Law. He was an activist in the Right Socialist Revolutionary Party. In 1919 he founded the Faculty of Sociology and became its first dean. In 1922 together with a group of scientists and political figures, he was expelled by Lenin from Russia. In 1923 he worked in the USA at the University of Minnesota, and in 1930 he founded the sociology department at Harvard University, inviting Robert Merton and Talcott Parsons to work. It was in the 30-60s years - the peak of the scientist’s scientific creativity. The four-volume monograph “Social and Cultural Dynamics” (1937-1941) brought him worldwide fame.
If social structure arises due to the social division of labor, then social stratification, i.e. hierarchy of social groups - regarding the social distribution of labor results (social benefits).
Social relations in any society are characterized as unequal. Social inequality are conditions under which people have unequal access to social goods such as money, power and prestige. Differences between people due to their physiological and mental characteristics are called natural. Natural differences can become the basis for the emergence of unequal relationships between individuals. The strong force the weak, who triumph over the simpletons. Inequality arising from natural differences is the first form of inequality. However, the main feature of society is social inequality, which is inextricably linked with social differences.
Theories of social inequality are divided into two fundamental areas: Functionalist and conflictological(Marxist).
Functionalists, in the tradition of Emile Durkheim, derive social inequality from the division of labor: mechanical (natural, state-based) and organic (arising as a result of training and professional specialization).
For the normal functioning of society, an optimal combination of all types of activities is necessary, but some of them, from the point of view of society, are more important than others, therefore, society must always have special mechanisms to reward those people who perform important functions, for example, due to unevenness in remuneration, provision of certain privileges, etc.
Conflictologistsemphasize the dominant role in the system of social reproduction of differential (those that distribute society into layers) relations of property and power. The nature of the formation of elites and the nature of the distribution of social capital depend on who gets control over significant social resources, as well as on what conditions.
Followers of Karl Marx, for example, consider the main source of social inequality to be private ownership of the means of production, which gives rise to social stratification of society, its division into antagonistic classes. The exaggeration of the role of this factor prompted K. Marx and his followers to the idea that with the elimination of private ownership of the means of production it would be possible to get rid of social inequality.
Socio dialect - conventional languages and jargon. Jargon is distinguished: class, professional, age, etc. Conventional languages (“Argo”) are lexical systems that perform the functions of a separate language, incomprehensible to the uninitiated, for example, “Fenya” is the language of the criminal world (“grandmothers” - money, “ban” - station, "corner" - "Clift" suitcase - jacket).
Types of social stratification
In sociology, there are usually three basic types of stratification (economic, political, professional), as well as non-basic types of stratification (cultural-speech, age, etc.).
Economic stratification is characterized by indicators of income and wealth. Income is the amount of cash receipts of an individual or family for a certain period of time (month, year). This includes salary, pension, benefits, fees, etc. Income is usually spent on living expenses, but can be accumulated and turned into wealth. Income is measured in monetary units that an individual (individual income) or a family (family income) receives over a specified period of time.
Political stratification is characterized by the amount of power. Power is the ability to exercise one’s will, determine and control the activities of other people through various means (law, violence, authority, etc.). Thus, the amount of power is measured, first of all, by the number of people who are affected by the power decision.
Occupational stratification is measured by the level of education and the prestige of the profession. Education is the totality of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the learning process (measured by the number of years of study) and the quality of the knowledge, skills and abilities acquired. Education, like income and power, is an objective measure of the stratification of society. However, it is also important to take into account the subjective assessment of the social structure, because the process of stratification is closely linked to the formation of a value system, on the basis of which a “normative scale of assessment” is formed. Thus, each person, based on his beliefs and passions, evaluates professions, statuses, etc., existing in society differently. In this case, the assessment is carried out according to many criteria (place of residence, type of leisure, etc.).
Prestige of the profession- this is a collective (public) assessment of the significance and attractiveness of a certain type of activity. Prestige is respect for status established in public opinion. As a rule, it is measured in points (from 1 to 100). Thus, the profession of a doctor or lawyer in all societies is respected in public opinion, and the profession of a janitor, for example, has the least status respect. In the USA, the most prestigious professions are doctor, lawyer, scientist (university professor), etc. The average level of prestige is manager, engineer, small owner, etc. Low level of prestige - welder, driver, plumber, agricultural worker, janitor, etc.
In sociology, there are four main types of stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies, and the last type - open ones. A closed society is one where social movements from lower to higher strata are either completely prohibited or significantly limited. An open society is a society where movement from one country to another is not officially limited in any way.
Slavery - a form in which one person acts as the property of another; slaves constitute a low stratum of society, which is deprived of all rights and freedoms.
Caste - a social stratum in which a person owes membership solely by his birth. There are practically insurmountable barriers between castes: a person cannot change the caste in which she was born, marriages between representatives of different castes are also allowed. India is a classic example of a caste organization of society. Although 31949. in India, a political struggle against casteism has been proclaimed; in this country today there are 4 main castes and 5000 minor ones; the caste system is especially stable in the south, in poor regions, as well as in villages. However, industrialization and urbanization are destroying the caste system, since it is difficult to adhere to caste distinctions in a city crowded with strangers. Remnants of the caste system also exist in Indonesia, Japan and other countries. The apartheid regime in the Republic of South Africa was marked by a peculiar caste: in this country whites, blacks and “coloreds” (Asians) did not have the right to live together , study, work, relax. A place in society was determined by belonging to a certain racial group. In 994, apartheid was eliminated, but its remnants will exist for more than one generation.
Estate - a social group that has certain rights and responsibilities, established by custom or law, that are inherited. During feudalism in Europe, for example, there were such privileged classes: the nobility and the clergy; unprivileged - the so-called third estate, which consisted of artisans and merchants, as well as dependent peasants. The transition from one state to another was very difficult, almost impossible, although individual exceptions happened extremely rarely. Let's say, a simple Cossack Alexey Rozum, by the will of fate being the favorite Empress Elizabeth, became a Russian nobleman, a count, and his brother Kirill became the hetman of Ukraine.
Classes (in a broad sense) - social strata in modern society. This is an open system, because, unlike previous historical types of social stratification, the decisive role here is played by the personal efforts of the individual, and not his social origin. Although in order to move from one stratum in another, you also have to overcome certain social barriers. It is always easier for the son of a millionaire to reach the top of the social hierarchy. Let's say, among the 700 richest people in the world, according to Forbes magazine, there are 12 Rockefellers and 9 Mallones, although the richest person in the world today is Bill Gates was by no means the son of a millionaire; he did not even graduate from university.
Social mobility: definition, classification and forms
According to P. Sorokin’s definition, under social mobility refers to any transition of an individual, group or social object, or value created or modified through activity, from one social position to another, as a result of which the social position of the individual or group changes.
P. Sorokin distinguishes two forms social mobility: horizontal and vertical.Horizontal mobility- this is the transition of an individual or social object from one social position to another, lying at the same level. For example, the transition of an individual from one family to another, from one religious group to another, as well as a change of place of residence. In all these cases, the individual does not change the social stratum to which he belongs or his social status. But the most important process is vertical mobility, which is a set of interactions that contribute to the transition of an individual or social object from one social layer to another. This includes, for example, a career advancement (professional vertical mobility), a significant improvement in well-being (economic vertical mobility) or a transition to a higher social stratum, to a different level of power (political vertical mobility).
Society can elevate the status of some individuals and lower the status of others. And this is understandable: some individuals who have talent, energy, and youth must displace other individuals who do not have these qualities from higher statuses. Depending on this, a distinction is made between upward and downward social mobility, or social ascent and social decline. Ascending currents of professional economic and political mobility exist in two main forms: as an individual rise from a lower stratum to a higher one, and as the creation of new groups of individuals. These groups are included in the highest layer next to or instead of existing ones. Similarly, downward mobility exists both in the form of pushing individuals from high social statuses to lower ones, and in the form of lowering the social statuses of an entire group. An example of the second form of downward mobility is the decline in the social status of a professional group of engineers, which once occupied very high positions in our society, or the decline in the status of a political party that is losing real power.
Also distinguish individual social mobility And group(group, as a rule, is a consequence of serious social changes, such as revolutions or economic transformations, foreign interventions or changes in political regimes, etc.). An example of group social mobility could be the fall in the social status of a professional group of teachers, who at one time occupied very high positions in our society, or a decline in the status of a political party, due to defeat in elections or as a result of a revolution, it has lost real power. According to Sorokin’s figurative expression, the case of downward individual social mobility is reminiscent of a person falling from a ship, and a group case is reminiscent of a ship that sank with all the people on board.
In a society that develops stably, without shocks, it is not the group itself that predominates, but individual vertical movements, that is, it is not political, professional, class or ethnic groups that rise and fall through the steps of the social hierarchy, but individual individuals. In modern society, individual mobility is very high The processes of industrialization, then the reduction in the share of unskilled workers, the growing need for white-collar managers and businessmen, encourage people to change their social status. However, even in the most traditional society there were no insurmountable barriers between strata.
Sociologists also distinguish between mobility intergenerational and mobility within one generation.
Intergenerational mobility(intergenerational mobility) is determined by comparing the social status of parents and their children at a certain point in the careers of both (for example, by the rank of their profession at approximately the same age). Research shows that a significant portion, perhaps even a majority, of the Russian population moves at least slightly up or down the class hierarchy in each generation.
Intragenerational mobility(intragenerational mobility) involves comparing the social status of an individual over a long period of time. Research results indicate that many Russians changed their occupation during their lives. However, mobility for the majority was limited. Short distance movements are the rule, long distance movements are the exception.
Spontaneous and organized mobility.
An example of spontaneous mabundance can be the movement of residents of neighboring countries to large cities in Russia for the purpose of earning money.
Organized mobility - the movement of an individual or entire groups up, down or horizontally is controlled by the state. These movements can be carried out:
a) with the consent of the people themselves,
b) without their consent.
An example of organized voluntary mobility in Soviet times is the movement of young people from different cities and villages to Komsomol construction sites, the development of virgin lands, etc. An example of organized involuntary mobility is the repatriation (resettlement) of Chechens and Ingush during the war with German Nazism.
It is necessary to distinguish from organized mobility structural mobility. It is caused by changes in the structure of the national economy and occurs beyond the will and consciousness of individuals. For example, the disappearance or reduction of industries or professions leads to the displacement of large masses of people.
Channels of vertical mobility
The most complete description of channels vertical mobility given by P. Sorokin. Only he calls them “vertical circulation channels.” He believes that there are no impassable borders between countries. Between them there are various “elevators” along which individuals move up and down.
Of particular interest are social institutions - the army, church, school, family, property, which are used as channels of social circulation.
The army functions as a channel of vertical circulation most of all during wartime. Large losses among the command staff lead to vacancies being filled from lower ranks. In wartime, soldiers advance through talent and courage.
It is known that out of 92 Roman emperors, 36 reached this rank, starting from the lower ranks. Of the 65 Byzantine emperors, 12 were promoted through military careers. Napoleon and his entourage, marshals, generals and the kings of Europe appointed by him came from commoners. Cromwell, Grant, Washington and thousands of other commanders rose to the highest positions through the army.
The church, as a channel of social circulation, moved a large number of people from the bottom to the top of society. P. Sorokin studied the biographies of 144 Roman Catholic popes and found that 28 came from the lower strata, and 27 from the middle strata. The institution of celibacy (celibacy), introduced in the 11th century. Pope Gregory VII ordered the Catholic clergy not to have children. Thanks to this, after the death of officials, the vacant positions were filled with new people.
In addition to the upward movement, the church became a channel for the downward movement. Thousands of heretics, pagans, enemies of the church were put on trial, ruined and destroyed. Among them were many kings, dukes, princes, lords, aristocrats and nobles of the highest ranks.
School. Institutions of education and upbringing, no matter what specific form they acquire, have served in all centuries as a powerful channel of social circulation. In an open society, the “social elevator” moves from the very bottom, passes through all floors and reaches the very top.
During the era of Confucius, schools were open to all grades. Exams were held every three years. The best students, regardless of their family status, were selected and transferred to high schools and then to universities, from where they were promoted to high government positions. Thus, the Chinese school constantly elevated the common people and prevented the advancement of the upper classes if they did not meet the requirements. Great competition for admission to colleges and universities in many countries is explained by the fact that education is the most a fast and accessible channel of social circulation.
Property manifests itself most clearly in the form of accumulated wealth and money. They are one of the simplest and most effective ways of social promotion. Family and marriage become channels of vertical circulation if representatives of different social statuses enter into an alliance. In European society, the marriage of a poor but titled partner with a rich but not noble one was common. As a result, both moved up the social ladder, getting what each wanted.
Introduction
Human society at all stages of its development was characterized by inequality. Sociologists call structured inequalities between different groups of people stratification.
Social stratification is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence and absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community. Specific forms of social stratification are varied and numerous. However, all their diversity can be reduced to three main forms: economic, political and professional stratification. As a rule, they are all closely intertwined. Social stratification is a constant characteristic of any organized society.
In real life, human inequality plays a huge role. Inequality is a specific form of social differentiation in which individuals, layers, classes are at different levels of the vertical social hierarchy and have unequal life chances and opportunities to satisfy needs. Inequality is the criterion by which we can place some groups above or below others. Social structure arises from the social division of labor, and social stratification arises from the social distribution of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits.
Stratification is closely related to the prevailing value system in society. It forms a normative scale for assessing various types of human activity, on the basis of which people are ranked according to the degree of social prestige.
Social stratification performs a double function: it acts as a method of identifying the layers of a given society and at the same time represents its social portrait. Social stratification is characterized by a certain stability within a specific historical stage.
1. Stratification term
Social stratification is a central theme in sociology. It describes social inequality in society, the division of social strata by income level and lifestyle, by the presence or absence of privileges. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. In complex societies, inequality is very strong; it divides people according to income, level of education, and power. Castes arose, then estates, and later classes. In some societies, transition from one social layer (stratum) to another is prohibited; There are societies where such a transition is limited, and there are societies where it is completely permitted. Freedom of social movement (mobility) determines whether a society is closed or open.
The term "stratification" comes from geology, where it refers to the vertical arrangement of the Earth's layers. Sociology has likened the structure of society to the structure of the Earth and placed social layers (strata) also vertically. The basis is an income ladder: the poor occupy the lowest rung, the affluent groups the middle, and the rich the top.
Each stratum includes only those people who have approximately the same income, power, education and prestige. Inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. The social stratification of any society includes four scales - income, education, power, prestige.
Income is the amount of cash receipts of an individual or family for a certain period of time (month, year). Income is the amount of money received in the form of wages, pensions, benefits, alimony, fees, and deductions from profits. Income is measured in rubles or dollars, which is received by an individual (individual income) or a family (family income) over a certain period of time, say one month or year.
Income is most often spent on maintaining life, but if it is very high, it accumulates and turns into wealth.
Wealth is accumulated income, i.e. amount of cash or materialized money. In the second case, they are called movable (car, yacht, securities, etc.) and immovable (house, works of art, treasures) property. Wealth is usually inherited. Both working and non-working people can receive inheritance, but only working people can receive income. Besides them, pensioners and the unemployed have income, but the poor do not. The rich can work or not work. In both cases they are owners because they have wealth. The main asset of the upper class is not income, but accumulated property. The salary share is small. For the middle and lower classes, the main source of existence is income, since the first, if there is wealth, is insignificant, and the second does not have it at all. Wealth allows you not to work, but its absence forces you to work for a salary.
Wealth and income are distributed unevenly and represent economic inequality. Sociologists interpret it as an indicator that different groups of the population have unequal life chances. They buy different quantities and qualities of food, clothing, housing, etc. People who have more money eat better, live in more comfortable homes, prefer a personal car to public transport, can afford expensive vacations, etc. But in addition to obvious economic advantages, the wealthy strata have hidden privileges. The poor have shorter lives (even if they enjoy all the benefits of medicine), less educated children (even if they go to the same public schools), etc.
Education is measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university. Let's say primary school means 4 years, junior high – 9 years, high school – 11, college – 4 years, university – 5 years, graduate school – 3 years, doctoral studies – 3 years. Thus, a professor has more than 20 years of formal education behind him, while a plumber may not have eight.
Power is measured by the number of people who are affected by the decision you make (power is the ability to impose your will or decisions on other people regardless of their wishes).
The essence of power is the ability to impose your will against the wishes of other people. In a complex society, power is institutionalized, i.e. protected by laws and tradition, surrounded by privileges and wide access to social benefits, allows decisions vital for society to be made, including laws that usually benefit the upper class. In all societies, people who have some form of power - political, economic or religious - constitute an institutionalized elite. It represents the domestic and foreign policy of the state, directing it in a direction beneficial to itself, which other classes are deprived of.
The three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars. Years, people. Prestige stands outside this series, since it is a subjective indicator.
Prestige is the respect that a particular profession, position, or occupation enjoys in public opinion. The profession of a lawyer is more prestigious than the profession of a steelmaker or plumber. The position of president of a commercial bank is more prestigious than the position of cashier. All professions, occupations and positions existing in a given society can be ranked from top to bottom on the ladder of professional prestige. As a rule, professional prestige is determined by us intuitively, approximately.
2. Systems of social stratification
Regardless of the forms that social stratification takes, its existence is universal. There are four main systems of social stratification: slavery, castes, clans and classes.
Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality. An essential feature of slavery is the ownership of some people by others.
Three reasons for slavery are usually cited. Firstly, a debt obligation, when a person who was unable to pay his debts fell into slavery to his creditor. Secondly, violation of laws, when the execution of a murderer or robber was replaced by slavery, i.e. the culprit was handed over to the affected family as compensation for the grief or damage caused. Thirdly, war, raids, conquest, when one group of people conquered another and the winners used some of the captives as slaves.
Conditions of slavery. Conditions of slavery and slavery varied significantly in different regions of the world. In some countries, slavery was a temporary condition of a person: after working the allotted time for his master, the slave became free and had the right to return to his homeland.
General characteristics of slavery. Although slaveholding practices varied in different regions and in different eras, whether slavery was the result of unpaid debt, punishment, military captivity, or racial prejudice; whether it was lifelong or temporary; hereditary or not, a slave was still the property of another person, and a system of laws secured the status of a slave. Slavery served as a basic distinction between people, clearly indicating which person was free (and legally entitled to certain privileges) and which person was a slave (without privileges).
Slavery has evolved historically. There are two forms of it:
Patriarchal slavery - the slave had all the rights of the youngest member of the family: he lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free people; it was forbidden to kill him;
Classical slavery - the slave lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not marry and did not have a family, he was considered the property of the owner.
Slavery is the only form of social relations in history when one person is the property of another, and when the lower stratum is deprived of all rights and freedoms.
Caste is a social group (stratum) whose membership a person owes solely to his birth.
The achieved status is not able to change the individual’s place in this system. People who are born into a low status group will always have that status, no matter what they personally achieve in life.
Societies characterized by this form of stratification strive to clearly maintain boundaries between castes, so endogamy is practiced here - marriages within one's own group - and there is a ban on intergroup marriages. To prevent contact between castes, such societies develop complex rules regarding ritual purity, according to which interaction with members of lower castes is considered to pollute the higher caste.
Clan is a clan or related group connected by economic and social ties.
The clan system is typical of agrarian societies. In such a system, each individual is connected to an extensive social network of relatives - a clan. A clan is something like a very extended family and has similar characteristics: if the clan has a high status, the individual belonging to this clan has the same status; all funds belonging to the clan, meager or rich, belong equally to each member of the clan; Loyalty to the clan is the lifelong responsibility of each member.
Clans also resemble castes: membership in a clan is determined by birth and is lifelong. However, unlike castes, marriages between different clans are quite permitted; they can even be used to create and strengthen alliances between clans, since the obligations imposed by marriage on the in-laws can unite members of two clans. Processes of industrialization and urbanization transform clans into more fluid groups, eventually replacing clans with social classes.
Clans especially unite during times of danger, as can be seen from the following example.
A class is a large social group of people who do not own the means of production, occupying a certain place in the system of social division of labor and characterized by a specific way of generating income.
Stratification systems based on slavery, castes and clans are closed. The boundaries separating people are so clear and rigid that they leave no room for people to move from one group to another, with the exception of marriages between members of different clans. The class system is much more open because it is based primarily on money or material possessions. Class membership is also determined at birth - an individual receives the status of his parents, but an individual's social class during his life can change depending on what he managed (or failed) to achieve in life. In addition, there are no laws defining an individual's occupation or profession based on birth or prohibiting marriage with members of other social classes.
Consequently, the main characteristic of this system of social stratification is the relative flexibility of its boundaries. The class system leaves opportunities for social mobility, i.e. to move up or down the social ladder. Having the potential to improve one's social status, or class, is one of the main driving forces that motivates people to study well and work hard. Of course, the family status inherited by a person from birth can determine extremely unfavorable conditions that will not leave him a chance to rise too high in life, and provide the child with such privileges that it will be almost impossible for him to “slide down” the class ladder.
Whatever typologies of classes scientists and thinkers have come up with. The ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle were the first to propose their model.
Today in sociology they offer different typologies of classes.
More than half a century has passed since Lloyd Warner developed his concept of classes. Today it has been replenished with another layer and in its final form it represents a seven-point scale.
The upper - upper class includes the "aristocrats by blood" who emigrated to America 200 years ago and over the course of many generations accumulated untold wealth. They are distinguished by a special way of life, high society manners, impeccable taste and behavior.
The lower – upper class consists mainly of the “new rich”, who have not yet managed to create powerful clans that have seized the highest positions in industry, business, and politics. Typical representatives are a professional basketball player or a pop star, receiving tens of millions, but in a family that does not have “aristocrats by blood.”
The upper-middle class consists of the petty bourgeoisie and highly paid professionals, such as large lawyers, famous doctors, actors or television commentators. Their lifestyle is approaching high society, but they still cannot afford a fashionable villa in the most expensive resorts in the world or a rare collection of artistic rarities.
The middle class represents the most massive stratum of a developed industrial society. It includes all well-paid employees, moderately paid professionals, in a word, people in intellectual professions, including teachers, teachers, and middle managers. This is the backbone of the information society and the service sector.
The lower-middle class consisted of low-level employees and skilled workers, who, by the nature and content of their work, gravitated toward mental rather than physical labor. A distinctive feature is a decent lifestyle.
The upper-lower class includes medium- and low-skilled workers employed in mass production, in local factories, living in relative prosperity, but with a behavior pattern significantly different from the upper and middle class. Distinctive features: low education (usually complete and incomplete secondary, specialized secondary), passive leisure (watching TV, playing cards or dominoes), primitive entertainment, often excessive consumption of alcohol and non-literary language.
Lower - the lowest class consists of inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places less suitable for living. They do not have any or primary education, most often survive by doing odd jobs or begging, and constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and constant humiliation. They are usually called the “social bottom”, or underclass. Most often, their ranks are recruited from chronic alcoholics, former prisoners, homeless people, etc.
The term "upper class" means the upper stratum of the upper class. In all two-part words, the first word denotes the stratum or layer, and the second – the class to which the given layer belongs. "Upper-lower class" is sometimes called as it is, and sometimes it is used to designate the working class.
In sociology, the criterion for assigning a person to one or another layer is not only income, but also the amount of power, level of education and prestige of the occupation, which presuppose a specific lifestyle and style of behavior. You can get a lot, but spend all the money or drink it on drink. It is not only the income of money that is important, but its expenditure, and this is already a way of life.
The working class in modern post-industrial society includes two layers: lower - middle and upper - lower. All intellectual workers, no matter how little they earn, are never classified in the lower class.
The middle class is always distinguished from the working class. But the working class is distinguished from the lower class, which may include the unemployed, the unemployed, the homeless, the beggars, etc. As a rule, highly skilled workers are included not in the working class, but in the middle, but in its lowest stratum, which is filled mainly by low-skilled mental workers - white-collar workers.
Another option is possible: workers are not included in the middle class, but constitute two layers in the general working class. Specialists are part of the next layer of the middle class, because the very concept of “specialist” presupposes at least a college-level education. The upper stratum of the middle class is filled mainly by “professionals”.
3. Stratification profile
and stratification profile.
Thanks to the four scales of stratification, the sociologist is able to create such analytical models and tools with which it is possible to explain not only the individual status portrait, but also the collective one, that is, the dynamics and structure of society as a whole. For this purpose, two concepts are proposed that are similar in appearance. But they differ in internal content, namely the stratification profile and the stratification profile.
Thanks to the stratification profile, it is possible to examine the problem of status incompatibility more deeply. Status incompatibility is a contradiction in the status set of one person, or a contradiction in the status characteristics of one status set of one person. Now, to explain this phenomenon, we have the right to connect the category of stratification and express status incompatibility in stratification characteristics. If some concepts of a specific status, for example, professor and policeman, go beyond the boundaries of their (middle) class, then status incompatibility can also be interpreted as stratification incompatibility.
Stratification incompatibility causes a feeling of social discomfort, which can turn into frustration, frustration into dissatisfaction with one’s place in society.
The fewer cases of status and stratification incompatibility in a society, the more stable it is.
So, a stratification profile is a graphic expression of the position of individual statuses on four stratification scales.
It is necessary to distinguish another concept from the stratification profile - the stratification profile. Otherwise known as the economic inequality profile.
A stratification profile is a graphical expression of the percentage shares of the upper, middle and lower classes in the composition of the country's population.
Conclusion
According to the evolutionary theory of stratification, as culture becomes more complex and develops, a situation arises in which no individual can master all aspects of social activity, and a division of labor and specialization of activity occurs. Some types of activities turn out to be more important, requiring lengthy training and appropriate remuneration, while others are less important and therefore more widespread and easily replaceable.
The concepts of stratification, in contrast to the Marxist idea of classes and the construction of a classless society, do not postulate social equality; on the contrary, they consider inequality as the natural state of society, therefore strata not only differ in their criteria, but are also located in a rigid system of subordination of some layers to others, privileged the position of the superiors and the subordinate position of the inferiors. In a dosed form, even the idea of some social contradictions is allowed, which are neutralized by the possibilities of vertical social mobility, i.e. it is assumed that individual talented people can move from lower to higher strata, as well as vice versa, when inactive people who occupy places in the upper strata of society due to the social position of their parents can go bankrupt and find themselves in the lowest strata of the social structure.
Thus, the concepts of social layer, stratification and social mobility, complementing the concepts of class and class structure of society, concretize the general idea of the structure of society and help to detail the analysis of social processes within the framework of certain economic and socio-political formations.
This is why the study of stratification is one of the most important areas of social anthropology. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, there are three main objectives of such research: "The first objective is to establish the extent to which class or status systems dominate at the level of society, establishing modes of social action. The second objective is to analyze class and status structures and factors that determine the process of class and status formation. Lastly, social stratification documents the inequality of conditions, opportunities and incomes, as well as the ways in which groups maintain class or status boundaries. In other words, it raises the question of social closure (clousure) and. examines the strategies by which some groups maintain their privileges and others seek access to them.”
List of used literature
Avdokushin E.F. International economic relations: Textbook - M.: Economist, 2004 - 366 p.
Bulatova A.S. World economy: Textbook - M.: Economist, 2004 – 366 p.
Lomakin V.K. World economy: Textbook for universities. – 2nd ed., revised. and additional – M.: UNITY-DANA, 2001. – 735 p.
Moiseev S.R. International monetary relations: Textbook. - M.: Publishing house "Delo and Service", 2003. - 576 p.
Radjabova Z.K. World Economy: Textbook. 2nd ed., revised. and additional – M.: INFRA-M, 2002. – 320 p.
Social stratification (12)
Abstract >> SociologyWidely used in sociology concept“social stratification" When considering the problem social inequalities are quite justifiable to proceed from... the principle, then they are social layers. IN social stratification tends to inherit positions. ...
Social stratification (11)
Abstract >> SociologyGroups of people are widely used in sociology concept « social stratification". Social stratification- (from lat. stratum - ... three fundamental concepts sociology - social structures, social composition and social stratification. In the domestic...
Social stratification as a tool social analysis
Coursework >> SociologyBetween concepts « social stratification" And " social structure”, V. Ilyin also draws a parallel between concepts « social stratification" And " social inequality". Social
Social stratification
Social role
Social role- a behavior model focused on this status. It can be defined differently - as a patterned type of behavior aimed at fulfilling the rights and responsibilities prescribed by a specific status.
Others expect one type of behavior from a banker, but a completely different one from an unemployed person. Social norms - prescribed rules of behavior - characterize the role, not the status. The role is also called the dynamic side of status. The words “dynamic”, “behavior”, “norm” indicate that we are not dealing with social relations, but with social interaction. However, we must learn:
· social roles and social norms relate to social interaction;
· social statuses, rights and responsibilities, functional relationship of statuses relate to social relations;
· social interaction describes the dynamics of society, social relations - its statics.
Subjects expect from the king behavior prescribed by custom or document. However, there is an intermediate link between status and role - expectations people (expectations).
Expectations can somehow be fixed, and then they become social norms. If, of course, they are considered as mandatory requirements (instructions). Or they may not be fixed, but that doesn’t stop them from being expectations.
Social stratification - central theme of sociology. It describes social inequality in society, the division of social strata by income level and lifestyle, by the presence or absence of privileges. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, and therefore stratification was almost absent there. In complex societies, inequality is very strong; it divides people according to income, level of education, and power. Castes arose, then estates, and later classes. In some societies, transition from one social layer (stratum) to another is prohibited; There are societies where such a transition is limited, and there are societies where it is completely permitted. Freedom of social movement (mobility) determines whether a society is closed or open.
The term “stratification” comes from geology, where it refers to the vertical arrangement of the Earth’s layers. Sociology has likened the structure of society to the structure of the Earth and placed social layers (strata) also vertically. The basis is an income ladder: the poor occupy the lowest rung, the wealthy groups occupy the middle, and the rich occupy the top.
Each stratum includes only those people who have approximately the same income, power, education and prestige. Inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. She has four measuring rulers, or coordinate axes. All of them are located vertically and next to each other:
· power;
· education;
· prestige.
Income - the amount of cash receipts of an individual or family for a certain period of time (month, year). Income is the amount of money received in the form of wages, pensions, benefits, alimony, fees, and deductions from profits. Income measured in rubles or dollars that an individual receives (individual income) or family (family income) over a certain period of time, say one month or year.
On the coordinate axis we plot equal intervals, for example, up to $5,000, from $5,001 to $10,000, from $10,001 to $15,000, etc. up to $75,000 and higher.
Income is most often spent on maintaining life, but if it is very high, it accumulates and turns into wealth.
Wealth - accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or materialized money. In the second case, they are called movable (car, yacht, securities, etc.) and immovable (house, works of art, treasures) property. Wealth is usually inherited. Both working and non-working people can receive inheritance, but only working people can receive income. Besides them, pensioners and the unemployed have income, but the poor do not. The rich can work or not work. In both cases they are owners because they have wealth. The main asset of the upper class is not income, but accumulated property. The salary share is small. For the middle and lower classes, the main source of existence is income, since the first, if there is wealth, is insignificant, and the second does not have it at all. Wealth allows you not to work, but its absence forces you to work for a salary.
Wealth and income are distributed unevenly and mean economic inequality. Sociologists interpret it as an indicator that different groups of the population have unequal life chances. People buy different quantities and different quality of food, clothing, housing, etc. People who have more money eat better, live in more comfortable houses, prefer a personal car to public transport, can afford expensive vacations, etc. But In addition to obvious economic advantages, the wealthy strata have hidden privileges. The poor have shorter lives (even if they benefit from all the benefits of medicine), less educated children (even if they go to the same public schools), etc.
Education measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university. Let's say primary school means 4 years, junior high - 9 years, high school - 11, college - 4 years, university - 5 years, graduate school - 3 years, doctoral studies - 3 years. However, a professor has more than 20 years of formal education behind him, while a plumber may not have eight.
Power measured by the number of people affected by the decision you make (power - the ability to impose one’s will or decisions on other people regardless of their wishes). The decisions of the President of Russia apply to 148 million people (whether they are implemented is another question, although it also concerns the issue of power), and the decisions of the foreman - to 7-10 people.
The essence authorities - the ability to impose one’s will against the wishes of other people. In a complex society, power institutionalized, i.e., it is protected by laws and tradition, surrounded by privileges and wide access to social benefits, and allows decisions that are vital for society to be made, incl. laws tend to favor the upper class. In all societies, people who have some form of power - political, economic or religious - constitute an institutionalized elite. It determines the domestic and foreign policy of the state, directing it in a direction beneficial to itself, which other classes are deprived of.
Three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars, years, people. Prestige stands outside this series, since it is a subjective indicator.
Prestige - the respect that a particular profession, position, or occupation enjoys in public opinion. The profession of a lawyer is more prestigious than the profession of a steelmaker or plumber. The position of president of a commercial bank is more prestigious than the position of cashier. All professions, occupations and positions existing in a given society can be ranked from top to bottom on the ladder of professional prestige. As a rule, professional prestige is determined by us intuitively, approximately. But in some countries, primarily in the USA, sociologists measure it using special methods. They study public opinion, compare different professions, analyze statistics and ultimately obtain an accurate scale of prestige.
Historical types of stratification
Income, power, prestige and education determine the overall socio-economic status, i.e. the position and place of a person in society. In this case status acts as a general indicator of stratification. Earlier we noted its key role in social structure. It now turns out that it plays a vital role in sociology as a whole.
The ascribed status characterizes a rigidly fixed system of stratification, i.e. closed society, in which the transition from one stratum to another is practically prohibited. Such systems include slavery, caste and class systems. The achieved status characterizes the mobile stratification system, or open society, where people are allowed to move freely down and up the social ladder. Such a system includes classes (capitalist society). These are historical types of stratification.
A closed society is one in which the movement of individuals or information from one country to another is excluded or significantly limited. Slavery - historically the first system of social stratification. Slavery arose in ancient times in Egypt, Babylon, China, Greece, Rome and survived in a number of regions almost to the present day. Like slavery, the caste system characterizes a closed society and rigid stratification Caste called a social group (stratum), membership in which a person is obliged solely by birth. He cannot move from one caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. Estate - a social group that has rights and obligations that are fixed by custom or legal law and are inheritable. It is important to note that the class system, which includes several strata, is characterized by a hierarchy expressed in the inequality of their position and privileges class society the situation is different: no legal documents regulate the place of the individual in the social structure. Every person is free to move, if he has ability, education or income, from one class to another.
Social stratification - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Social stratification" 2017, 2018.
The main feature of the human community is social inequality that arises as a result of social differences and social differentiation.
Social are differences that are generated by social factors: division of labor (mental and manual workers), way of life (urban and rural population), functions performed, level of income, etc. Social differences are, first of all, status differences. They indicate the dissimilarity of the functions performed by a person in society, the different capabilities and positions of people, and the discrepancy between their rights and responsibilities.
Social differences may or may not be combined with natural ones. It is known that people differ in gender, age, temperament, height, hair color, level of intelligence and many other characteristics. Differences between people due to their physiological and mental characteristics are called natural.
The leading trend in the evolution of any society is the multiplication of social differences, i.e. increasing their diversity. The process of increasing social differences in society was called “social differentiation” by G. Spencer.
The basis of this process is:
· the emergence of new institutions and organizations that help people jointly solve certain problems and at the same time sharply complicate the system of social expectations, role interactions, and functional dependencies;
· the complication of cultures, the emergence of new value concepts, the development of subcultures, which leads to the emergence within one society of social groups that adhere to different religious and ideological views, focusing on different forces.
Many thinkers have long tried to understand whether a society can exist without social inequality, since too much injustice is caused by social inequality: a narrow-minded person can end up at the top of the social ladder, a hardworking, gifted person can be content with a minimum of material goods all his life and constantly experience self-disdain.
Differentiation is a property of society. Consequently, society reproduces inequality, considering it as a source of development and livelihoods. Therefore, differentiation is a necessary condition for the organization of social life and performs a number of very important functions. On the contrary, universal equality deprives people of incentives for advancement, the desire to exert maximum effort and ability to perform duties (they will feel that they get no more for their work than they would get if they did nothing all day).
What are the reasons that give rise to the differentiation of people in society? In sociology there is no single explanation for this phenomenon. There are different methodological approaches to solving questions about the essence, origins and prospects of social differentiation.
Functional approach (representatives T. Parsons, K. Davis, W. Moore) explain inequality based on the differentiation of social functions performed by different strata, classes, and communities. The functioning and development of society is possible only thanks to the division of labor between social groups: one of them is engaged in the production of material goods, the other is in the creation of spiritual values, the third is in management, etc. For the normal functioning of society, an optimal combination of all types of human activity is necessary, but some of them, from the point of view of society, are more important, while others are less important.
Based on the hierarchy of the importance of social functions, according to supporters of the functional approach, a corresponding hierarchy of groups, classes, and layers performing these functions is formed. The top of the social ladder is invariably occupied by those who exercise general leadership and management of the country, because only they can maintain and ensure the unity of the country and create the necessary conditions for the successful performance of other social functions. Top management positions should be filled by the most capable and qualified people.
However, the functional approach cannot explain dysfunctions when individual roles are rewarded in no way proportional to their weight and significance for society. For example, remuneration for persons engaged in serving the elite. Critics of functionalism emphasize that the conclusion about the usefulness of a hierarchical structure contradicts the historical facts of clashes, conflicts of strata, which led to difficult situations, explosions and sometimes threw society back.
The functional approach also does not allow us to explain the recognition of an individual as belonging to a higher stratum in the absence of his direct participation in management. That is why T. Parsons, considering social hierarchy as a necessary factor, links its configuration with the system of dominant values in society. In his understanding, the location of social layers on the hierarchical ladder is determined by the ideas formed in society about the significance of each of them and, therefore, can change as the value system itself changes.
The functional theory of stratification comes from:
1) the principle of equal opportunities;
2) the principle of survival of the fittest;
3) psychological determinism, according to which success at work is determined by individual psychological qualities - motivation, need for achievement, intelligence, etc.
4) the principles of work ethics, according to which success in work is a sign of God's grace, failure is the result only of a lack of good qualities, etc.
Within conflict approach (representatives K. Marx, M. Weber) inequality is considered as a result of the struggle of classes for the redistribution of material and social resources. Representatives of Marxism, for example, call private property the main source of inequality, which gives rise to social stratification of society and the emergence of antagonistic classes that have unequal attitudes to the means of production. The exaggeration of the role of private property in the social stratification of society led K. Marx and his orthodox followers to the conclusion that it was possible to eliminate social inequality by establishing public ownership of the means of production.
M. Weber's theory of social stratification is built on the theory of K. Marx, which he modifies and develops. According to M. Weber, the class approach depends not only on control over the means of production, but also on economic differences that are not directly related to property. These resources include the professional skills, credentials and qualifications through which employment opportunities are identified.
M. Weber’s theory of stratification is based on three factors, or dimensions (three components of social inequality):
1) economic status, or wealth, as the totality of all material assets belonging to a person, including his income, land and other types of property;
2) political status, or power as the ability to subjugate other people to your will;
3) prestige - the basis of social status - as recognition and respect for the merits of the subject, a high assessment of his actions, which are a role model.
The differences between the teachings of Marx and Weber lie in the fact that Marx considered ownership of the means of production and exploitation of labor as the main criteria for the formation of classes, and Weber considered ownership of the means of production and the market. For Marx, classes existed always and everywhere where and when exploitation and private property existed, i.e. when the state existed, and capitalism only in modern times. Weber associated the concept of class only with capitalist society. Weber's class is inextricably linked to the exchange of goods and services through money. Where they are not, there are no classes. Market exchange acts as a regulator of relations only under capitalism, therefore, classes exist only under capitalism. That is why traditional society is an arena for the action of status groups, and only modern society for classes. According to Weber, classes cannot appear where there are no market relations.
In the 70-80s, the tendency to synthesize functional and conflict approaches became widespread. It found its most complete expression in the works of American scientists Gerhard and Zhdin Lenski, who formulated evolutionary approach to the analysis of social differentiation. They showed that stratification was not always necessary and useful. At the early stages of development, there was practically no hierarchy. Subsequently, it appeared as a result of natural needs, partly on the basis of the conflict that arises as a result of the distribution of surplus product. In an industrial society, it is based mainly on a consensus of values between those in power and ordinary members of society. In this regard, rewards can be both fair and unfair, and stratification can facilitate or hinder development, depending on specific historical conditions and situations.
Most modern sociologists emphasize that social differentiation is hierarchical in nature and represents a complex, multifaceted social stratification.
Social stratification- dividing society into vertically located social groups and layers (strata), placing people in a status hierarchy from top to bottom according to four main criteria of inequality: professional prestige, unequal income, access to power, level of education.
The term "stratification" comes from the Latin stratum- layer, layer and fatio - I do. Thus, the etymology of the word contains the task not only of identifying group diversity, but of determining the vertical sequence of the position of social layers, strata in society, their hierarchy. Some authors often replace the concept of “stratum” with other terms: class, caste, estate.
Stratification is a feature of any society. Reflects the presence of higher and lower strata of society. And its basis and essence is the uneven distribution of privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social laws and influence on power.
One of the authors of the theory of social stratification was P. Sorokin. He outlined it in his work “Social Stratification and Mobility.” According to P. Sorokin, social stratification - This is the differentiation of the entire 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 is in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of society.
Sorokin P. pointed out the impossibility of giving a single criterion for belonging to any stratum and noted the presence in society of three stratification bases (respectively, three types of criteria, three forms of social stratification): economic, professional and political. They are closely intertwined, but do not merge completely, which is why Sorokin spoke about economic, political and professional strata and classes. If an individual moved from the lower class to the middle class and increased his income, then he made the transition, moved in economic space.
If he changed his profession or type of activity - in the professional sense, if his party affiliation - in the political sense. An owner with a large fortune and significant economic power could not formally enter the highest echelons of political power or engage in professionally prestigious activities. On the contrary, a politician who has made a dizzying career may not be the owner of capital, which, nevertheless, did not prevent him from moving in the upper strata of society. Professional stratification manifests itself in two main forms: hierarchy of professional groups (interprofessional stratification) and stratification in the middle of professional groups.
The theory of social stratification was created in the early 40s. XX century American sociologists Talcott Parsons, Robert King Merton, K. Davis and other scientists who believed that the vertical classification of people is caused by the distribution of functions in society. In their opinion, social stratification ensures the identification of social layers according to certain characteristics that are important for a particular society: the nature of property, the amount of income, the amount of power, education, prestige, national and other features. The social stratification approach is both a methodology and a theory for examining the social structure of society.
He adheres to the basic principles:
Mandatory research of all sectors of society;
Using a single criterion to compare them;
Sufficiency of criteria for a complete and in-depth analysis of each of the social layers under study.
Subsequently, sociologists made repeated attempts to expand the number of bases for stratification due to, for example, level of education. The stratification picture of society is multifaceted; it consists of several layers that do not completely coincide with each other.
Critics of the Marxist concept opposed the absolutization of the criterion of attitude to the means of production, property and the simplified idea of social structure as the interaction of two classes. They referred to the diversity of strata, to the fact that history provides an example of not only the aggravation of relations between strata, but also rapprochement and erasing of contradictions.
The Marxist doctrine of classes as the basis of the social structure of society in modern Western sociology is opposed by more productive theories of social stratification. Representatives of these theories argue that the concept of “class” in modern post-industrial society “does not work”, since in modern conditions, based on widespread corporatization, as well as the withdrawal of the main owners of shares from the sphere of management and their replacement by hired managers, property relations have become blurred, as a result of which they lost their former significance.
Therefore, representatives of the theory of social stratification believe that the concept of “class” in modern society should be replaced by the concept of “stratum” or the concept of “social group”, and the theory of the social class structure of society should be replaced by a more flexible theory of social stratification.
It should be noted that almost all modern theories of social stratification are based on the idea that a stratum (social group) is a real, empirically fixed social community that unites people according to some common positions, which leads to the constitution of this community in the social structure of society and opposition other social communities. The basis of the theory of social stratification is, therefore, the principle of uniting people into groups and contrasting them with other groups based on status characteristics: power, property, professional, educational.
At the same time, leading Western sociologists propose different criteria for measuring social stratification. The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, when considering this issue, took into account not only economic capital, measured in terms of property and income, but also cultural (education, special knowledge, skills, lifestyle), social (social connections), symbolic (authority, prestige, reputation). The German-English sociologist R. Dahrendorf proposed his own model of social stratification, which was based on the concept of “authority.”
Based on this, he divides all modern society into managers and managed. In turn, he divides managers into two subgroups: managing owners and managing non-owners, that is, bureaucratic managers. The controlled group is also divided into two subgroups: the highest - the “labor aristocracy” and the lower - low-skilled workers. Between these two social groups there is an intermediate “new middle class”.
American sociologist B. Barber stratifies society according to six indicators:
1) prestige of the profession, power and might;
2) income or wealth;
3) education or knowledge;
4) religious or ritual purity;
5) the position of relatives;
6) ethnicity.
The French sociologist A. Touraine believes that in modern society social differentiation is carried out not in relation to property, prestige, power, ethnicity, but in relation to access to information. The dominant position is occupied by people who have access to the greatest amount of information.
In American society, W. Warner identified three classes (higher, middle and lower), each of which consists of two layers.
Highest upper class. The “pass” to this layer is the inherited wealth and social fame of the family; they are generally old settlers whose fortunes have increased over several generations. They are very rich, but they do not show off their wealth. The social position of representatives of this elite stratum is so safe that they can deviate from accepted norms without fear of losing their status.
Lower upper class . These are professionals in their field who earn extremely high incomes. They earned, rather than inherited, their position. These are active people with a large number of material symbols that emphasize their status: the largest houses in the best areas, the most expensive cars, swimming pools, etc.
Upper middle class . These are people for whom the main thing is their career. The basis of a career can be high professional, scientific training or business management experience. Representatives of this class are very demanding about the education of their children, and they are characterized by somewhat ostentatious consumption. A house in a prestigious area for them is the main sign of their success and their wealth.
Lower middle class . Typical Americans who are an example of respectability, conscientious work ethic, and loyalty to cultural norms and standards. Representatives of this class also attach great importance to the prestige of their home.
Upper lower class . People leading an ordinary life filled with events that repeat themselves day after day. Representatives of this class live in non-prestigious areas of the city, in small houses or apartments. This class includes builders, auxiliary workers and others whose work is devoid of creativity. They are only required to have a secondary education and some skills; They usually work manually.
Lower underclass . People in extreme distress, having problems with the law. These include, in particular, immigrants of non-European origin. A lower-class person rejects the norms of the middle classes and tries to live for the moment, spending most of his income on food and making purchases on credit.
The experience of using Warner's stratification model has shown that in its presented form, in most cases it does not correspond to the countries of Eastern Europe, Russia and Ukraine, where a different social structure has developed in the course of historical processes.
The social structure of Ukrainian society, based on sociological research by N. Rimashevskaya, can be generally presented as follows.
1." All-Ukrainian elite groups”, which consolidate in their hands property in amounts equal to the largest Western countries, and also own the means of power influence at the national level.
2. " Regional and corporate elites”, which have a significant position and influence on a Ukrainian scale at the level of regions and entire industries or sectors of the economy.
3. Ukrainian “upper middle class”, which owns property and incomes that provide Western standards of consumption, as well. Representatives of this layer strive to improve their social status and are guided by established practices and ethical standards of economic relations.
4. Ukrainian “dynamic middle class”, which has incomes that ensure the satisfaction of average Ukrainian and higher standards of consumption, and is also characterized by relatively high potential adaptability, significant social aspirations and motivations and an orientation towards legal ways of its manifestation.
5. “Outsiders”, who are characterized by low adaptation and social activity, low income and focus on legal ways of obtaining it.
6. “Marginal people”, who are characterized by low adaptation, as well as asocial and antisocial attitudes in their socio-economic activities.
7. “Criminality,” which is characterized by high social activity and adaptability, but at the same time fully consciously and rationally opposes legal norms of economic activity.
So, social stratification is a reflection of vertical inequality in society. Society organizes and reproduces inequality on several grounds: according to the level of well-being, wealth and income, prestige of status groups, possession of political power, education, etc. It can be argued that all types of hierarchy are significant for society, since they allow both regulating the reproduction of social connections and direct personal aspirations and ambitions of people to acquire statuses that are significant for society.
It is necessary to distinguish between two concepts - ranging And stratification . Ranking has two aspects - objective and subjective. When we talk about the objective side of ranking, we mean visible, visible differences between people. Subjective ranking presupposes our tendency to compare people and somehow evaluate them. Any action of this kind relates to ranking. Ranking assigns a certain meaning and price to phenomena and individuals and, thanks to this, builds them into a meaningful system.
Ranking reaches its maximum in a society where individuals have to openly compete with each other. For example, the market objectively compares not only goods, but also people, primarily on the basis of their individual abilities.
The result of the ranking is a ranking system. Rank indicates the relative position of an individual or group within a ranking system. Any group - large or small - can be considered as a single ranking system.
American sociologist E. Braudel proposes to distinguish, using the ranking criterion, between individual and group stratification. If individuals are ranked according to their ranks regardless of their group affiliation, then we get individual stratification. If the collection of different groups is ordered in a certain way, then we can get group stratification.
When a scientist takes into account only the objective side of ranking, he uses the concept of stratification. Thus, stratification is an objective aspect or result of ranking. Stratification indicates the ranking order, the relative position of ranks, and their distribution within the ranking system.
Individual stratification is characterized by the following features:
1. The rank order is based on one criterion. For example, a football player should be judged by his performance on the field, but not by his wealth or religious beliefs, a scientist by the number of publications, a teacher by his success with students.
1. Ranking can also take into account the economic context: an excellent football player and an outstanding scientist should receive high salaries.
2. Unlike group stratification, individual stratification does not exist permanently. It works for a short time.
3. Individual stratification is based on personal achievement. But beyond personal qualities, individuals are ranked and valued depending on the reputation of their family or the group to which they belong, say, a wealthy family or scientists.
In group stratification, not individual individuals, but entire groups are evaluated and ranked, for example, a group of slaves is rated low, and the class of nobles is highly rated.
The English sociologist E. Giddens identifies four historical types of stratification: slavery, castes, estates, classes.
Thus, the main idea of the theory of stratification is the eternal inequality of individuals and groups in society, which cannot be overcome, since inequality is an objective feature of society, the source of its development (in contrast to the Marxist approach, which assumed social homogeneity of society in the future).
Modern theories of social stratification, which put forward certain criteria for dividing society into social strata (groups), serve as a methodological basis for the formation of a theory of social mobility.
