3 the theory of social stratification. Sociology. Stratification model of F. Wurm

FOREWORD by Vladimir Tochilin

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

2.2. (or theories of stratification of people) are based on the recognition of the fact STRATEGIES OF PEOPLE of one society, usually on two grounds: - (1) wealth (measured by the amount of property owned by a person or level of income) AND/OR(2) the position of a person on a certain step on the hierarchical ladder (reflected in or rank), which is recognized. In fact, adherents of these theories recognize the existence of certain fixed wealth levels, which allow people between levels to be mentally combined into one wealth layer(stratum). It can be said that everything theories of social stratification represent in the form of a multi-storey building, in which there are clearly defined FLOORS, the inhabitants of which have an approximately equal level of well-being. All difference between social stratification theories consists only in the criteria explaining the reasons why people have one or another wealth, but even modern theories social stratification recognized as the main cause of economic inequality - social inequality people in the hierarchy of the social structure.

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

THEORIES OF SOCIETY stratification

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

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

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

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

3.4. Plato was easy to explain social stratification of people the activity of the gods, who, when creating people in the bowels of the earth, mixing certain metals, thereby gave each person in advance his natural qualities that predetermined his entire fate, in the sense of his position in society, and hence his property and social status.

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

The concept of social stratification

4.1. Social stratification of society in the Roman Empire was already a completely obvious fact, but ancient thinkers did not even try to find causes of social stratification of society. The principles of scientific knowledge begin to form already in the Middle Ages, and Europe becomes the place for the emergence of science, which was the reason for the uniqueness of its development. Here it should be noted that identity of power and welfare (money) quite openly manifested itself just in the East, where, thanks to the availability of money, management was carried out precisely with the help of. The Eastern monarch received money through taxes, and this allowed him to pay for both the devotion of the aristocrats and the services of the administrative apparatus of the state. In Europe, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, feudalism was formed, the cause of which was cash outflow(in the sense of gold and silver) to the eastern part of the empire, which today is called by the term - the Byzantine Empire. The dependence of money on power in Europe was obscured by the fact that the LEADER could pay for the loyalty of the commander of a unit of his army of invaders, who captured a certain society, only by allocating to his ally a certain territory - a feud, from the population of which this commander, now called a feudal lord, could "feed" himself and support his squad . In the absence of money economic situation provided by the withdrawal and redistribution of products in kind.

4.2. Already in the Middle Ages, it was clear that the problem of the difference in the economic status of the oppressed and the oppressors is associated with people, determined by their status in the hierarchy of society. Moreover, the early feudal society of Europe was just developing towards the “anthill”, since in the system of division of labor ossified from the postulates of the church, the son could only inherit the father’s place. According to the logic of development, under the yoke of the Catholic Church, it was in Europe that the segregation system, similar to the caste structure of India, when people from one caste are separated by an abyss from members of another. But it did not work out, because for the rule in Europe - the money was freed from being tied to power.

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

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

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

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

Neil Joseph Smelser

theories of social stratification

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

FUNCTIONALIST THEORIES: REWARDING THE BEST

5.2. THEORIES OF FUNCTIONALISM: One of the earliest explanations for inequality was offered by Émile Durkheim. In the work "On the division of social labor" (1893), Durkheim concluded that in all some activities are considered more important than others. In one society, the achievement of religious salvation is highly valued, which was typical of the Puritans in colonial times. Another may regard material wealth as a social value. All the functions of society - law, religion, family, work, etc. may form a hierarchy according to how highly they are valued.

5.3. The second aspect of Durkheim's theory is that people are talented to varying degrees - some are more gifted than others. With training, these differences increase. Durkheim believed that in a prosperous society, the most talented should perform the most important functions. In order to attract the best and gifted, society must promote social rewards for their merits.

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

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

5.6. Religious leaders help to understand the meaning of life and death - create moral code which people follow in order to gain salvation. Since this function is very important, religious figures are usually rewarded more than ordinary members of society. It's not necessarily about financial rewards, because many members of the clergy or religious orders don't get that much money; social rewards are recognition and respect.

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

5.8. According to Davis and Moore, another leading area of activity is technology. "Technicians" operate in special areas - for example, in the field of improving military and agricultural equipment. Since this type of activity requires long and careful preparation, society must provide technical specialists with large material benefits in order to stimulate the desire of people to make efforts in this direction (Davis, Moore, 1945).

THEORIES OF CONFLICT: DEFENDING THE PRIVILEGES OF POWER

6.1. Conflict theorists disagree with the notion that inequality is a natural way of ensuring society's survival. They not only point out the shortcomings /279/ of functionalist approaches (is it fair, for example, that soap merchants earn more than people who teach children to read?), but also argue that functionalism is nothing more than an attempt to justify the status quo. In their opinion, this is precisely the essence of inequality: it is the result of a situation where people who control social values (mainly wealth and power) have the opportunity to benefit for themselves (Tumin, 1953).

Stratification according to Marx

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.8. Marx's prediction did not come true, capitalism did not lead to the results he expected. First, there was a significant stratification within the proletariat. The service sector has grown noticeably in the economy; as wage earners, people in this area do not necessarily identify with the working class. Giorgiano Gagliani (1981) suggested that non-manual workers ("white collars"), from secretaries to engineers, are interested in an alliance with the capitalists: for political support, the owners pay them higher wages than workers physical labor. Marx's theory /281/ is also weakened by the fact that the government and the capitalists themselves have become more responsive to the needs and demands of the workers due to political pressure and thanks to the system of collective bargaining. Workers in the US have high wages and bonuses, in addition, they are paid unemployment benefits. For these reasons, they are hardly inspired by Marx's call: "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They will gain the whole world. Proletarians of all countries, unite!"

Michels stratification

7.1. Other critics accepted the basic tenets of Marx's theory but questioned the idea that economic organization was the main cause of class conflict. In his study of the activities of trade unions and political parties late XIX- beginning of XX century. Robert Michels proved that the oligarchy (power of the few) develops in any case, if the size of the organization exceeds a certain amount(say, increases from 1,000 to 10,000 people). This theory is called the "iron law of the oligarchy" ( Mikels, 1959). The trend towards concentration of power is mainly due to the structure of the organization. Great amount the people who make up the organization cannot discuss the issue in order to take action. They put the responsibility for it on a few leaders whose power is growing.

Dahrendorf stratification

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

WEBER'S THEORY OF STRATIFICATION

WEBER'S THEORY: WEALTH-PRESTIGE-POWER

9.1. Weber stratification: Max Weber, who wrote his scientific works a few decades after Marx (1922-1970), unlike him, he did not consider the organization of the economy the basis of stratification. Weber singled out three main components of inequality. He considered them interrelated and yet in essential respects independent. The first component is wealth inequality. Wealth means more than just wages; the rich often do not work at all, but they receive big income through property, investments, real estate or stocks and securities. Weber pointed out that representatives of different social classes - peasants, workers, merchants - have different opportunities for generating income and acquiring goods.

9.2. Until this moment weber theory coincides with Marx's theory. However, Weber felt that it was not all about wealth. He revealed second component of inequality- groups of people enjoy honor and respect in varying degrees and have unequal prestige; he introduced concept of status groups.

9.3. It's not hard to understand features of status groups. Their members lead a special way of life. There is a noticeable similarity in their manner of speaking and in the style of clothing; they throw similar parties, drink the same types of drinks, and so on. In the official directory Preppy(Bernbach, 1980) describes in detail the features of one of the status groups. Preppy - prestigious status group, its members are from rich houses, their tastes are expensive. But not all status groups consist only of rich people; they can include people of various incomes.

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

9.5. In addition to wealth and prestige, Weber noted third stratification factor. It's about about, in its essence having a political character. It implies the ability of a person to either carry out plans, take actions or pursue a certain policy, even in spite of objections from other people and. Weber /283/ took into account the important role of political parties and groups united by common interests in the formation in society.

WARNER'S THEORY: CLASS AND REPUTATION

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

10.2. The analysis of this system was carried out on the basis of the statements of the members of the community about each other. Thus, people themselves determined the class affiliation of certain residents. If the grocer's owner believed that the bank clerk was superior to him in social status, Warner "caught him at his word." It's just " reputation theory", since Warner determined the class affiliation of people based on the assessment of their status by other members of the community, i.e. their reputation.

Warner identified six distinct classes in " Yankee City":

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

FOUR POINTS OF TREYMAN'S THEORY

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

11.2. It is noteworthy that the characteristics of prestige almost do not change over time. In 1966, a group of researchers concluded that since 1925 there had been no significant changes in the assessment of professional prestige in the United States - doctors and other specialists remained at the top of the pyramid, shoe shines and prostitutes still occupy a place at its base (Hodge, Siegel and Rossi, 1966). In 1977, Donald J. Treiman analyzed 85 studies of professional prestige by scientists from 53 countries and concluded that prestige scores are very similar around the world. Based on the results of his analysis, Treiman developed a theory to explain why these scores are so similar. Treiman's theory consists of four main statements.

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

11.4. Second position Treiman's theory lies in the fact that in conditions some people own material resources to a greater extent and control their use than others. In other words, as a result of the specialized division of labor, there are differences - doctors are more qualified and have more power than workers on the assembly line, in addition, they have higher wages and own more property.

11.5. The third assertion of Treiman's theory fixes privileges for those who in any society have power. People /285/ occupying a high position often have a very visible political influence, which they can use to their advantage. For example, the president of a manufacturing company jet engines, is likely to influence the government to approve such air safety standards that would favor the development of the aviation industry.

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

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

And social mobility, both in domestic sociology and in Western sociology, is based on the theoretical developments and concepts of M. Weber, P. Sorokin, P. Bourdieu, M. Kohn and other researchers.

Theories of stratification by M. Weber

The decisive condition (the first criterion of stratification) that influences the fate of an individual is not so much the fact of class belonging as the position (status) of the individual in the market, which makes it possible to improve or worsen his life chances.

The second criterion of stratification is the prestige, respect, honors that an individual or position receives. The status respect received by individuals unites them into groups. Status groups are distinguished by a certain way of life, lifestyle, they have certain material and ideal privileges and try to usurp their customs on them.

Both class and status positions are resources in the struggle for the possession of power, on which political parties rely. This is the third stratification criterion.

The theory of social stratification and social mobility P. Sorokin (1889-1968)

P. Sorokin's theory of stratification was first presented in his work "Social mobility" (1927), which is considered a classic work in this area.

social stratification, according to Sorokin's definition, 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 obligations, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community.

The whole variety of social stratification can be reduced to three main forms - economic, political and professional, which are closely intertwined. This means that those who belong to the highest stratum in one respect usually belong to the same stratum in another dimension; and vice versa. This happens in most cases, but not always. According to Sorokin, the interdependence of the three forms of social stratification is far from complete, because the various layers of each form do not quite coincide with each other, or rather, coincide only partially. Sorokin first called this phenomenon a status mismatch. It lies in the fact that a person can occupy a high position in one stratification and a low position in another. Such a discrepancy is painfully experienced by people and can serve as an incentive for some to change their social position, to lead to social mobility of the individual.

Considering professional stratification, Sorokin singled out interprofessional and intraprofessional stratification.

There are two universal grounds for interprofessional stratification:

the importance of the occupation (profession) for the survival and functioning of the group as a whole;
the level of intelligence necessary for the successful performance of professional duties.

Sorokin concludes that in any given society, the more professional work consists in the exercise of the functions of organization and control and requires a higher level of intelligence for its performance and accordingly implies the privilege of the group and its higher rank, which it occupies in the interprofessional hierarchy.

Sorokin represented intraprofessional stratification as follows:

entrepreneurs;
employees of the highest category (directors, managers, etc.);
hired workers.

To characterize the professional hierarchy, he introduced the following indicators:

height;
number of storeys (number of ranks in the hierarchy);
occupational stratification profile (the ratio of the number of people in each occupational subgroup to all members of the occupational group).

Sorokin defined social mobility as any transition of an individual or a social object (value, i.e. everything that is created or modified by human activity) from one social position to another (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. Types of social mobility

Under horizontal social mobility, or displacement, implies the transition of an individual from one social group to another, located at the same level.

Under vertical social mobility refers to those relationships that arise when an individual moves from one social stratum to another. Depending on the direction of movement, upward and downward vertical mobility is distinguished, i.e. social ascent and social descent.

Updrafts exist in two main forms:

the penetration of an individual from a lower layer into an existing higher layer;
the creation of a new group and the penetration of the entire group into a higher layer to the level with the already existing groups of this layer.

Downdrafts also have two forms:

the fall of an individual from a higher social position to a lower one without destroying the original group to which the individual previously belonged;
degradation of the social group as a whole, lowering its rank against the background of other groups or the destruction of its social unity.

Sorokin called the reasons for vertical group mobility wars, revolutions, foreign conquests, which contribute to changing the criteria for stratification in society and change group status. An important reason may also be a change in the importance of a particular type of labor, industry.

The most important channels that ensure the social circulation of individuals in society are such social institutions as the army, school, political, economic and professional organizations.

Functionalist views on social stratification

C. Davis and W. Moore saw the reason for the existence of the stratification system in the uneven distribution of wealth and social prestige. The main functional reason for the universal existence of stratification stems from the fact that any society inevitably faces the problem of accommodating and stimulating individuals within its social structure. As a functioning organism, society must somehow assign its members to various social positions and induce them to perform the duties associated with these positions.

To achieve such goals, society must have some kind of benefits that can be used as incentives; to develop ways of uneven distribution of these benefits (rewards) depending on the positions occupied.

Remuneration and its distribution become part of the social structure and, in turn, give rise (cause) stratification.

As a reward, the company offers:

items that provide means of subsistence and comfort;
means for satisfying various inclinations and entertainment;
tools to enhance self-esteem and self-expression.

According to Davis and Moore, “social inequality is the unconsciously developed means by which society ensures the nomination and the most important positions of the most competent persons ...”

P. Bourdieu(b. 1930), a well-known French scientist, made an important contribution to the development of the theory of stratification and mobility. He came to the conclusion that the possibilities of social mobility are determined by various types of resources, or "capitals" that individuals have - economic capital in its various forms, cultural capital, symbolic capital.

In modern societies, the upper strata carry out the reproduction of their positions:

ensuring the transfer of economic capital;
endowing the younger generation with a special educational capital (training in special privileged schools and prestigious universities);
passing on to the younger generation cultural capital, linguistic and cultural competence, which is formed by creating a high-quality cultural environment for them (reading books, visiting museums and theaters, mastering the style of interpersonal relations, behavioral and linguistic manners, etc.).

American sociologist M. Cohn put forward a hypothesis and proved on the basis of empirical research a close relationship between the stratification position and the values of the individual.

For those who have a high social status, feel like a competent member of a society that is favorable to them, the main value is the attitude to achieve.

On the contrary, for lower social stratification positions, in which people see themselves as less competent members of a society that is indifferent or hostile to them, conformism is characteristic.

Concerning issues of social mobility, Kohn emphasized that people with an active lifestyle have a greater chance of occupying a higher social position.

The stratification position of the individual, on the one hand, affects the professional setting for achievement, and on the other hand, it depends on the individual.

The sociological concept of stratification reflects the stratification of society, differences in social status its members.

"Social stratification" is a term used to refer to structured social inequality, the conditions under which social groups have unequal access to such social goods as money, power, prestige, education, information, professional career, self-realization, etc. Social inequality can manifest itself both for individuals within a group and for social groups. At the same time, in studies of social stratification, inequality between groups of people is considered, which arises as an unintended consequence social relations and reproduced in each subsequent generation. According to the European tradition, inequality, or social stratification, is seen as the result of social and economic conditions.

In contrast to the social structure that arises in connection with the social division of labor, social stratification arises in connection with the social division of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits

In the scientific tradition, there are two main approaches to the study of social stratification - class, based on objective indicators of belonging to social class or layer and status, based on subjective assessments of the prestige of individuals, social groups, professions.

At the same time, stratification acts as a method of identifying the relevant strata of society. Social stratification is a method of analyzing and describing the social structure of a society, involving the allocation of social strata based on such features as the amount of power, prestige, the amount of income received, the level of education and qualifications, official position etc.

It reflects the different position of people, groups, strata in society, their unequal status. Therefore, stratification can be characterized as a hierarchically organized structure of social inequality that exists in a certain society, in a certain historical period of time.

To determine belonging to a particular social stratum, sociologists offer a variety of parameters and criteria. According to P. Sorokin, there are three types of stratification:

Economic (according to the criteria of income and wealth);

Political (according to the criteria of influence and power);

Professional (according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).

The founder of structural functionalism T. Parsons distinguishes three groups of signs of social stratification:

Qualitative characteristics of members of society that they possess from birth (origin, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities, congenital characteristics, etc.);

Role characteristics determined by the set of roles that an individual performs in society (education, profession, position, qualifications, various types of labor activity etc.);

Characteristics associated with the possession of material and spiritual values (wealth, property, works of art, social privileges, etc.).

In modern sociology, as a rule, the following main criteria for social stratification are distinguished:

1) income - the amount of cash receipts for a certain period of time (month, year);

2) wealth - accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or embodied (for example, real estate) money;

3) power - the ability and ability to exercise one's will and control the activities of people using various means (authority, law, violence, etc.);

4) education - a set of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the learning process;

5) prestige - a public assessment of the significance, attractiveness of a particular profession, position, a certain type of occupation.

social status- the relative position of an individual or group, determined by social characteristics (economic status, profession, qualifications, education, etc.), natural characteristics (gender, age, etc.), as well as prestige and place in the power structure; a set of rights and obligations of an individual or a social group associated with the performance of a certain social role by them.

social role- a set of norms that determine the behavior of individuals acting in the social system.

The nature of social stratification, the methods of its determination and reproduction in their unity form what sociologists call stratification system. Historically, there are four main types of stratification systems: slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three types characterize closed societies, and the fourth open.

A closed society, in this context, should be understood as a society where social movements from one stratum to another are either completely prohibited or significantly limited. In open societies, the transition from the lower to the upper strata is not officially restricted by law.

1. Slave stratification- is a form of the most rigid fixing of people in the lower strata. This is the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the owner of another, deprived of any rights and freedoms.

The methods of reproduction of the slave-owning system are characterized by considerable diversity. Ancient slavery was maintained mainly by conquest. For early feudal Russia, debt, bonded slavery is characteristic.

2. Caste stratification- involves the lifelong assignment of a person to a certain stratum according to ethnic and religious go economic feature. Caste is a closed group, which is assigned a strictly defined place in the social hierarchy. There is a clear list that defines the occupations that members of this caste can engage in (priestly, military, agricultural), as a result of which the isolation of this group increases even more. Since belonging to the caste system was inherited, the possibilities of social mobility were limited here. It is most widely used in India.

3. Estate stratification- assumed the legal assignment of a person to one or another stratum. The rights and obligations of each class were determined by law and consecrated by religion. Belonging to a class was mainly inherited, but as an exception it could be acquired for money or bestowed by power. In general, the estate system was characterized by a branched hierarchy, which was expressed in the inequality of social status and the presence of numerous privileges.

Examples of developed estate systems are feudal Western European societies, as well as feudal Russia.

4. class stratification- an open type system that does not imply a legal or any other way of securing an individual for a certain stratum. Unlike previous closed systems, membership in classes is not regulated by the authorities, is not established by law, and is not inherited. It is determined primarily by the place in the system social production, ownership of property, as well as the level of income received,

The class system is characteristic of modern society, where there are opportunities for free transition from one stratum to another.

This system is supplemented by a description of such types of stratification systems, a combination of which is found in any society.

Among them are:

. physical-genetic stratification system, which is based on the ranking of people according to natural characteristics: gender, age, the presence of certain physical qualities - strength, dexterity, etc.;

. etacratic- in which differentiation between groups is made according to their position in the power-state hierarchies (political, military, administrative and economic), as far as possible mobilization and distribution of resources, as well as according to the privileges that these groups have depending on their rank in power structures ;

. socio-territorial- formed due to the unequal distribution of resources between regions, differences in access to jobs, housing, quality goods and services, etc.

. cultural and normative- in which differentiation is built on differences in respect and prestige arising from a comparison of existing norms and styles inherent in certain social groups (attitude towards physical and mental labor, etc.);

. socio-professional- in accordance with which groups are divided according to their content and working conditions; ranking here is carried out with the help of certificates (diplomas, categories, licenses, patents, etc.), fixing the level of qualification and ability to perform certain types of activities;

. cultural and symbolic- arising from differences in access to socially significant information, unequal opportunities to select, store and interpret this information (theocratic manipulation of information is typical for pre-industrial societies, partocratic for industrial ones, and technocratic for post-industrial ones).

In reality, all these stratification systems are closely intertwined and complement each other.

In the process of developing democratic and market reforms, social stratification Russian society has undergone a significant transformation. Currently, there are several models of social stratification of modern Russian society. Let's consider some of them.

Domestic sociologist N. M. Rimashevskaya identifies the following elements in the social structure of Russian society:

1) "all-Russian elite groups", connecting the possession of property in amounts comparable to the largest Western states, with the means of power influence at the all-Russian level;

2) "regional and corporate elites", having a significant fortune in terms of Russian scale, as well as influence at the level of regions and sectors of the economy;

3) Russian "upper middle class" having property and income that provide him with Western standards of consumption, claiming to improve his social status and focusing on the established practice and ethical standards of economic relations;

4) Russian "dynamic middle class" s", having incomes that ensure the satisfaction of the average Russian and more high standards consumption, relatively high potential adulthood, significant social claims and motivations, social activity and orientation towards legal ways of its manifestation;

5) "outsiders" characterized by low adaptation and social activity, low incomes and orientation towards legal ways of obtaining them;

6) "marginals" characterized by low adaptation and asocial or antisocial attitudes in their socio-economic activities;

7) "crime" possessing high social activity and adaptation, but at the same time acting quite rationally contrary to the legal norms of economic practice.

Scientist A.V. Dmitriev, taking three characteristics as the basis for stratification (income, level of education and prestige), identified five main social groups included in social structure modern Russian society:

. administrative elite(ruling elite), consisting of the old party nomenklatura of the first and second echelons, as well as the new political elite;

. working class, which is divided in turn by industry and qualification criteria;

. intelligentsia;

. "new bourgeoisie" which is made up of entrepreneurs and bankers;

. peasantry.

As a result of studying chapter 8, the student should:

know

– the most important theoretical approaches explaining the existing system of social inequality in modern society;
- basic concepts, categories, historical types and criteria of social stratification, types of social mobility;

be able to

- navigate the processes of social displacement and stratification of modern Russian society;
- independently form their own position in relation to manifestations of social inequality in practice;

own

– initial skills in analyzing the factors influencing the social heterogeneity of society.

Theories of social stratification in modern society

social stratification(from Latin stratum - layer and facere - to make) reflects the existing multidimensionality, structured differences between groups of people (classes, layers) in a particular society.

As Anthony Giddens remarks, "stratification can be thought of as a kind of geological strata" that are arranged "in a hierarchical order, with the privileged near the top and the unprivileged at the bottom." Consequently, the essence of social stratification is manifested in unequal access to material and spiritual wealth, the distribution of rights, responsibilities and privileges, the presence or absence of power and influence.

All concepts of social stratification are based on the idea of social group as the most simple, obvious element in the system of social hierarchy. However, opinions on this category vary greatly. For example, some scholars believe that Group- this is a real, empirically fixed community that unites people on some common positions. According to others, it is a status position taken by a certain set of people in relation to a socially recognized scale of values, i.e. prestige. Still others believe that a group is a specific community to which an individual refers himself on the basis of self-identification. Due to the variety of social characteristics and positions occupied by people in society, one and the same person simultaneously belongs to a number of groups, often differing from each other in a variety of ways.

Social stratification expresses the universality of the stratification, inequality and heterogeneity of society. P. A. Sorokin believed that an unstratified society has never existed and cannot exist1. This also applies to the most primitive communities in their organization.

Sources of social stratification are:

1) the natural inequality of individuals, which is expressed in the abilities of people, the features of their biological, physical and mental organization;
2) social division of labor associated with structuring labor process, as a result of which the interconnection of its parts is carried out in the form of an exchange of results of activity;
3) way of life and status-role positions that develop in connection with the specifics of the functions performed by individual groups within a particular social system;
4) the dominant system of values and cultural standards in society that determine the significance of a particular activity and legitimize the emerging social inequality;
5) institutionalization of the mechanisms of organization (maintenance, protection, regulation) of social inequality.

All sociologists recognize inequality as an important characteristic of the social position of people in society, however, they differ in their views on the nature of this phenomenon. Today there are many interpretations of social stratification. The most influential of them include four: the class theory of K. Marx, the stratification systems of M. Weber and P. A. Sorokin, and functionalism. Let's consider them in more detail.

Class theory of K. Marx had a profound impact on the entire development of ideas about stratification. Although the term itself is absent in his numerous works, it is precisely the founder of Marxist theory who is credited with developing the original concept of socio-economic differences, which is still used to characterize the position of groups in modern society. It is also the merit of Marx that Class considered by him mainly in the economic aspect. The main provisions of Marx's theory are as follows:

1. A class is understood as a group of people who are in the same relation to the means of production.
2. Class differences consist in the fact that some classes have the means of production, while others are deprived of them and, therefore, are exploited.
3. For some classes, the presence or absence of property turns out to be a condition for the accessibility of power, education, culture, for others, on the contrary, the inaccessibility of these positions.
4. The aforementioned factors influence the formation among these groups of class interests that are opposite in their orientation, and their contradiction manifests itself in the form of class conflict and class struggle.
5. The class struggle affects all spheres of society (economy, politics, ideology, etc.), which ultimately leads to the seizure of power by the previously oppressed class and a change in the mode of production, including property relations.

Marx studied the relations between social groups of people on the example of the contemporary capitalist society of the middle of the 19th century, within the historical boundaries of which the struggle between the working class (exploited) and the bourgeoisie (exploiters) unfolded. According to Marxist theory, the bourgeois system is the last form of class rule, since the struggle between workers and capitalists will end in the victory of the proletarian revolution, ultimate goal which will be the achievement of universal equality, i.e. classless society. Despite the fact that the practice of real socialism as a whole did not confirm Marx's predictions about the future fate of classes, his teaching had a noticeable influence on the subsequent development of ideas about stratification.

M. Weber's status theory formally continues the line outlined by Marxism, however, the approach to interpreting the causes of social inequality proposed by Weber is not so one-linear and categorical. He identified three main features, based on the interaction of which it is possible to characterize the position of the group and the individual.

Economic criterion plays an initial role in Weber's theoretical system. Like Marx, he makes extensive use of the concept of class, but gives it a broader and more varied meaning. Weber considered the main sources of the formation of economic classes: a) wealth; b) profession; c) qualifications.

Wealth in one case it appears in the form of income, in the other - in the form of movables (car, yacht, securities) and immovable (house, works of art, treasures) property. Real wealth is formed only when behind it is not income, but accumulated property, especially real estate. Therefore, although the incomes of wealthy people in times of crisis may be reduced, the size of their wealth practically does not suffer. Depending on the size and form of wealth, people may not work at all or, for example, act as organizers of their own affairs, production, etc. In cases where incomes are low, it becomes necessary to work solely for the sake of earning, while the importance professions and qualifications increases, which predetermines unequal opportunities various people in the job market.

social criterion, according to Weber, is represented by the concept status, which received recognition not only in the field of sociology, but also in political science, social psychology, and other sciences.

social status is the position of an individual or a social group relative to other individuals, groups, established by signs that are socially significant for a given social system (age, gender, profession, etc.). Status is linked to other positions through a system of rights and obligations.

Weber is credited with developing the idea status groups, each of which corresponds to a certain position in the hierarchy of society (status). To the group-forming (status) signs he attributed:

a) specific lifestyle;
b) a certain type of education and occupation.

The German sociologist also pointed out the connection between the status differentiation of society and the subjective assessment of the social position, i.e. prestige.

Prestige(French prestige - charm, charm) is a correlative assessment of the social significance of various objects, shared by a society or a group and its members on the basis of an accepted system of values. In prestige as an evaluative category, the degree of respect by the subjects of certain social positions is expressed. Weber believed that prestige and respect are scarce in themselves: money cannot buy them, they are always relative.

Powerful criterion associated with the ability to carry out within these social relations one's own will, even in spite of the resistance of other people or groups. According to Weber, due to his wealth or high prestige in society, or using both factors, he can reach the heights of power. However, both conditions are not necessary in practice. At the same time, the exercise of power can in itself become a highly prestigious occupation, provide wealth and redistribute income.

Taking into account the factor of power in the approach proposed by the German sociologist is all the more important because its driving force is a certain individual. interest, opposed to all other interests and the social forces that express it. True, this interest can be realized only if people unite in parties. Weber gave a broad interpretation to the latter, considering as such not only purely political associations, but also trade unions, various initiative groups and associations of professionals, i.e. any group whose collective action enables them to exercise their power. Both status and party affiliation can have a very significant impact on the economic conditions of individuals and groups. A person with power gets additional opportunities to improve his social status and extract additional material benefits. On the contrary, those at the lower levels of the social hierarchy are given only a limited right to choose between competing parties.

The theory of social stratification by P. A. Sorokina is a classic direction in the study of social inequality. Being forcibly expelled from the country by the Soviet authorities, Sorokin since 1923 lived and worked in the USA. He is credited with developing the concept of social space, the position and all movements of a person within which are determined by his attitude towards other people. Sorokin identifies the following stages of an individual finding his place in the social space:

1) membership in any group;
2) the ratio of groups within a particular society;
3) the relationship of a given society with others that make up modern humanity together with it.

Sorokin was a supporter of taking into account various parameters that affect the place of an individual in existing hierarchical systems. So, he assigned an important role to marital status and nationality, profession and belonging to political parties. The combination of various parameters, in his opinion, allows you to determine the coordinates in the society of any individual.

Within the framework of the ideas developed by the sociologist, vertical and horizontal options social space. Individuals belonging to the same social group (for example, residents of Yekaterinburg) differ significantly in their social position along the "vertical". This is manifested in the level of education, and in income, and in the nature of managerial or executive work, and other factors.

Note that the horizontal parameters of social space may or may not be associated with manifestations of social inequality, which are caused by settlement, territorial and climatic conditions. Thus, the living conditions and social opportunities, the prospects of residents of the city and the countryside, the capital and the province, large and small cities, districts are significantly different. Far North, Far East and central Russia. At the same time, most developed countries In the West, such differences are extremely leveled. For example, the level of comfort and well-being of Canadian citizens practically does not depend on whether they live in the south of the country or beyond the Arctic Circle.

With all the differences forms of stratification in specific communities at certain points in their history, according to Sorokin, three main ones can be distinguished among them, each of which is internally differentiated on a number of grounds:

1) economic stratification(differences in income and living standards, the existence of rich and poor segments of the population);
2) political stratification(differences in ranks and prestige, titles and honors, the existence of managers and ruled);
3) professional stratification(differences in the type of activity, occupation, prestige of the profession, division into managers and subordinates).

In practice, all three forms are usually closely related, although there is no complete correspondence between them. Thus, people with a low level of culture and education may be at the helm of political power (for example, in former USSR), and people with high qualifications can have incomes close to the subsistence level (doctors, teachers and scientists in modern Russia).

Sorokin pointed out that the processes of stratification never stop. They cause changes both in the social position of individuals within groups, and in the mutual relationship of groups in society. The scientist especially warned against the occurrence of situations in which changes become excessive and begin to threaten the stability of the entire system as a whole.

Thanks to theoretical activity P. A. Sorokin, the term "social stratification" was introduced into scientific circulation.

Functionalism

Representatives of this trend (American sociologists K. Davis, W. Moore, T. Parsons, B. Barber) made a certain contribution to the development of ideas about social inequality. However, their views are somehow based on the ideas first expressed by Emile Durkheim in the book "On the division of social labor" (1893). Their meaning is as follows:

1. The same types of activities have different value, determined by the social conditions and cultural traditions of specific communities.
2. The functions performed in relation to certain spheres of society (law, labor, family, etc.) always form a certain hierarchy.
3. There is a relationship between the talents with which people are endowed to an unequal degree, and the functions that should be trusted to them with appropriate rewards for their merits from society.

In the 20th century, the main provisions of the approach implemented by Durkheim were used in a number of theories that adhere to functionalism as a method of explanation. social processes. The most famous was the joint study of K. Davis and W. Moore (1945), who argued that for all types social structure there are social positions that objectively have a greater functional significance in comparison with others. It is they who place increased demands on the qualifications and training of personnel, due to which it turns out that appropriate remuneration is necessary to stimulate talented people to develop their potential. This is achieved by a combination of material incentives and high social status (prestige) of certain types of activity.

Talcott Parsons, who put forward his own concept within the framework of functionalism, pointed out that the criteria for stratification in modern Western society are different from those that operate in traditional society. Acquired statuses are more significant than inborn and prescribed ones; they form a hierarchy of material reward and prestige in accordance with their functional significance for society. Parsons attached particular importance to reaching a consensus in society regarding the importance of specific professions.

All four interpretations of social stratification are used today to explain it. modern processes. However, existing approaches are criticized. Thus, some opponents believe that they poorly take into account the so-called gender differences due to the gender of people (for example, as theorists of modern feminism note, the fact that women are the most affected party from manifestations of social inequality is often forgotten). According to others, these approaches do not pay enough attention to the growing multi-ethnicity of society, which is associated with increased migration between countries and continents.

Dividing the concept of social stratification into components, it is easy to get the term "social layer cake". Since, "stratum", in translation

From Latin, means "layer, layer."

A single lifestyle is a criterion that characterizes a stratum.
In general, the stratification model is quite complex and includes such a multitude of “axes”, “vectors”, which allows us to speak of its great variability.
A social sign, in turn, can be professional, property or any other.

The fundamental principle is - from what point of view they agree to consider this concept in the discussion of this issue.
The dominant issue is the attitude towards social benefits. That is, the number of results of labor that belongs to a particular social group, and allows us to talk about stratification into the poor, the wealthy and the rich.

At the forefront are firmly placed: power, income, prestige and education. All of them are easily measured, therefore, they make it possible to characterize a stratum as a group of people who are extremely close according to the above criteria.

Types of stratification

Classes, slavery, castes, estates are the main types of stratification. Of these, only the first is considered open, while the rest are closed. AT closed society movement across the strata is completely prohibited or significantly limited. AT open society legally "vertical movement" is allowed.
Of course common features are characteristic of each of the layers, as well as their different statuses. Mental labor is valued, as a rule, higher than physical labor; highly qualified specialists occupy a position in society above unskilled workers. No one will deny the existence of "poor" and "rich".

The theory of social stratification in the works of scientists

The works of P. A. Sorokin, a scientist of Russian origin, professor at Petrograd University, and later at Harvard University, who is considered to be one of the founders of the theory of modern stratification, became generally recognized.
In his works there is a division into layers:

political - a representative of the layer is in power or obeys;
the economic layer - owns or is deprived of them;
professional layer - works in the field of "respected" specialists or a representative of a low-skilled level;
personal layer - has (more often - already at birth) a certain set of moral, ethical and other qualities, capabilities, in particular - the ability to successfully learn something or is deprived of the above;

According to his theory, the interactions between the layers occur "vertically", and inside - "horizontally". Drawing an analogy with mathematics: mobility is vertical (y) and horizontal (X)

The division of social classes in the theory of stratification

Barriers between all social classes-layers, of course, exist.
However, the higher the given class is located on a peculiar ladder, the more “closed”, fenced off from outside world(and from other layers) he is.
The so-called “hard-to-reach social groups” tried to build their entire way of life in such a way as to erect as many barriers as possible around their places of residence and communication in order to prevent the penetration of “elements alien to them”.
First of all, such behavior testifies to the feeling of self-sufficiency of the members of this social stratum, their firm conviction that what was introduced “from outside” will not be able to add anything good to their consistently prosperous existence.
At the same time, the representatives of the “lower” layers always retain a desire, indestructible with centuries and repressions, to rise higher, to move to another layer.
The freedom of movement (in other words, mobility) of a person between layers depends on the degree of openness of society.
By analyzing statistical data Sorokin I.A. proved that welfare levels fluctuate. Periods of enrichment and impoverishment alternate with each other. Cycles are divided into small (from 3 to 12 years) and large (40 - 60 years). Approximately with the same frequency, the composition of social groups also changes.

This is a stub for an encyclopedic article on this topic. You can contribute to the development of the project by improving and supplementing the text of the publication in accordance with the rules of the project. You can find the user manual