They assume it is beneficial then try to explain how it must be beneficial. Why do the higher positions carry more status and rewards? And , more importantly what about those aspects of a class society that do not operate like merit systems? The hypothesis is an attempted explanation of social stratification , based on the idea of “functional necessity”. Talented and trained individuals are scarce because acquisition of training and skills requires people to be sufficiently motivated to pursue them.
Why do the higher positions carry more status and rewards? As a structural functionalist theory, it is also associated with Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Each part of a society exists because it has a vital function to perform in maintaining the existence or stability of society as a whole; the existence of any part of a society is therefore explained when its function for the whole is identified. Not all positions are equally pleasant, equally important , or equal in terms of required talent and ability. Inept progeny of rich tycoons took over companies while intelligent children of workers went uneducated.
Davis and Moore argue that the most difficult jobs in any society are the most necessary and require the highest rewards and compensation to sufficiently motivate individuals to fill them.
The tendency of society is toward stability, harmony, or equilibrium, in other words toward balance. Inept progeny of rich tycoons took over companies while intelligent children of workers went uneducated.
The Functionalist View of Stratification:
As a structural functionalist theory, it is also associated with Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Why are some positions in society higher than others? Overall, the assumption of functionalism is that all social structures contribute to the maintenance of the system and the existence of any given dxvis-moore is explained by means of its consequences functions which must, by definition be beneficial to the maintenance of stable order.
Talented and trained individuals are scarce because acquisition of training and skills requires people to be sufficiently motivated to pursue them. This argument has been criticized as fallacious from a number of different angles.
Society is seen as a self-regulating system and all of the constituent elements of a society must contribute to maintaining this state of harmony. For example, wealth, education, professional associations, etc.
Summary of the Davis-Moore Thesis: We must also consider the problem of deskilling and the control of workers see Braverman –the detailed division of labor. Views Read Edit View history.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Nature of Social Mobility: The distribution of positions cannot be understood merely by achievement but achievement itself is conditioned by ascription of status.
It must solve the problem of motivation at two levels: The Functionalist View of Stratification: The inequality of rewards corresponds to what Davis and Moore call functional importance of the position. Functionalism social theory Sociological theories. The Davis—Moore hypothesissometimes referred to as the Davis—Moore theoryis a central claim within the structural functionalist paradigm of sociological theory, and was advanced by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E.
Each part of a society exists because it has a vital function to perform in maintaining the existence or stability of society as a whole; the existence of any part of a society is therefore explained when its function for the whole is thesjs.
Not all positions are equally pleasant, equally importantor equal in terms of required talent and ability. Society must distribute its members among the various positions in society. To remedy this problem, Durkheim advocated using public schooling to sift and winnow children according to their native abilities, educationally prepare them according to their potential–what later became known as tracking–and see that they ended up in jobs that paid accordingly.
Tumin states see Levine, p. Davis and Moore claimed that their theory was applicable to all forms of society.
Davis and Moore argue like this: Critics of the Davis-Moore viewpoint argued that it did not make much sense in non-competitive societies–for example feudalism, where all positions are distributed not by merit but by birth.
Scarcity of talent is not an adequate explanation of stratification.