Social stratification refers to the division of society into different groups or layers based on

factors such as wealth, occupation, education, and social status. It creates a hierarchy where
some individuals or groups have more power, resources, and privileges, while others have less.
C.W Mills and David Grusky have elaborated on the concept of social stratification and also
provided us with detailed insights to its structure and criticisms regarding its functionality. We will
be referring to C.W Mills' reading on Sociology of stratification and Grusky's reading on Social
Stratification which refers to works by Davis, Moore and Tumin.

According to Mills, in every society, there are different social groups based on the distribution of
valued things and experiences. By closely observing people's daily behaviour, their life cycles,
and their biographies, we can classify them according to how they regularly expect and receive
valued things and experiences. This classification forms the basis of studying social
stratification.

In any society, some people receive more valued things and experiences, some receive less,
and others fall in between. The study of stratification aims to understand the ranking of people
and the reasons behind these differences. Each social ranking or stratum is characterised by its
members having similar opportunities to acquire valued things and experiences such as cars,
money, education, respect, and kindness. Belonging to a particular stratum means sharing
similar chances for obtaining these values. When we delve deeper into these strata and analyse
the reasons for their formation and persistence, we discover four important factors known as
"dimensions of stratification." These dimensions are occupation, class, status, and power. They
provide a framework for ranking people based on their varying opportunities to obtain valued
things and experiences, and by understanding these dimensions and their interconnection, we
can explain the differences in these opportunities.

Through these differences, the concept of Prestige develops, which Mills argues, relies on
someone making a claim and others acknowledging it. Factors such as wealth, social status,
occupation, education, income, and power contribute to these claims and the reasons they are
respected. The status system in a society establishes rules and expectations for determining
who can successfully claim prestige, from whom, and based on what criteria. The level of
self-esteem individuals experience is largely influenced by this status system. Prestige, thus,
naturally, gives individuals a sense of power. Being powerful means having the ability to achieve
one's desires, even when facing resistance from others. The power held by groups and
individuals is often influenced by factors such as social class, status, and occupation, which are
interconnected in complex ways. Power struggles and pressure groups, rather than free market
forces, shape class positions and privileges in the United States. The welfare state manages
class chances without altering the basic class structure, and organised power plays a significant
role in determining the position of various groups. Laws regarding pensions and social
insurance have shaped the class chances of manual workers, with privileges and income
increasingly influenced by unions, trade associations, and government pressure.
Grusky on the other hand, has referenced the works of David & Moore which deals with the
introduction to the concept of stratification and Tumin who provides us with a critical review of
David and Moore work. David and Moore’s article presents us with a functionalist view to the
concept of social stratification. They define social stratification as the division of society into
different social positions, asserting that it is universal and not inherently unjust, thus, arguing
that social inequality arising from the unequal distribution of societal rewards, such as wealth,
power, and prestige is necessary for society to function smoothly. According to their perspective,
certain positions in society are more functionally important and require a higher level of skill,
talent, and training. As a result, individuals who occupy these positions must be motivated to
acquire the necessary qualifications through various means, including education, competition,
and effort.

Davis and Moore argue that social stratification serves as a mechanism to ensure that the most
qualified individuals occupy the most critical positions in society. They contend that unequal
rewards, such as higher income and prestige, act as incentives for individuals to strive for
excellence and invest in acquiring the skills and qualifications necessary for these important
positions. By rewarding individuals differently based on their contributions and abilities, social
stratification motivates individuals to perform specific roles and responsibilities, thus maintaining
social order and promoting societal efficiency. The article also discusses the role of social
mobility in the stratification system. Davis and Moore suggest that social mobility, the movement
of individuals between different social positions, is essential to ensure that the most capable
individuals can access the most critical positions. They acknowledge that complete mobility
might not be achievable due to various factors like prejudice or limited opportunities. However,
they argue that a certain level of mobility is necessary to prevent the stratification system from
becoming rigid and stifling social progress.

It's important to note that while Davis and Moore's article provides a functionalist perspective on
social stratification, it has also been subject to criticism. Thus, Grusky adds another account by
Melvin Tumin who critically analyses the article’s main argument i.e. whether social stratification
is a functional necessity or not. Social inequality is a universal and long-standing aspect of
human society, where resources are distributed unevenly. This has led to the assumption that
such arrangements are both inevitable and beneficial. He criticises the casual approach taken in
addressing the implications of this assumption, despite its crucial importance in understanding
social organisation.

Tumin begins by stating 7 propositions or central arguments laid out by David and More and
then critically assesses each one of them in a detailed manner.

Critique to 1: The term "functionally important" lacks clarity in the theory of social organisation,
leading to questions about its meaning and evaluation criteria. Judgments often rely on intuitive
and biassed criteria rather than systematic reasoning. Alternative systems of motivation should
be considered.
Critique to 2: Assuming limited talent for important positions, there is ignorance about talent in
society, and stratification hinders talent discovery. Inherited rewards and unequal motivation limit
the recruitment and extension of skills. Stratification systems restrict access to privileged
positions and hinder talent search, hindering society's survival.

Critique to 3: The concept of sacrifices during the training period lacks critical analysis and
factual support. The costs are often borne by privileged parents, and earnings compensate for
the training period. Continued differential rewards are difficult to justify. Psychic and spiritual
rewards are overlooked, challenging the notion of sacrifice.

Critique to 4: Allocating differential rewards may not be the only effective way to attract talented
individuals. Alternative motivations like joy in work, intrinsic satisfaction, social duty, or social
service should be explored. In industrial societies, intrinsic satisfaction and societal value can be
motivating factors. Davis and Moore may have overstated the need for specific rewards,
ignoring other possibilities.

Critique to 5 and 6: While the classification of rewards by Davis and Moore is acceptable, it is
questionable whether all three types of rewards must be equally distributed for effective
functioning. Different societies prioritise different types of rewards to maintain a balance
between responsibility and compensation. There is flexibility in how rewards are structured in a
functioning society. It is not proven that differential prestige and esteem must necessarily
accompany differential rewards in power and property. However, distinguishing between
conformists and deviants based on societal norms is inevitable for social continuity. The
distinction between young and old in terms of power does not automatically create different
valued social groups. Societies value the moral worth of the young and old equally, regardless
of temporary differences in power.

Critique 7: Considering the objections raised earlier, it can be argued that a society only needs
to distribute unequal power and property for different tasks. If these differences are seen as
necessary for the responsibilities at hand and are viewed as resources rather than rewards,
there may not be a need for differential levels of prestige and esteem. However, historical
evidence suggests that whenever power and property are distributed unequally, regardless of
cultural definitions, differentiation in prestige and esteem tends to occur. Although the idea of
treating each individual as socially worthy based on conscientious performance seems utopian,
there is no conclusive evidence in psychology or social science proving its impossibility or
dysfunctionality for societal continuity. While achieving full institutionalisation of such a tradition
seems distant, smaller steps towards this goal are within the realm of possible social innovation.

Tumin, thus, concludes his analysis which aimed to question the inevitability and positive
function of social stratification, which is the institutionalised allocation of unequal rewards based
on the perceived importance of different positions. Overall, the critical analysis of social
stratification suggests that its functional necessity is not straightforward. The concept of
functional importance lacks clarity, and alternative motivational schemes should be explored.
The scarcity or abundance of talent, the notion of sacrifice, and the separability of differentials in
power and property from rewards are all factors that cast doubt on the functional necessity of
social stratification. Furthermore, the negative functions and dysfunctions of social inequality
raise concerns about its impact on society.

In conclusion, the concept of social stratification, as explored by C.W. Mills and David Grusky,
provides valuable insights into the division of society into different groups based on various
factors. Mills emphasises the dimensions of stratification, including occupation, class, status,
and power, and their influence on individuals' opportunities and access to valued resources and
experiences. He highlights the role of prestige and power in shaping social hierarchies and the
interplay between organised power and class positions. Whereas, Grusky delves into the
functionalist perspective of social stratification presented by Davis and Moore alongside the
critical analysis by Tumin.

Ultimately, a comprehensive understanding of social stratification requires considering multiple