What do you think?
Rate this book
Some Principles of Stratification
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 23, 2019
The functional theory of stratification vitally accentuates the appropriate allowance of functions to personages and their accomplishment, the imperative occupations to the dexterous, weathered, skilled, veteran individuals, and the elevated incentives and remunerations for them.
I had the recent opportune dispensation of perusing the the 1945 article (later published as a book) by Wilbert Ellis Moore and Kingsley Davis, named 'Some Principles of Stratification'.
The basic hypothesis of this work is Davis and Moore’s proposition that ‘social stratification’ is a purposeful and serviceable stipulation for all the societies and it is a potent panacea to the predicaments and quandary that almost every social system has to contend with. The fix that stares every contemporary civilization in the eye, is that of placing, moving and encouraging entities in the social arrangement. It goes on to entail that societal dissimilarity, unfairness and inequities are not only foreseeable but also an unreservedly unsurprising attribute of each social arrangement.
Davis and Moore put forth their theory of social stratification by commencing with the scrutiny that stratification exists in every acknowledged human society. For their enduring and resourceful maneuver, all social systems have several functional preconditions and requirements which must be met. One most elemental requirement is effectual allotment and performance of responsibility. This means that all positions must be occupied by those, who in actual fact possess the overriding aptitude to execute them. The tasks must be performed industriously and circumspectly and the agents must be provided apposite instruction to guarantee their finest feat.
Davis and Moore further hold that every society needs some apparatus for making certain effectual responsibility allotment and presentation and this apparatus is ‘social stratification’ which is a system which attaches lopsided incentives and concessions to the diverse people of society.
According to the authors, if the pacts which configure, arrange and shape up the society were not to diverge in fundamental respects, the obligation for stratification would not have arised. Conversely, individuals do diverge in their innate ability and positions. They vary in their magnitude and import. There are positions, which are sensibly, and from a utilitarian perspective are more decisive than others, requiring unique skillfulness for their successful presentation. There are restricted numbers of individuals with the indispensable gift to acquire skills.
A chief utility of stratification is to counterpart the ablest people with the functionally most central position. It does this by appending towering awards to such positions.
The device for such rewards induces people to vie for them, and the most talented would be triumphant. Such positions usually require long periods of training which involve certain sacrifices. The promise of huge rewards is necessary to provide an incentive to encourage people to undergo training and to recompense them for the sacrifice involved. Thus, Davis and Moore wrap up by averring that social stratification is a contrivance by which humanity guarantees that foremost, essential tasks are willfully and deliberately executed by the most skilled, capable, competent and eligible persons. The authors futher conclude by maintain that discrepancy in awards is essential for society and for the continuance and safeguard of the well-being of the social system.
Owing to abundant afterward censures, criticisms and misanthropist disapproval, this book has been brusquely treated by the academia. However, as a run of the mill student of sociology, I would like to deem this puny book as a sort of path-breaker in the study of social stratification. A 4 on 5.
I had the recent opportune dispensation of perusing the the 1945 article (later published as a book) by Wilbert Ellis Moore and Kingsley Davis, named 'Some Principles of Stratification'.
The basic hypothesis of this work is Davis and Moore’s proposition that ‘social stratification’ is a purposeful and serviceable stipulation for all the societies and it is a potent panacea to the predicaments and quandary that almost every social system has to contend with. The fix that stares every contemporary civilization in the eye, is that of placing, moving and encouraging entities in the social arrangement. It goes on to entail that societal dissimilarity, unfairness and inequities are not only foreseeable but also an unreservedly unsurprising attribute of each social arrangement.
Davis and Moore put forth their theory of social stratification by commencing with the scrutiny that stratification exists in every acknowledged human society. For their enduring and resourceful maneuver, all social systems have several functional preconditions and requirements which must be met. One most elemental requirement is effectual allotment and performance of responsibility. This means that all positions must be occupied by those, who in actual fact possess the overriding aptitude to execute them. The tasks must be performed industriously and circumspectly and the agents must be provided apposite instruction to guarantee their finest feat.
Davis and Moore further hold that every society needs some apparatus for making certain effectual responsibility allotment and presentation and this apparatus is ‘social stratification’ which is a system which attaches lopsided incentives and concessions to the diverse people of society.
According to the authors, if the pacts which configure, arrange and shape up the society were not to diverge in fundamental respects, the obligation for stratification would not have arised. Conversely, individuals do diverge in their innate ability and positions. They vary in their magnitude and import. There are positions, which are sensibly, and from a utilitarian perspective are more decisive than others, requiring unique skillfulness for their successful presentation. There are restricted numbers of individuals with the indispensable gift to acquire skills.
A chief utility of stratification is to counterpart the ablest people with the functionally most central position. It does this by appending towering awards to such positions.
The device for such rewards induces people to vie for them, and the most talented would be triumphant. Such positions usually require long periods of training which involve certain sacrifices. The promise of huge rewards is necessary to provide an incentive to encourage people to undergo training and to recompense them for the sacrifice involved. Thus, Davis and Moore wrap up by averring that social stratification is a contrivance by which humanity guarantees that foremost, essential tasks are willfully and deliberately executed by the most skilled, capable, competent and eligible persons. The authors futher conclude by maintain that discrepancy in awards is essential for society and for the continuance and safeguard of the well-being of the social system.
Owing to abundant afterward censures, criticisms and misanthropist disapproval, this book has been brusquely treated by the academia. However, as a run of the mill student of sociology, I would like to deem this puny book as a sort of path-breaker in the study of social stratification. A 4 on 5.
Displaying 1 of 1 review