“What are the reasons for calling Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore’s theory of social stratification a functional theory?” (2009)
A theory is functional when it explains a social arrangement by its consequences for the maintenance of the wider system. Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (“Some Principles of Stratification”, 1945) are the textbook case: they asked not who gains from inequality but what need of society it meets.
Reasons for the label
- Functional prerequisites as the starting point. Following the approach of Talcott Parsons, they assumed every social system must solve certain problems to survive. One is role allocation and performance: positions must be filled, by capable people, who train and then perform conscientiously.
- Explanation by consequences. Stratification exists because it solves that problem. Unequal rewards attract talent and motivate effort. This form of reasoning, from effect to cause, is the hallmark of functionalism.
- Universality read as indispensability. Starting from the observation that every known society is stratified, they inferred a universal necessity. It parallels the functionalist reading of religion, which Davis and Moore also called indispensable, and of the family.
- System, not individual. Their unit of analysis is the structure of positions, not the motives or fortunes of the people in them. Rank attaches to positions according to their functional importance and the scarcity of personnel.
- Positive contribution to integration. They concluded that inequality is “positively functional”. It serves society as a whole, not a class, in line with Émile Durkheim‘s view of the division of labour as a basis of solidarity.
- Unconscious, evolved mechanism. Stratification is an unconsciously evolved device. As with Robert K. Merton‘s latent functions, it persists through its effects without anyone intending them.
- Value consensus implied. Prestige tracks what a society considers important, so ranking presupposes shared evaluation, not coercion.
- Institutional fit. They related rank to the functions of religion, government, property and technical knowledge, showing how stratification is integrated with other institutions.
How it contrasts with conflict theory
| Question | Davis and Moore | Conflict theory |
|---|---|---|
| Why inequality? | Societal need | Group interest and power |
| Beneficiary | Society as a whole | Dominant class or group |
| Effect | Integration | Division and struggle |
| Change | Adjustment within the system | Transformation of the system |
The label also marks its weaknesses
Because it is functional, the theory inherits the problems Merton identified in Social Theory and Social Structure (1949):
- Indispensability is assumed, and functional alternatives are overlooked.
- Dysfunctions are underplayed, as Melvin Tumin (1953) showed.
- Its teleology struggles to explain the degree and inheritance of inequality.
India’s platform economy is a useful test. The NITI Aayog estimated 77 lakh gig workers in 2020-21, projected to reach 2.35 crore by 2029-30. Delivery riders proved essential during the pandemic, yet their pay is set by platform power, and the Code on Social Security, 2020, which first defined them in law, came into force only on 21 November 2025.
Conclusion
The theory is “functional” in method, unit of analysis and conclusion: it explains inequality by what it does for the social whole. That same framing gives it both its elegance and its blind spot, since it leaves out power.