“Write short note: Functional theory of stratification.” (1991, 1988)
The functional theory explains social stratification by its contribution to the survival, order and efficiency of society. It grew out of the organic analogy of Émile Durkheim, was framed by Talcott Parsons (1940), and took its best-known form in Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore‘s “Some Principles of Stratification” (American Sociological Review, 1945).
Core propositions
- Stratification is universal, so it must meet a universal need: placing and motivating individuals in the social structure.
- Positions vary in functional importance and in the scarcity of qualified personnel. Rank reflects both.
- Scarce and desired goods are attached to important positions as inducements, and prestige and esteem follow them.
- Inequality is therefore an unconsciously evolved device and is positively functional.
- For Parsons, ranking also expresses a common value system, so hierarchy integrates society.
Stratification and major societal functions
A less-cited part of the 1945 article links rank to four areas:
| Function | Argument |
|---|---|
| Religion | Integrates society through ultimate values, so priests rank high. Little technical skill is needed, and in secular, literate societies ritual alone “will not grow crops”, so priestly rank declines. |
| Government | Enforces norms and arbitrates, yet rulers’ power is limited: they are few, act for the group and depend on technical assistance. |
| Wealth and property | A position commands high income because it is important and scarce, not the reverse. Inherited, “functionless ownership” draws growing criticism as industrialisation advances. |
| Technical knowledge | Well rewarded for scarce skill, but seldom highest, because technique concerns means while religion, politics and the economy integrate goals. |
They also expected stratification systems to vary by degree of specialisation, sacred or secular emphasis, magnitude of inequality, opportunity for mobility, and solidarity of strata.
Main criticisms
- Melvin Tumin (1953): importance cannot be measured; talent is restricted by stratification; training is not a sacrifice; stratification is dysfunctional and divisive.
- Walter Buckley (1958): the theory explains differentiation of positions, not inherited strata.
- Conflict theorists, from Karl Marx to Ralf Dahrendorf: rewards reflect power and exploitation.
- Methodological critics: the reasoning is circular and teleological. Robert K. Merton‘s functional alternatives undercut the claim of necessity.
Relevance to India
The theory captures the rising prestige of credentialed professions in a knowledge economy. Higher education enrolment reached 4.33 crore in 2021-22, according to the All India Survey on Higher Education, a growing pool that competes for skilled positions. The waning prestige of ritual specialists beside doctors and engineers is what the 1945 article predicted for secularising societies.
It fails for caste, where birth, not function, fixed occupation and rank. The expansion of enrolment also supports Tumin’s point that the talent pool widens when access widens.
Conclusion
The functional theory offers a coherent account of why differential rewards appear everywhere and of how rank connects with values and institutions. It says little about power, inheritance and conflict. It survives today mainly as one side of a debate that most sociologists resolve by combining function with power, as Gerhard Lenski attempted.