Component 3 Section A: theories of stratification, including functionalist (Davis and Moore), Marxist (class and exploitation), Weberian (class, status and party) and feminist and postmodernist views of social differentiation and inequality.

What this dot point is asking

This statement opens the compulsory Section A of Component 3 with the theories of stratification: the functionalist (Davis and Moore), Marxist (class and exploitation), Weberian (class, status and party), and feminist and postmodernist accounts. It is the theoretical foundation for the whole Power and Stratification component, against which the patterns of class, gender, ethnic, age and disability inequality are explained.

The answer

The functionalist theory

Davis and Moore argue that every society must ensure its most important roles are filled by its most able people. Because these roles require talent and long training, society must offer higher rewards (pay, status, privileges) to motivate people to make the effort. Inequality is therefore a functional necessity: it is the mechanism of role allocation. Critics, including Tumin, argue this is circular (we judge importance by reward), ignores inherited advantage, and overlooks how inequality wastes the talents of the poor.

The Marxist theory

Marxists reject the idea that inequality is functional, arguing it reflects exploitation and conflict:

• Stratification rests on the ownership of the means of production. The bourgeoisie (owners) exploit the proletariat (workers), who must sell their labour to survive.
• This produces a fundamental class conflict. Marx predicted polarisation (society splitting into two hostile classes), growing class consciousness, and eventual revolution replacing capitalism with a classless society.
• Inequality is thus not necessary but the product of a particular economic system that benefits the ruling class.

Critics note the predicted polarisation and revolution have not happened, the middle class has grown, and Marxism reduces stratification to class alone.

Weberian, feminist and postmodernist views

Weber offered a more multi-dimensional model. Stratification rests on three separate dimensions that do not always coincide:

• Class: a person's market position (their skills, qualifications and what they can command in the labour market).
• Status: social honour and prestige, the esteem in which a group is held (which can be high even where class is low, or vice versa).
• Party: organised power, the ability of groups (parties, unions, pressure groups) to pursue their interests.

This flexibility lets Weber explain inequalities (such as status differences) that class alone cannot.

Feminists argue stratification is also gendered: patriarchy produces systematic inequality between men and women that class-based theories neglect, so gender is a stratification dimension in its own right. Postmodernists argue that in a fragmented, consumer society, identity and consumption matter more than rigid class, so the old stratification models are breaking down and inequality is now more fluid and individualised. Most sociologists find Weber's multi-dimensional model the most flexible for analysing modern inequality.

Examples in context

A strong answer distinguishes the four accounts precisely, uses Weber's three dimensions as a tool to evaluate both functionalism and Marxism, and adds feminist and postmodernist critiques.

Try this

Q1. Explain Weber's three dimensions of stratification. [6 marks]

• What the marker wants. The three dimensions named and briefly developed (AO1): class (market position), status (social honour and prestige) and party (organised power), with the point that they are separate and do not always coincide.

Q2. Analyse two criticisms of the functionalist theory of stratification. [12 marks]

• Cue. Two developed points chosen from Tumin's argument that importance is judged circularly by reward, the neglect of inherited advantage and unequal starting points, and the way inequality wastes the talents of the poor, each explained and linked to the weakness of the Davis and Moore model.