Theories of stratification, including the functionalist view of Davis and Moore, the Marxist view of class conflict, and Weber's view of class, status and power.

What this dot point is asking

AQA wants you to explain the main theories of stratification and to be able to weigh them against each other: the functionalist view of Davis and Moore, the Marxist view of class conflict, and Weber's three-way view of class, status and power. The twelve-mark questions reward using named theorists and reaching a judgement.

The functionalist view: Davis and Moore

This is the functionalist, consensus account: inequality is not a problem but a mechanism that makes society work efficiently. It is criticised, however, for assuming a fair link between the importance of a job and its rewards (some highly paid jobs are arguably not the most important), and for ignoring the way inherited wealth and class block talented people from rising.

The Marxist view: Marx

Karl Marx saw stratification not as functional but as based on class conflict. In a capitalist society there are two main classes whose interests are opposed.

For Marx, stratification is a system of exploitation that produces conflict between the classes. He predicted that the proletariat would eventually develop class consciousness, recognise their exploitation and overthrow capitalism. His view is the direct opposite of Davis and Moore's: where they see inequality as beneficial, Marx sees it as unjust.

Weber: class, status and power

Max Weber agreed that economic class is important but argued inequality has three separate dimensions, making his view more complex than Marx's two-class model:

• Class: a person's economic position in the market, based on their skills and property.
• Status: the social honour or prestige a group is given, which can differ from its wealth (for example, an aristocrat may have high status but little money, or a wealthy criminal may have money but low status).
• Party (power): the ability to influence others and pursue goals, for example through political parties, trade unions or pressure groups.

Weber's key point is that a group can be high in one dimension but low in another, so inequality cannot be reduced to economic class alone. This gives a more nuanced picture than Marx and helps explain inequalities of status and power that pure class analysis misses.