The main criteria for structuring society according to n forty. P

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND

■TSIAINAVI

WILLIAM L. PITIRIM SOROKIN: SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND SOCIAL MOBILITY

V.F. Chesnokova1

Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin's book Social Mobility, first published in 1927, is still favored by all sociologists, both theorists and empiricists. It outlined what later Robert Merton called the theory of the middle range.

In this book, the ambiguous gets a thorough development and clarification, as P.A. Sorokin, the concept of a class. Some authors divided people into “rich” and “poor”, others - into “those in power” and “oppressed”, others focused on professional stratification, and authors such as A. Smith, K. Marx and K. Kautsky operated on a set of class characteristics. As a result, the definitions were either too poor or too vague. P.A. Sorokin suggested that when studying stratification, each characteristic should be taken into account separately: then a certain structure is revealed, which can then be “collected” and interpreted in terms of a class, or not to use this term at all.

It is possible to determine the position of an individual in social space only in relation to other people and social objects (as well as in reverse relation - other people and social objects to the individual). Social phenomena here include most of all social groups, which in turn are connected with each other in a certain way (have relations with each other) within the population (population) of a certain country.

1 Chesnokova Valentina Fedorovna - senior specialist of the Public Opinion Foundation. The text published with the permission of the author is a fragment dedicated to P.A. Sorokin chapters (lectures) from the forthcoming book: Chesnokova V.F. The Language of Sociology: A Course of Lectures for the Faculty of Church Journalism. The article was accepted for publication on February 14, 2007.

us. Populations that are related to each other in a certain way are included in the population of the earth.

There are two main dimensions in the social space: horizontal and vertical. The horizontal dimension captures the entry of an individual into a certain group, for example, Catholics, democrats, Italians, Germans or Russians, workers, doctors or artists. The mere assignment of an individual to a group, of course, says nothing about his position within the group: he occupies rank-and-file or leadership positions, is respected or reprimanded, what income he has in comparison with other members of this group, and so on. If we talk about the total social status of a person, then we must also take into account the position of his group in the vertical dimension relative to other groups. For example, the position of a group of doctors and a group of workers is different in the social hierarchy of society.

And here the question arises about the vertical distance between people within the same group (and the distances between groups in the space of society), about the profile of social stratification in this group at the moment and about its fluctuations over time. At the same time, Sorokin warns against an evaluative approach to higher/lower inequality. There should not be too much moral feeling about the fact that those who are "above" are better, and those who are "below" are worse. One should not think that all vertical differences between people should be immediately eliminated and universal equality should be brought about. Social facts are a very stubborn thing. You can write in capital letters in the Constitution, the Declaration of Rights and other fundamental documents that all people of such and such a country are equal. But this will absolutely not affect their real position in the social space.

“Social stratification means the differentiation of a given set of people into hierarchically subordinate classes. It manifests itself in the presence of higher and lower layers. Its basis and very essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, duties and responsibilities, social benefits and deprivations, social power and influence among the members of a particular community. Sorokin identifies three grounds for stratification: economic (according to wealth), political (according to the presence of power, influence) and professional (according to the position of a person within his profession, as well as the position of his profession in society).

An important statement by the author is: "Any organized social group is always a socially stratified aggregate." It must be said that for Western society, especially for US society, the concept of equality has a huge social value. It refers to the fundamental axes on which Western culture rests. One can argue about whether the value of equality was inherent in Western culture from the very beginning, or whether it took shape in such a high rank only during the period

statements of Protestantism and refers to the very “personality” that Russian intellectuals have always set as an example to us (and which, of course, was created by Protestant ethics). Therefore, from the point of view of an ordinary person (and a “simple scientist”), inequality is a disease of society that requires treatment. In some versions of evolutionary theory, it is also assumed that in that bright and reasonable society (in a wonderful future) to which we are all moving, inequality will be finally eliminated, inasmuch as it is unfair and unreasonable. History knows many collisions that occurred due to the fact that influential forces did not want to admit that stratification is a mechanism that works in society and performs some functions. P.A. Sorokin, preventing resistance, from the very beginning clearly states his position: all societies, including those striving for socialism and communism, will certainly create stratification, regardless of their ideological slogans and beliefs.

Further, he destroys another illusion: that humanity is moving from strong economic inequality to a society of economically equal citizens, in which the distance between “top” and “bottom” is gradually decreasing. In terms of facts (and he always had a huge amount of facts at his disposal), P.A. Sorokin shows that there is no unidirectional movement in the process of history. With the exception of certain periods of social cataclysms and the destruction of the social structure, stratification persists - the forms change, but the profile does not change. In rich countries, people (thank God) do not die of hunger, but the difference in the economic situation between the poor and some president of a large oil company has become no less, rather more than what it was at the time when people were dying in these countries too from hunger. Drawing on data from different periods of history and different countries, including India, China, Egypt, P.A. Sorokin comes to the conclusion that the profile of stratification (in this case, economic) reveals non-directional fluctuations, i.e., temporary small increases and decreases, unsystematic swings around some stable points. Neither the hypothesis of V. Pareto (that stratification remains fundamentally unchanged at all times and in all countries), nor the hypothesis of K. Marx (that the impoverishment of the masses occurs, and consequently, economic differentiation increases), nor hypotheses of modern P.A. Sorokin (and partly to us) of scientists who share the opinion about the flattening of stratification and the growth of equality.

Indeed, in the early stages of primitive society, economic differentiation was insignificant, it increased with development, but, “having reached its climax, it began to change and sometimes collapsed” . We can only note a certain correlation between the intensification of economic development and an increase in the level of

stratification for this indicator. The general conclusion from the analysis of this element of stratification is as follows: “under normal conditions, in the absence of any social upheavals, in a society that. is complex in its structure and familiar with the institution of private property, fluctuations in the height and profile of economic stratification are limited. “However, under extreme conditions, these limitations can be overcome, and the profile of economic stratification can become either unusually flat or unusually steep. In both cases, however, this situation is very short-lived. If the "economically flat society" does not perish, "flatness" will very soon be replaced by an increase in economic stratification. If economic inequality becomes too great and reaches a point of excessive tension, the top of society is doomed to overthrow and destruction.

In the XVIII-XX centuries. the prevailing view is that political inequality decreases along with economic inequality, but political stratification is more difficult for a sociologist to work with than economic inequality, since political inequality is more difficult to measure. “The main slogan of our time is: “People are born and remain free and equal in rights” (French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1791). Or: "We hold it to be self-evident truths that all men are created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (American Declaration of Independence, 1776)." Indeed, the wave of democratization, as Sorokin puts it, is spreading across all continents. Equality is actually established before the introduction of the law on equality, extends further and further "and seeks to put an end to all racial, national and professional distinctions, all economic and any other privileges" .

But declarations and legal rights are one thing, and real life is another. In production, it is not the worker who controls the master, but the master the worker. A corporation director can fire a clerk, but a clerk cannot fire a corporation director. Referring to a number of authoritative sociologists, P.A. Sorokin argues that even with the effective protection of voting rights by declarations and laws, only a very small percentage of people are keenly and constantly interested in politics. This percentage, apparently, will remain so in the future, and therefore, quotes P.A. Sorokin J. Bryce, "management of affairs inevitably passes into the hands of a small number of people", and "a free government can be nothing but an oligarchy within a democracy".

P.A. Sorokin comes to the conclusion that political differentiation is positively related to two main factors: the size of the political

organization and the heterogeneity of its members. The general conclusion is: “There is no constant tendency to move from monarchy to republic, from autocracy to democracy, from minority rule to majority rule, from the absence of government intervention to total state control, just as there is no trend in the opposite direction ... Profile political stratification is more flexible and varies more widely, and changes much more frequently and more abruptly than the economic stratification profile... stratification profile to its equilibrium point".

In professional stratification P.A. Sorokin identifies two indicators that “apparently have always been fundamental: 1) the significance of a particular profession in terms of survival and preservation of the group as a kind of integrity; 2) the level of intelligence necessary for the successful performance of professional duties. Socially significant professions are those professions that are associated with the functions of organizing a group and controlling it.

The place in professional stratification is determined by the nature of the subordination of the lower subgroups (small employees, hired workers, the so-called maintenance) to the higher group, the dependence of the lower strata on the higher ones, and, finally, the difference in pay for lower and higher positions in a given profession. The profile of professional stratification also determines the "number of storeys", i.e. the number of ranks in the hierarchy. Ultimately, P.A. Sorokin comes to a conclusion similar to that which was made regarding economic and political stratification: the profiles of occupational stratification fluctuate without revealing any clearly observable direction. The same non-directional fluctuations.

Movement within the space of social stratification was called social mobility. The simplest definition of social mobility, according to Sorokin, is as follows: "Social mobility is understood as any movement of an individual or social object or value - everything that is created or modified by human activity - from one position to another" . Social objects can include both objects and ideas, but the most important are social groups that also move in this space.

Mobility is horizontal and vertical. Horizontal mobility is understood as movement within the same social stratum: for example, the transition of a worker from one enterprise to another (located in approximately the same conditions and in the same rank as the one he left) does not change his status. Under vertical mobility under-

refers to the transition of an individual (or other social object) from one social stratum (or, as it is now commonly called, strata) to another. At the same time, the position in society and relations with other people and social objects change qualitatively for the object that has undergone mobility.

Social mobility in society is measured by Sorokin's intensity and coverage. Intensity is understood as the number of social strata passed by an individual in the movement up and down, and coverage is the number of persons making such movements. There is another characteristic: the permeability of social strata for moving individuals and groups. Permeability is very different in different societies and in different periods, but there was no society in the history in which social strata would be completely impervious to the movement of individuals. But there were no societies in which mobility would be carried out without any restrictions. Moreover, there is no noticeable trend from closed to open movement. If in India the partitions between castes were very rigid (but nevertheless they were circumvented in various ways), then at the same time in China a person of any social status could, having studied and passed the required exams, get a high position at court. Another thing is that it was difficult to pass these exams, but it was already a matter of ability: the capable passed this selection.

There is also a difference between upward and downward mobility, while both individuals and entire groups can rise or fall. The channels of social mobility through which the movement of individuals and groups is carried out are diverse, but some are present in almost all societies. First of all, it is an army that can elevate a person to the very top, especially during the period of hostilities, when the abilities of individuals stand out most clearly. For example, out of 65 Byzantine emperors, 12 achieved their heights thanks to the army. The founders of the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties were also helped to advance by military service. "Countless medieval slaves, robbers, serfs and people of simple origin in the same way became nobles, gentlemen, princes, dukes and high officials." At the same time, many military leaders and powerful princes, losing battles, fell into disgrace, disgrace and lost their social position.

Another typical channel is the church. The Church also opens up the opportunity for people of various social strata and positions to move up. The Church is a strong “elevator” for ascent, especially during periods when it enjoys influence in the state, but it is also an effective channel for downward mobility: the accused of heresy, as a rule, is not kept in power and in general in the upper strata of the state.

The school serves as an effective channel for vertical mobility. So, in China there was a selection system through schools, which Confucius considered not only an education system, but also an election system. The political doctrine of Confucius does not imply a hereditary aristocracy at all. The educational test (examinations) performed the role of universal suffrage. In Indian society, education and learning were considered a "second birth" - more important than physical birth. However, in India there was no democracy in education, as in China: education was forbidden for some castes. In modern societies, without a diploma, entry into some professions and certain positions is absolutely impossible.

The channel of social mobility in the modern world is various parties and movements that play a large role in the political life of some societies. It is important for creative workers to join a professional group, since without the support of one or another creative corporation it is difficult to arrange an exhibition, publish a book, etc. its member.

From the assessment of professionals by professionals, we are moving on to an important principle of the operation of channels of social mobility - to the principle of selection, without which no channel could effectively perform its functions in society. The task of the channel of social mobility is not only to test the abilities of individuals as such, but also to select those abilities and knowledge that are necessary to perform various functions: professional, political and others, as well as to distribute individuals according to the positions in which they could these functions to carry out. Therefore, in each channel there is a system of "sieves" for "sifting" applicants for certain positions.

Such a “sieve” is, first of all, a family. “Good origin” in all countries is accepted as a good evidence of probable personality traits, because it is the family that most of all shapes a person’s personality, especially during his childhood, instilling in him attitudes and values, many of which remain in a person for life. There is no longer such attention to a person from a poor and little-known family, and a “bad origin” leaves a stain for life. Moreover, in both cases, it is believed that personality traits are largely predictable.

In the education system, the tested qualities are mainly the knowledge and skills that an individual is taught in it, although personal qualities are also being corrected: educational institutions can instill certain values ​​and attitudes in their pupils, up to behaviors by which their graduates can be confidently distinguished from others. . The "sieve" of the educational system consists of exams and testing, which

which “weed out” unsuccessful students. At the same time, both knowledge and abilities are tested. “The fundamental social function of the school is not only to find out whether the student has mastered part of the textbooks or not, but also to determine, through all its examinations and moral observation, firstly, which of the students are gifted and which are not, what abilities each student has and to what extent, which of them are socially and morally healthy. Secondly, this function is to exclude those who do not have desirable intellectual and moral qualities. Thirdly ... to promote the advancement of those who, during their studies, showed general and special abilities corresponding to a certain social status. Sorokin at the same time draws attention to “the fact that, contrary to generally accepted opinion, universal education leads not so much to the destruction of mental and social differences, but to their strengthening. A school, even the most democratic one, open to everyone, if it correctly fulfills its task, is a mechanism for "aristocratization" and stratification of society, and not "equalization" and "democratization" .

But the most powerful "sieve" that tests the moral qualities of individuals is the church, since the church's opinion about a person affects not only his position within the church hierarchy, but also his position in society. Describing what kind of school a person went through in the Brahmin caste, Sorokin notes that the modern school does not require any special moral qualities from the individual, which has an impact on society as a whole: “the upper strata of society, replenished by just such people (graduates of modern schools ), which, while showing good intellectual abilities, at the same time demonstrate a noticeable moral weakness: greed, corruption, demagogy, sexual promiscuity, the desire for hoarding and material wealth (often at the expense of social values), dishonesty, cynicism. Such a school cannot, Sorokin emphasizes, improve the morale of the population as a whole.

The educational system (including professional) has another important function - to regulate the size of the upper strata of society in relation to its lower strata. The general increase in the upper layers leads to an increase in their pressure on other layers of society and makes the entire stratification structure unstable and heavy. And the professional overproduction of specialists leads to increased competition between them and also makes society unstable.

In all cases, reformers, Sorokin argues, must imagine this system of "selection" of individuals to the upper strata of society. “In the end, history is made by people. People in positions they don't fit in can easily destroy society, but they can't create

nothing of value, and vice versa. This whole system that has developed in society with its "elevators" and "filters" greatly affects the state of both the upper and lower strata of society, ensuring their moral and cultural state, as well as their mood, peace or irritability, which, naturally , directly affects the state of the whole society, as well as its historical fate.

Developed by P.A. Sorokin, the theoretical concept was soon supplemented by empiricism. Already in the 1930s. the eminent anthropologist William Lloyd Warner, who received a proposal to research the social stratification of the United States, approached the object in the way that Durkheim once proposed approaching: as if we knew nothing about the object called "US social stratification."

W. Warner proceeded from the postulate that the social structure of American society as a whole cannot be the subject of empirical research. However, it is quite possible to study a single community or several communities, which should give us an idea of ​​the stratification of society as a whole. Another postulate was that the community should be studied not from its history and specific features peculiar only to it, but to approach it as an acting whole, i.e. to study in it "the total system of interactions". And all the phenomena of this system must be explained on the basis of the function they perform in order for the system to exist, i.e. be sustainable. As a postulate, the statement was accepted that in any community there should be four types of social structure (as necessary): family, union (association), church and class. These fundamental structures define the basic sphere of the individual's behavior, and "the factors that determine his social behavior are ultimately connected with them."

Three cities were chosen for the study: Newburyport (a port city in Massachusetts with 17,000 inhabitants); a town in the south of the United States, conditionally named "Old City" (10 thousand inhabitants); Morris (named Johnnesville, a town of 10,000 in the Midwest). The best known materials of the study in Newburyport, held under the "pseudonym" "Yankee City".

The researchers' initial assumption that a person's social status is determined by his economic and professional characteristics has not been fully justified. During the survey, respondents who assessed this situation “separated” workers and entrepreneurs into three different classes. A latent factor was clearly revealed, additionally determining social position. W. Warner stated that the social assessment of a given person by others is focused on certain typical for a given class system ways of behavior of the person being assessed, therefore, the types of behavior of the individual should also be taken into account.

Thus, W. Warner formulated the main characteristics of a social class: these are sections of the population that differ in a higher or lower position of the individuals that make them up. The stratum is, in principle, rather closed, although movements up and down the social ladder are possible. The difference in ranks is caused by the fact that in a class society "rights" and "duties" are unevenly distributed. The family, as a rule, is within the same class, and children inherit the status of their parents at the beginning of their movement up the social ladder.

Later, W. Warner recognized as unverified the hypothesis that people's ideas about certain social classes are determined by economic conditions typical for this class: no close connection with economic factors was found. Here it should be taken into account that the scientist adhered to the Weberian concept of stratification and initially set his classes not according to a subjective criterion, but precisely according to social prestige. It is this characteristic that has been attached to the concept of "social class" in American sociology. The accepted gradation of classes into "lower lower", "upper lower", "lower middle", etc. - this is not at all the concept that was formulated by K. Marx, and not even the one that was formulated by M. Weber (although it is close to his “estate”). Social prestige is measured by the evaluation of some people by others, more precisely, by the mutual evaluation of members of the same society. The great achievement of W. Warner is that for the first time in the study of social stratification he used mutual assessments of representatives of different strata.

The toolkit was formed and "brought" almost on the go. A person was assigned to a particular social stratum as a result of applying several procedures: 1) the ideas of various people about a particular person (or people) revealed through interviews were compared and correlated with each other; 2) the symbols used by the respondents to mark certain candidates for the respective classes were taken into account; 3) the status reputation of a family or an individual was measured: the reputation was formed on the basis of their participation in the public life of the city; 4) a comparison method was used: the informant was asked whether a given person is located higher or lower in relation to certain persons; 5) the method of "simply enrolling in a class" was used by an instructed respondent or an expert respondent (but not by the researchers themselves); 6) finally, there was also evaluation with the help of "institutional membership", i.e. by belonging to one or another initially given fundamental structures - families, associations, churches (sects) and circles of communication. These six methods, linked into a single system, have been called the "Measured Participation Method" .

Assessments were applied not only to specific individuals, but also to the assessment criteria themselves. As a result, the strongest individual criteria were revealed (along with income and profession): a) type of housing; b) place of residence (within the study area); c) the type of education received; d) behavior. By applying these criteria, the researchers were able to quite accurately place the ranked individuals according to their social position. In other words, prestigious assessments were taken as the main synthetic indicator, which complied with Durkheim's position that society is primarily social or collective representations, and everything else is already determined in relation to these representations.

To facilitate the work of researchers who would like to repeat this experiment, the so-called Warner index was compiled. It can be applied without carrying out laborious procedures with a survey of numerous respondents. It's just that for each individual whose position is going to be measured, it is determined: profession, place of residence, source of income, apartment furnishings (according to the presence of certain indicators). Warner and his collaborators argued that for the United States during the years of the study, these scores fairly accurately reflected prestige scores. Sometimes, as we have seen, the level of education was added. But these four indicators were recognized as sufficient. However, Warner and his staff have always warned that these characteristics only work in the United States, and other countries and cultures may require other characteristics. In particular, W. Warner suggested that, for example, for the countries of Europe, education may be more significant.

It is curious that people who belonged to certain social classes carried out characteristic “class” behavior from day to day, while at the same time not having any definite idea of ​​the class, which indicates the existence of social ideas at a completely unconscious level. By the way, now usually the concept of the class to which he belongs enters the consciousness of a person, since a lot is said about this and the concept, so to speak, is always heard. The overall picture of the class distribution of the city's population in Yankee City was ultimately as follows: upper upper class (BB) - 1.44%; lower upper class (HB) - 1.56%; upper middle class (VS) - 10.22%; lower middle class (NS) - 28.12%; upper lower class (HV) - 32.60%; lower lower class (NN) - 25.22% not classified - 0.84%.

The upper upper class was found not to be present in all the cities surveyed, since, along with economic and other indicators of social prestige, an additional characteristic was attributed to it: it consisted of families of “old settlers”, i.e. descendants of immigrants to America in the 17th-18th centuries. In the two cities surveyed, there were simply no such families, and a five-class social system turned out there.

Already in the first stages of his research, Warner established that the members of each social class show some homogeneity both in their actions and in their way of thinking. But at the same time, a certain differentiation on this basis within each class was also revealed. After carrying out a gigantic work, the authors came to the conclusion that the family, association and social circles play the most obvious role in the movement of an individual through statuses within a class. “Because the individual belongs to different structures ... he participates in a large number of social situations at the same time. At the same time, his rank (belonging to a certain social class) remains unchanged, but his position within this rank is constantly changing. All the time, the social statuses that form, as it were, the area of ​​his participation (in the social life of the community), continue to influence his behavior; they depend on each other all the time in his life, as well as in the life of other individuals who are members of this social system. The most developed and strongest contacts, as sociologists have established, are the middle classes, and these contacts sometimes go quite far beyond the limits of their own class. Warner saw this as a precondition for upward mobility. Such contacts give the individual the opportunity to assimilate the values ​​and behaviors of the higher classes and thus gain recognition from the members of those classes. Therefore, the conclusion that the participation of an individual in all these circles of communication and associations not only gives those around him a starting point for assigning him to one class or another, but also serves to promote or consolidate him in new, higher statuses, turns out to be quite reasonable.

The family is the most reliable "lifting mechanism", although perhaps not so fast. The family gives initial status to children. An individual can move up only simultaneously with his family, when the movement concerns the transition from class to class. The transition to a higher class, together with the family, consolidates the new position of the individual.

The circles of communication, according to researchers, turned out to be informal formations, not very stable, not very extensive (although in some cases they reached 30 people), but they were strongly emotionally colored. The meaning of the circle is exclusively in communication with each other. Meetings of its members are irregular, there is no special mode of operation of the circle. Often an individual, striving to meet the expectations of his circle, may even

to some extent neglect the interests of their own family, so it is obvious that such circles very much determine the behavior of their members. Belonging to such a circle gives the individual a sense of confidence in his social status. Acceptance of a person into one or another social circle or expulsion from it clearly promotes or hinders his social mobility.

A similar role is played by associations (voluntary public associations) in which an individual participates (or does not participate). An association is a different type of formation: firstly, it is official to a certain extent, since it usually has its own charter and other documents certifying its status; secondly, it meets, as a rule, more or less regularly and has its own work plan. Relations within her are not colored as emotionally as in social circles; thirdly, it is more extensive and more stable in its existence. It also has more diverse contacts of a person with representatives of other circles. Some of the associations give a person status by the mere fact of joining them: these are closed exclusive clubs (as we remember, Max Weber reports that he heard about one case when a young man, not having the opportunity to join such a club, committed suicide). But there are also broader and fundamentally open organizations, which may include people from the lower strata. These are usually political organizations, leading from time to time some kind of campaign in support of this or that bill, this or that party. Nevertheless, openness still implies a certain amount of control: "members from the lower strata of the caste system are controlled by and subject to members from the higher strata" .

An analysis of the behavior of the social system during the shoemakers' strike of 1930 provided very interesting data. where the footwear industry was the main industry).

Polls showed the cause of the strike: the progressive process of mechanization of production led to the breakdown of the hierarchy of workers by skill. Experience and art ceased to matter, since the operations were carried out by machines, and such machines could be serviced by people who had no experience at all in the shoe business. The strike led to the consolidation of the workers, so that in all three classes, which included the workers (from the lower lower to the lower middle), sectors of workers were formed, as it were, showing vertical gravitation towards each other. As a result of the strike, another large and open association was formed in the city - the trade union of shoemakers, which continued to exist after the strike, to a certain extent displacing social

structure. But what is more interesting, this association quite quickly came into contact with similar trade unions in other cities and joined the national trade union movement. Thus, the shoemakers of the three lower classes, in a sense, felt their unity and formed a special detachment of the working class (without ceasing at the same time to be members of their social classes), which showed an orientation towards the lower upper class. “Such behavior of shoemakers in the social life of the community suggests that the worker solidarity that develops in enterprises also affects the behavior of workers outside the enterprises,” W. Warner concluded. Thus, it was shown that the social structure is capable of transforming in response to various external influences, without ceasing to remain sufficiently stable at the same time.

W. Warner's empirical research, like the Hawthorne experiment, had a huge impact on the development of scientific methods and scientific points of view. The fact that W. Warner abandoned any theories of class structure turned out, on the one hand, to be an unusually positive circumstance: he looked at the material without any predetermined scheme and without any prejudice, which made it possible to flexibly change approaches and develop the methodology, adapting to the newly identified factors. And on the other hand, it left researchers in some cases helpless when trying to interpret the discovered facts.

Approaches to the study of social stratification developed by P. Sorokin and W. Warner are very relevant for the modern Russian context. For a long time in our country it was believed that there were two classes in a society building socialism (and later in a society of developed socialism) - workers and peasants; in addition to them, a "layer" stood out - the intelligentsia. In one of the works of a prominent domestic sociologist, one could even find the following expression: "The Soviet working class governs our state directly through the intelligentsia educated by it." But many years have passed since then, and we are still discussing the Russian middle class, using as a criterion only the characteristics of the financial situation and profession (to a much lesser extent). And one can hear, for example, such judgments that Russian teachers have lost their position in the middle class because they are "paid so little." Did they thereby lose their way of life and their way of thinking? This question is not raised by anyone. And this is precisely what is most interesting: does an individual really lose his class rank along with the deterioration of his financial situation (since it is obvious that he does not lose his profession)? And to what extent does the worsening of his financial situation not affect his class status?

rank? This can be explored right now, because life itself has set

us such an experiment.

Bibliographic list

1. Sorokin P.A. social mobility. M.: Academia, 2005 (Sorokin P.A. Social mobility. N.Y.; L.: Harper & Brothers, 1927).

2. Bryce J. Modern Democracies. N.Y.: Macmillan, 1921. Vol. 2. P. 549-550.

3. Warner W.L., Low J.O. The Social System of the Modern Factory. The Strike: a Social Analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press; L.: G. Cumberlege, Oxford University Press, 1947.

4. Warner W.L., Lunt P.S. The Social Life of a Modern Community. New Haven: Yale university press; L.: H. Milford, Oxford university press, 1941.

5. Warner W.L., Meeker M., Eells K. Social Class in America: a Manual of Procedure for the Measurement of Social Status. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949.

And social mobility, both in domestic sociology and in Western sociology, is based on the theoretical developments and concepts of M. Weber, P. Sorokin, P. Bourdieu, M. Kohn and other researchers.

Theories of stratification by M. Weber

The decisive condition (the first criterion of stratification) that affects the fate of an individual is not so much the fact of class belonging as the position (status) of the individual in the market, which makes it possible to improve or worsen his life chances.

The second criterion of stratification is the prestige, respect, honors that an individual or position receives. The status respect received by individuals unites them into groups. Status groups are distinguished by a certain way of life, lifestyle, they have certain material and ideal privileges and try to usurp their customs on them.

Both class and status positions are resources in the struggle for the possession of power, on which political parties rely. This is the third stratification criterion.

The theory of social stratification and social mobility P. Sorokin (1889-1968)

P. Sorokin's theory of stratification was first presented in his work "Social mobility" (1927), which is considered a classic work in this area.

social stratification, according to Sorokin's definition, is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and obligations, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community.

The whole variety of social stratification can be reduced to three main forms - economic, political and professional, which are closely intertwined. This means that those who belong to the highest stratum in one respect usually belong to the same stratum in another dimension; and vice versa. This happens in most cases, but not always. According to Sorokin, the interdependence of the three forms of social stratification is far from complete, because the various layers of each form do not quite coincide with each other, or rather, coincide only partially. Sorokin first called this phenomenon a status mismatch. It lies in the fact that a person can occupy a high position in one stratification and a low position in another. Such a discrepancy is painfully experienced by people and can serve as an incentive for some to change their social position, to lead to social mobility of the individual.

Considering professional stratification, Sorokin singled out interprofessional and intraprofessional stratification.

There are two universal grounds for interprofessional stratification:

• the importance of the occupation (profession) for the survival and functioning of the group as a whole;
• the level of intelligence necessary for the successful performance of professional duties.

Sorokin concludes that in any given society, the more professional work consists in the exercise of the functions of organization and control and requires a higher level of intelligence for its performance and accordingly implies the privilege of the group and its higher rank, which it occupies in the interprofessional hierarchy.

Sorokin represented intraprofessional stratification as follows:

• entrepreneurs;
• employees of the highest category (directors, managers, etc.);
• hired workers.

To characterize the professional hierarchy, he introduced the following indicators:

• height;
• number of storeys (number of ranks in the hierarchy);
• occupational stratification profile (the ratio of the number of people in each occupational subgroup to all members of the occupational group).

Sorokin defined social mobility as any transition of an individual or a social object (value, i.e. everything that is created or modified by human activity) from one social position to another (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. Types of social mobility

Under horizontal social mobility, or displacement, implies the transition of an individual from one social group to another, located at the same level.

Under vertical social mobility refers to those relationships that arise when an individual moves from one social stratum to another. Depending on the direction of movement, upward and downward vertical mobility is distinguished, i.e. social ascent and social descent.

Updrafts exist in two main forms:

• the penetration of an individual from a lower layer into an existing higher layer;
• the creation of a new group and the penetration of the entire group into a higher layer to the level with the already existing groups of this layer.

Downdrafts also have two forms:

• the fall of an individual from a higher social position to a lower one without destroying the original group to which the individual previously belonged;
• degradation of the social group as a whole, lowering its rank against the background of other groups or the destruction of its social unity.

Sorokin called the reasons for vertical group mobility wars, revolutions, foreign conquests, which contribute to changing the criteria for stratification in society and change group status. An important reason may also be a change in the importance of a particular type of labor, industry.

The most important channels that ensure the social circulation of individuals in society are such social institutions as the army, school, political, economic and professional organizations.

Functionalist views on social stratification

C. Davis and W. Moore saw the reason for the existence of the stratification system in the uneven distribution of wealth and social prestige. The main functional reason for the universal existence of stratification stems from the fact that any society inevitably faces the problem of accommodating and stimulating individuals within its social structure. As a functioning organism, society must somehow assign its members to various social positions and induce them to perform the duties associated with these positions.

To achieve such goals, society must have some kind of benefits that can be used as incentives; to develop ways of uneven distribution of these benefits (rewards) depending on the positions occupied.

Remuneration and its distribution become part of the social structure and, in turn, give rise (cause) stratification.

As a reward, the company offers:

• items that provide means of subsistence and comfort;
• means for satisfying various inclinations and entertainment;
• tools to enhance self-esteem and self-expression.

According to Davis and Moore, "social inequality is the unconsciously developed means by which society ensures the nomination and the most important positions of the most competent persons ..."

P. Bourdieu(b. 1930), a well-known French scientist, made an important contribution to the development of the theory of stratification and mobility. He came to the conclusion that the possibilities of social mobility are determined by various types of resources, or "capitals" that individuals have - economic capital in its various forms, cultural capital, symbolic capital.

In modern societies, the upper strata carry out the reproduction of their positions:

• ensuring the transfer of economic capital;
• endowing the younger generation with a special educational capital (training in special privileged schools and prestigious universities);
• passing on to the younger generation cultural capital, linguistic and cultural competence, which is formed by creating a high-quality cultural environment for them (reading books, visiting museums and theaters, mastering the style of interpersonal relations, behavioral and linguistic manners, etc.).

American sociologist M. Cohn put forward a hypothesis and proved on the basis of empirical research a close relationship between the stratification position and the values ​​of the individual.

For those who have a high social status, feel like a competent member of a society that is favorable to them, the main value is the attitude towards achievement.

On the contrary, for lower social stratification positions, in which people see themselves as less competent members of a society that is indifferent or hostile to them, conformism is characteristic.

Concerning issues of social mobility, Cohn emphasized that people with an active lifestyle have a greater chance of occupying a higher social position.

The stratification position of the individual, on the one hand, affects the professional setting for achievement, and on the other hand, it depends on the individual.

1. Concepts and definitions

Social stratification is the differentiation of a certain set of people into classes in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and obligations, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community. Specific forms of social stratification are very diverse. If the economic status of members of a society is not the same, if there are both haves and have-nots among them, then such a society is characterized by the presence of economic stratification, regardless of whether it is organized on communist or capitalist principles, whether it is constitutionally defined as a "society of equals" or not . No labels, signs, oral statements are able to change or obscure the reality of the fact of economic inequality, which is expressed in the difference in incomes, living standards, in the existence of rich and poor sections of the population. If within a group there are hierarchically different ranks in terms of authority and prestige and honors, if there are rulers and ruled, then regardless of the terms (monarchs, bureaucrats, masters, bosses) this means that such a group politically differentiated, whatever it proclaims in its constitution or declaration. If the members of a society are divided into different groups according to the nature of their activity, occupation, and some professions are considered more prestigious in comparison with others, and if the members of a particular professional group are divided into leaders of various ranks and subordinates, then such a group professionally differentiated regardless of whether superiors are elected or appointed, whether their leadership positions are inherited or due to their personal qualities.

2. The main forms of social stratification and the relationship between them

The specific aspects of social stratification are numerous. However, all their diversity can be reduced to three main forms: economic, political and professional stratification. As a rule, they are all closely intertwined. People who belong to the highest stratum in one respect usually belong to the same stratum in other respects; and vice versa. Representatives of the highest economic strata simultaneously belong to the highest political and professional strata. The poor, as a rule, are disenfranchised and are in the lower strata of the professional hierarchy. This is the general rule, although there are many exceptions. So, for example, the richest are not always at the top of the political or professional pyramid, and the poor do not always occupy the lowest places in the political and professional hierarchy. And this means that the interdependence of the three forms of social stratification is far from perfect, because the various layers of each of the forms do not completely coincide with each other. Rather, they coincide with each other, but only partially, that is, to a certain extent. This fact does not allow us to analyze all three main forms of social stratification together. For greater pedantry, it is necessary to analyze each of the forms separately. The real picture of the social stratification of any society is very complex and confusing. To facilitate the analysis process, only the main, most important properties should be taken into account, in order to simplify, omitting details that do not distort the overall picture.

ECONOMIC STRATIFICATION

1. Two main types of fluctuation

Speaking about the economic status of a certain group, two main types of fluctuations should be distinguished. The first refers to the economic decline or rise of the group; the second - to the growth or reduction of economic stratification within the group itself. The first phenomenon is expressed in the economic enrichment or impoverishment of social groups as a whole; the second is expressed in a change in the economic profile of the group or in an increase or decrease in the height, so to speak, of steepness, of the economic pyramid. Accordingly, there are the following two types of fluctuations in the economic status of a society:

I. Fluctuation of the economic status of the group as a whole:

a) an increase in economic well-being;

b) a decrease in the latter.

II. Fluctuations in the height and profile of economic stratification within society:

a) the rise of the economic pyramid;

b) flattening of the economic pyramid.

1. Hypotheses of constant height and profile of economic stratification and its growth in XIX century are not confirmed.

2. The most correct is the hypothesis of fluctuations in economic stratification from group to group, and within the same group - from one period of time to another. In other words, there are cycles in which increasing economic inequality is replaced by its weakening.

3. Some periodicity is possible in these fluctuations, but for various reasons its existence has not yet been proven by anyone.

4. With the exception of the early stages of economic evolution, marked by an increase in economic stratification, there is no constant trend in fluctuations in the height and form of economic stratification.

5. A strict trend towards a decrease in economic inequality has not been found; there are no serious grounds for recognizing the existence of an opposite trend.

6. Under normal social conditions, the economic cone of a developed society fluctuates within certain limits. Its shape is relatively constant. Under extreme circumstances, these limits may be violated, and the profile of economic stratification may become either very flat or very convex and high. In both cases, this situation is short-lived. And if the "economically flat" society does not perish, then the "flatness" is quickly replaced by increased economic stratification. If economic inequality becomes too strong and reaches a point of overstrain, then the top of society is destined to collapse or be overthrown.

7. Thus, in any society at any time there is a struggle between the forces of stratification and the forces of equalization. The former work constantly and steadily, the latter - spontaneously, impulsively, using violent methods.

POLITICAL STRATIFICATION

So, as already noted, the universality and constancy of political stratification does not mean at all that it has always and everywhere been identical. Now the following problems should be discussed: a) does the profile and height of political stratification change from group to group, from one period of time to another; b) whether there are established limits for these fluctuations; c) frequency of oscillations; d) whether there is an eternally constant direction of these changes. In revealing all these questions, we must be extremely careful not to fall under the spell of eloquent eloquence. The problem is very complex. And it should be approached gradually, step by step.

1. Top of political stratification changes

Let's simplify the situation: for starters, let's take only the upper part of the political pyramid, which consists of free members of society. Let's leave for a while without attention all those layers that are below this level (servants, slaves, serfs, etc.). At the same time, we will not consider who? as? for what period? for what reasons? engaged in different layers of the political pyramid. Now the subject of our interest is the height and profile of the political edifice inhabited by the free members of society: is there a constant tendency in its changes to "level" (that is, to reduce the height and relief of the pyramid) or in the direction of "rise".

The generally accepted opinion is in favor of the "levelling" trend. People tend to take it for granted that there is an iron trend in history towards political equality and towards the destruction of political "feudalism" and hierarchy. Such a judgment is typical of the present moment. As G. Vollas rightly noted, “the political creed of the masses of people is not the result of reflections verified by experience, but a collection of unconscious or semi-conscious assumptions put forward out of habit. What is closer to reason is closer to the past, and how a stronger impulse allows you to quickly come to a conclusion ". As for the height of the upper part of the political pyramid, my arguments are as follows.

Among primitive tribes and at the early stages of the development of civilization, political stratification was insignificant and imperceptible. A few leaders, a layer of influential elders - and, perhaps, everything that was located above the layer of the rest of the free population. The political form of such a social organism somehow, only remotely, resembled a sloping and low pyramid. It rather approached a rectangular parallelepiped with a barely protruding elevation at the top. With the development and growth of social relations, in the process of unification of the originally independent tribes, in the process of natural demographic growth of the population, political stratification intensified, and the number of different ranks increased rather than decreased. The political cone began to grow, but did not even out. The four main ranks of the semi-civilized societies in the Sandwich Islands and the six classes among the New Zealanders may illustrate this initial increase in stratification. The same can be said about the earliest stages in the development of modern European peoples, about ancient Greek and Roman societies. Regardless of the further political evolution of all these societies, it seems obvious that their political hierarchy will never become as flat as it was in the early stages of the development of civilization. If this is the case, then it would be impossible to admit that in the history of political stratification there has been a constant trend towards political "levelling".

The second argument is that, whether we take the history of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, or modern European societies, it does not show that over time the pyramid of the political hierarchy becomes lower and the political cone flatter. In the history of Rome during the period of the republic, instead of several ranks of the archaic period, we see the highest pyramid of different ranks and titles, overlapping each other even in terms of privilege. Something similar is happening today. Specialists in constitutional law rightly point out that the US president clearly has more political rights than the European constitutional monarch. The execution of orders given by high officials to their subordinates, by generals to the lowest military ranks, is as categorical and obligatory as in any non-democratic country. Compliance with the orders of an officer of the highest rank in the American army is as mandatory as in any other army. There are differences in recruitment methods, but this does not mean that the political building of modern democracies is flat or less stratified than the political building of many non-democratic countries. Thus, as regards the political hierarchy among the citizens, I I do not see any trend in political evolution towards a lowering or flattening of the cone. Despite the various methods of recruiting upper class members in modern democracies, the political cone is now as high and stratified as at any other time, and certainly higher than in many less developed societies. Although I emphatically emphasize this point, I would not like to be misunderstood that I am asserting the existence of a reverse permanent tendency to increase the political hierarchy. This is in no way confirmed by anything. All that we see is "chaotic", undirected, "blind" fluctuations, leading neither to strengthening nor to weakening of political stratification...

Summary

1. The height of the profile of political stratification varies from country to country, from one period of time to another.

2. In these changes there is no constant tendency either to equalization or to an elevation of stratification.

3. There is no constant trend of transition from monarchy to republic, from autocracy to democracy, from minority rule to majority rule, from the absence of government intervention in society to comprehensive state control. There are also no reverse trends.

4. Among the many social forces contributing to political stratification, an important role is played by the increase in the size of the political body and the heterogeneity of the composition of the population.

5. The profile of political stratification is more mobile, and it fluctuates more widely, more often and more impulsively than the profile of economic stratification.

6. In any society there is a constant struggle between the forces of political alignment and the forces of stratification. Sometimes one force wins, sometimes another prevails. When the fluctuation of the profile in one of the directions becomes too strong and sharp, then the opposing forces increase their pressure in various ways and bring the stratification profile to the point of equilibrium.

PROFESSIONAL STRATIFICATION

1. Intraprofessional and interprofessional stratification

The existence of occupational stratification is established from two main groups of facts. It is obvious that certain occupational classes have always constituted the upper social strata, while other occupational groups have always been at the bottom of the social cone. The most important occupational classes do not lie horizontally, that is, on the same social level, but, so to speak, overlap each other. Secondly, the phenomenon of professional stratification is also found within each professional sphere. Whether we take the field of agriculture or industry, trade or management, or any other professions, people employed in these areas are stratified into many ranks and levels: from the upper ranks, which exercise control, to the lower ranks, which are controlled and which are subordinate to their "bosses" in a hierarchy. ", "directors", "authorities", "managers", "bosses", etc. Professional stratification, therefore, manifests itself in these two main forms: 1) in the form of a hierarchy of main professional groups (interprofessional stratification) and 2) in the form of stratification within each professional class (intraprofessional stratification).

2. Interprofessional stratification, its forms and foundations

The existence of interprofessional stratification manifested itself in different ways in the past and makes itself felt ambiguously now. In the bush society, it was expressed in the existence of lower and higher castes. According to the classical theory of caste hierarchy, caste-professional groups overlap rather than sit side by side on the same level.

There are four castes in India - Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Among them, each preceding one surpasses the next one in origin and status. The legitimate occupations of the Brahmins are education, teaching, performing sacrifices, performing worship, charity, inheritance and harvesting in the fields. The occupations of the kshatriyas are the same, with the exception of teaching and performing worship, and, perhaps, collecting donations. They are also assigned managerial functions and military duties. The legitimate occupations of the Vaisyas are the same as those of the Kshatriyas, with the exception of managerial and military duties. They are distinguished by agriculture, livestock breeding and trade. To serve all three castes is prescribed to the sudra. The higher the caste he serves, the higher his social dignity.

The actual number of castes in India is much higher. And therefore the professional hierarchy between them is extremely essential. In ancient Rome, among the eight guilds, the first three played a significant political role and were of paramount importance from a social point of view, and therefore were hierarchically higher than all the others. Their members made up the first two social classes. This stratification of professional corporations continued in a modified form throughout the history of Rome.

Consider the medieval guilds. Their members were not only stratified within the guilds themselves, but already at the dawn of their formation, more and less privileged guilds were formed. In France they were represented by the so-called "sixth corps", in England - by the trade guild. Among modern occupational groups, there also exists, if not legally, then in fact, interprofessional stratification. The essence of the problem is to determine whether there is any universal principle that underlies interprofessional stratification.

The foundation of interprofessional stratification. Whatever the various temporary bases of interprofessional stratification in different societies, next to these ever-changing bases there are constant and universal bases.

Two conditions, at least, have always been fundamental: 1) the importance of the lesson(professions) for the survival and functioning of the group as a whole, 2) intelligence level necessary for the successful performance of professional duties. Socially significant professions are those that are associated with the functions of organizing and controlling the group. These are people reminiscent of a locomotive driver, on whom the fate of all passengers on the train depends.

Professional groups that carry out the basic functions of social organization and control are placed at the center of the "engine of society." The bad behavior of a soldier may not greatly affect the entire army, the unscrupulous work of one worker has little effect on others, but the action of the army commander or group leader automatically affects the entire army or group whose actions he controls. Moreover, being at the control point of the "social engine", if only by virtue of such an objectively influential position, the corresponding social groups ensure for themselves the maximum of privileges and power in society. This alone explains the correlation between the social significance of a profession and its place in the hierarchy of professional groups. The successful performance of the socio-professional functions of organization and control naturally requires a higher level of intelligence than for any physical work of a routine nature. Accordingly, these two conditions turn out to be closely interrelated: the performance of the functions of organization and control requires a high level of intelligence, and a high level of intelligence is manifested in achievements (directly or indirectly) associated with the organization and control of the group. Thus, we can say that in in any given society, the more professional work lies in the exercise of the functions of organization and control and the higher level of intelligence required for its performance, the greater privilege of the group and the higher rank it occupies in the interprofessional hierarchy, and vice versa.

Four amendments should be added to this rule. First, the general rule does not rule out the possibility of overlapping the upper strata of the lower professional class with the lower strata of the next higher class. Secondly, the general rule does not apply to periods of disintegration of society. At such moments in history, the ratio can be broken. Such periods usually lead to a reversal, after which, if the group does not disappear, the former ratio is quickly restored. Exceptions, however, do not invalidate the rule. Thirdly, the general rule does not exclude deviations. Fourthly, since the concrete historical character of societies is different and their conditions change with time, it is quite natural that the specific content of professional occupations, depending on one or another general situation, changes. In times of war, the functions of social organization and control are to organize victory and military leadership. In peacetime, these functions are different. Such is the general principle of the stratification of occupational classes. Let us present facts confirming this general proposition.

First confirmation. The universal and permanent order is that the professional groups of unskilled workers have always been at the bottom of the professional pyramid. They were servants and serfs, they were the lowest paid workers, they had the least rights, the lowest standard of living, the lowest control function in society.

Second confirmation is that groups of manual workers have always been less paid, less privileged, less powerful than groups of knowledge workers. This fact shows itself in the general tendency of the masses of manual labor towards intellectual professions, while the opposite direction is rarely the result of free choice, but almost always determined by unpleasant necessity. This general hierarchy of mental and physical professions is well expressed in the classification of Professor F. Toussig. It says: at the top of the occupational pyramid we find a group of professions, including high-ranking officials, big businessmen; it is followed by a class of "semi-professionals" of small businessmen and employees; below is the class of "skilled labor"; next comes the class of "semi-skilled labor"; and, finally, the class of "unskilled labour". It is easy to see that this classification is based on the principle of a decrease in the intelligence and controlling power of the profession, simultaneously coinciding with a decrease in wages and a decrease in the social status of the profession in the hierarchy. This state of affairs is confirmed by F. Barr with his "scale of professional status", built from the point of view of the level of intelligence necessary for a satisfactory occupation of the profession. In short form, it gives the following coefficients of intelligence necessary for the satisfactory performance of professional functions (recall that the number of intellectual indicators varies from 0 to 100).

Intelligence indices Professions

0 to 4.29 Odd jobs, itinerant workers, scavenging, repairmen,

Daytime activities, simple farm work, laundry work, etc.

From 5.41 to 6.93 Driver, peddler, shoemaker, hairdresser, etc.

From 7.05 to 10.83 General repairman, cook, farmer, policeman, builder, postman,

Bricklayer, plumber, carpet maker, potter, tailor, telegraph operator.

From 10.86 to 16.28 Detective, clerk, employee of a transport company, foreman, stenographer, bib-

Lyotekar, nurse, editor, primary and secondary school teacher, pharmacist,

University teacher, preacher, doctor, engineer, artist, architect, etc.

From 16.58 to 17.50 Wholesaler, consulting engineer, education system administrator,

Journalist, doctor, publisher, etc.

From 17.81 to 20.71 University professor, big businessman, great musician, nationwide

Officials, prominent writer, prominent researcher, innovator, etc.

The table shows that three variables - the "manual nature" of work, the low level of intelligence required for its performance, and the distant relation to the functions of social organization and control - they are all parallel and interrelated. On the other hand, we observe a similar parallelism among the "intellectual character" of professional work, the high level of intelligence required for its performance, and its connection with the functions of social organization and control. To this we can add that, moving from less "intellectual" to more "intellectual" occupations, there is an increase in the average level of income, despite some partial deviations from the general rule.

Third confirmation inherent in the very nature of the professions of those individuals and groups that make up the highest echelons of society; they have the highest prestige and represent the aristocracy of society. As a rule, the professions of these layers are in the functions of organization and control and, accordingly, require a high level of intelligence.

Such groups and individuals in history were:

1) Leaders, leaders, healers, priests, elders (they were the most privileged in preliterate societies). They, as a rule, were the smartest and most experienced people within the group. Being connected with the business of social organization and control in society, their occupations were higher than the professions of all other members of society. This can be seen from the fact that all the legendary leaders of the primitive tribes, such as Ocnirabata among the tribes of Central Australia, Manco Ccapach and Mama Occlelo among the Incas, To Cabinana among the natives of New Britain, Fu Hi among the Chinese, Moses among the Jews, and many others like them heroes of other nations are portrayed as great teachers, legislators, great innovators, judges - in short, great social organizers.

2) Accordingly, among the many groups, the most privileged were the occupations associated with the priesthood, military leadership, administrative and economic organization, and social control. There is no need to say that all these occupations, under the conditions of that time, had all the characteristics that I have noted above. "The Raja and the Brahmin, who are deeply versed in the Vedas, both maintain the moral order of the world. From the existence of the human race depends on them," says ancient wisdom.

The very survival and further development of society depended on a successful war; also depended on the high appraisal of a skilled leader in this field. The war urgently required leaders with great courage and endurance, with the ability to organize and control others, to make decisions quickly, while carefully considering them, to act decisively, purposefully and effectively.

The profession of a clergyman was no less important and vital for the whole group. The first priests embodied the highest knowledge, experience and wisdom. The clergy was the bearer of medical and natural knowledge, moral, religious and educational control, it was considered the ancestor of the applied sciences and arts; in short, it was the economic, mental, physical, social and moral organizer of society. As for the high position of the rulers in the professional cone of early societies, their "work" was directly related to social organization and control, was essential for the survival of the group.

3) At later stages of development, the aristocratic and intellectual "professions", whatever they were called, became bearers of the same types of activity in various forms of their manifestation. The king or president of the republic, the nobility or dignitaries of the republic, the pope, medieval clergy or modern scholastics, scientists, politicians, inventors, teachers, preachers, teachers and administrators, ancient or modern organizers of agriculture, industry, trade - all these professional groups were at the top of the interprofessional stratification of both past and present societies. Their titles may change, but their social functions remain the same. The functions of the monarch and the president of the republic, the functions of the medieval clergy and modern scientists, the scholastics and the intelligentsia, the functions of past farmers and merchants, modern captains and commerce are essentially similar. They are identical both in essence and in the high position occupied by these professional groups in the hierarchy. Undoubtedly, a high level of intelligence is required for the successful performance of these "works", since they are purely intellectual in nature. There is also no doubt that the successful exercise of these functions is most important for society as a whole. And with the exception of periods of decline, the merits of leaders to society are undeniable. The personal unscrupulousness of some of them is outweighed by the objective results of their organizing and controlling activities. In this regard, J. Fraser is absolutely right, stating: “If we could measure the harm that they cause with their fraud with the good that they bring thanks to their foresight, we would see that good far surpasses evil. There are much more misfortunes brought by honest fools who were in a higher position than clever swindlers.

This simple truth does not seem to be understood by many sociologists until now.

On the other hand, manual labor and a layer of lower clerical professions were considered either "indecent" and "shameful" (especially in the past), or, in any case, were less valuable, less privileged, less paid and less influential professions. Whether it's fair or not doesn't matter. This is the real situation. An explanation for this may be given by the following words of F. Giddings: “We are constantly told that unskilled labor creates the wealth of the world. But it would be closer to the truth to say that large classes of unskilled labor barely provide for their own existence. Workers who do not have the ability to adapt to changing conditions, unable to bring new ideas into their work, not having the slightest idea what to do at a critical moment, are more likely to be identified with the dependent classes than with the creators of the material values ​​​​of society.

Whether this is true or not is difficult to say, but the facts that I noted in the above presentation remain. Their objective existence confirms, firstly, the very existence of interprofessional stratification; secondly, the functioning of the above basic principle of interprofessional hierarchy.

3. Intraprofessional stratification, its forms

The second type of professional stratification is the intraprofessional hierarchy. The members of almost every occupational group are divided into at least three main strata. The first one represents entrepreneurs, or masters who are economically independent in their activities, who are their own "masters" and whose activities consist solely or in part in the organization and control of their "business" and their employees. The second layer is represented employees of the highest category, such as directors, managers, chief engineers, corporate board members, etc.; all of them are not the owners of the "case", the owner is still standing over them; they sell their service and get paid for it; they all play a very important role in the organization of "doing business"; their professional function is not in physical, but in intellectual labor. Third layer - hired workers, who, like high-ranking employees, sell their labor, but cheaper; being mainly manual laborers, they are dependent in their activities. Each of these layers-classes, in turn, is subdivided into many subclasses. Despite the different names of these intraprofessional strata, they have existed and still exist in all more or less developed societies. In a caste society we find them within the same occupational group. For example, among the brahmins: the ranks of disciples, householders, gurus, hermits and other subordinate categories. In the Roman professional associations we find these intraprofessional layers in the form of apprentices, ordinary members, and masters of various ranks. In medieval guilds - in the form of meters, students and apprentices. At present, these strata are represented by entrepreneurs, employees and wage workers. The names, as you can see, are different, but the essence is very similar. Today, in the form of intraprofessional stratification, we have a new form of professional feudalism, which really exists and manifests itself in the most sensitive way both in the difference in wages and in the difference in social status, depending on behavior, success, and very often the happiness of one depends on the will and disposition " owner". If we take the distribution list of any "business association" or the register of any public or government institution, we find a complex hierarchy of ranks and positions in the same enterprise or in the same institution. Suffice it to say that any democratic society is highly stratified: in a new guise, but it is still the same feudal society.

Pitirim Sorokin was among the first sociologists to introduce the concept of "social space". Generally speaking, R. Descartes, T. Hobbes, Leibniz, F. Ratzel, G. Simmel E., Durkheim, R. Park, E. Bogardus, L. von Wiese, E. Spektorsky, P. Sorokin, B Verlaine et al. However, the clearest formulation, and not just a problem statement, belongs to P. Sorokin, which in the book Social mobility»(1927) was the first to express the idea of ​​the possibility and necessity of presenting the whole variety of phenomena occurring in society as placed in social space.

Under the social space, he understands a kind of universe, which consists of people inhabiting the planet Earth. In this universe, each individual occupies a certain place, the position of which is measured in the horizontal and vertical direction. This position of a person, Sorokin calls the social position of a person.

The movement of each person in such a space is also highlighted. This movement, in turn, is subdivided into horizontal and vertical mobility. Movement up is called social ascent, and movement down, on the contrary, social descent.

Having determined the position of a person in social space, Sorokin proceeds to determine social stratification. From his point of view, social stratification is the division of a population according to class, and such division occurs in a hierarchical order. Sorokin notes the existence of higher and lower strata. The basis of stratification according to Sorokin is the difference in the distribution of privileges and rights. Sorokin is also firmly convinced that an unstratified society cannot exist. It uses multi-dimensional stratification, which is divided into three main dimensions:

- economic. Sorokin believes that the economic position of individuals in society is not the same; among them there are the haves and the have-nots, so the economic stratification in society is expressed in the degree of income, the difference in living standards. At the same time, groups of people can fall or, on the contrary, rise in the economic sphere of society.

- Political. It characterizes the degree of influence of the individual on the members of society and society as a whole.

- Professional. This dimension highlights the division of society into groupings of people according to their occupations and activities. Some professions are always considered more prestigious than others.

It follows that in society it is necessary to distinguish people according to such criteria as the level of income, according to the degree of influence of the individual on the members of society, and also according to the criterion of success in fulfilling a particular social role.

In society there is no constant tendency towards universal equality or, conversely, differentiation. At the top of the social pyramid are the most privileged strata, and at the bottom, on the contrary. When the pyramid is too long, up, then with the help of revolutions and upheavals, its top is cut off, and a trapezoid is obtained. But then again there are forces that make the pyramid grow. These processes in society are repeated cyclically.

In essence, there is much here from Marxism, but at the same time Sorokin manages to move away from a rigid binary scheme and present a more differentiated picture of society.

The disadvantage of the approach is the fact that people, not statuses, are located in Sorokin's social space. Describing social space and its derivatives (“geometric and social distance”, “rise in geometric and social space”) in sociological categories, Sorokin did not sociologically describe the main character. For him, this is the population. However, it is known that population is a demographic, not a sociological term.

In essence, the same methodological error is made here that Aristotle admits. We remember that in the view of the Athenian thinker, master and slave are not characteristics of social functions, but absolute definitions of the very nature of different types of a single human race. In other words, a person and the social function to which he is forced by circumstances are identified. Marxist ideology often sins with such an identification, which looks for specific features in any functionary, in any social unit. The same (albeit implicit) identification can be clearly seen in Sorokin's scheme.

Meanwhile, a living person and a subject of sociological research are not the same thing. In a purely sociological aspect, a person is only a kind of shadow that is cast on a specific plane. Therefore, just as all dimensions of the “shadow” are unable to exhaust the characteristics of the object that casts it, social stratification does not give a complete picture of a person. A sociological outline and a personal portrait are often incomparable.

Subsequently, we will see that a person as a whole cannot be represented at all as an indivisible point in such a social space. Its integrity (below we will talk about the status set) will be violated, and many of the key definitions of a living personality will be scattered across its various areas.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Report

The concept of social stratification by P. Sorokin

Introduction

sociology sorokin stratification

Human society at all stages of its development was characterized by inequality. Structured inequalities between different groups of people sociologists call stratification.

For a more precise definition of this concept, one can cite the words of Pitirim Sorokin: “Social stratification is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and obligations, the presence and absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community. Specific forms of social stratification are varied and numerous. However, all their diversity can be reduced to three main forms: economic, political and professional stratification. As a rule, they are all closely intertwined.

"Social stratification is a constant characteristic of any organized society."

“Social stratification begins with Weber's distinction between more traditional societies based on status (for example, societies based on prescribed categories such as class and caste, slavery, whereby inequality is sanctioned by law) and polarized but more diffuse societies based on basically classes (which is typical of the modern West), where personal achievement plays a big role, where economic differentiation is of paramount importance and is more impersonal.

The study of social stratification has a long history dating back to the middle of the 19th century. (works by Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill), which includes a serious contribution of researchers of the early twentieth century. - from V. Pareto (who proposed the theory of "elite circulation") to P. Sorokin.

Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin (1889-1968), one of the largest representatives of social thought of the 20th century, was one of the founders of the theory of social stratification of society. Social stratification, according to the views of P.A. Sorokin is a constant characteristic of any organized society. Changing in form, social stratification existed, as this prominent sociologist believed, in all societies that proclaimed the equality of people. Feudalism and oligarchy, according to his views, continue to exist in science and art, politics and management, among criminals and in democracies - everywhere.

For Sorokin, as for many researchers before and after him, the ahistorical dynamism of social stratification is obvious. The outline and height of economic, political or professional stratification are timeless characteristics and normative features of stratification. Their temporal fluctuations do not carry a unidirectional movement either in the direction of increasing social distance, or in the direction of its reduction.

Thus, P.A. Sorokin is one of the founders of the modern sociological theory of social stratification, which is why a thorough analysis of the main provisions of his theory is so important in the light of his scientific views and historical reality, of which he was a participant.

1. BriefbiographyP.Sorokin

Sorokin Pitirim Alexandrovich (1889-1968) - American sociologist and culturologist. Born on January 23 (February 4), 1889 in the village of Turya, Yarensky district of the Vologda province of the Russian Empire (Komi Territory), in the family of a rural craftsman. He graduated from the law faculty of St. Petersburg University (1914), and was left at the university to prepare for a professorship (since January 1917 - Privatdozent). In 1906-1918, a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (Socialist-Revolutionaries), before the February Revolution, he participated in the Socialist-Revolutionary agitation, was arrested. After the February Revolution, deputy of the 1st All-Russian Congress of Peasants' Deputies, secretary (together with a friend of his youth N.D. Kondratiev) of the head of the Provisional Government A.F. Kerensky, Member of the Pre-Parliament. After the October Revolution in 1917-1918, he participated in anti-Bolshevik organizations; conducts agitation against the new government, is arrested. At the end of 1918, he retired from political activity. In 1919, he became one of the organizers of the department of sociology at St. Petersburg University, professor of sociology at the Agricultural Academy and the Institute of National Economy. In 1920, together with I.P. Pavlov founded the Society for Objective Studies of Human Behavior. In 1921 he worked at the Institute of the Brain, at the Historical and Sociological Institutes. In 1922 he was expelled from Soviet Russia. In 1923 he worked at the Russian University in Prague. In 1924 he moved to the USA. In 1924-1930 professor at the University of Minnesota, from 1930 until the end of his life - professor at Harvard University, where in 1930 he organized the Department of Sociology, and in 1931 - the Department of Sociology.

The main works of P.A. Sorokina: “Remnants of animism among the Zyryans” (1910), “Marriage in the old days: (polyandry and polygamy)” (1913), “Crime and its causes” (1913), “Suicide as a social phenomenon” (1913), “Symbols in social life", "Crime and Punishment, Feat and Reward" (1913), "Social Analytics and Social Mechanics" (1919), "System of Sociology" (1920), "Sociology of Revolution" (1925), "Social Mobility" (1927 ), "Social and cultural dynamics" (1937-1941), "Society, culture and personality: their structure and dynamics; system of general sociology" (1947), "The Restoration of Humanity" (1948), "Altruistic Love" (1950), "Social Philosophies in an Age of Crisis" (1950), "The Meaning of Our Crisis" (1951), "The Ways and Power of Love" (1954), Integralism is My Philosophy (1957), Power and Morality (1959), Mutual Convergence of the United States and the USSR to a Mixed Socio-Cultural Type (1960), Long Road. Autobiography" (1963), "The main trends of our time" (1964), "Sociology yesterday, today and tomorrow" (1968).

Scientific interests of P.A. Sorokin covered a truly huge layer of problems in the study of society and culture.

According to P.A. Sorokin, attempts to radically crush social differentiation only led to the belittling of social forms, to the quantitative and qualitative decomposition of sociality.

Sorokin considered historical reality as a hierarchy of variously integrated cultural and social systems. Sorokin's idealistic concept is based on the idea of ​​the priority of a superorganic system of values, meanings, "pure cultural systems", which are carried by individuals and institutions. The historical process, according to Sorokin, is a fluctuation of the types of cultures, each of which has a specific integrity and is based on several main philosophical premises (the idea of ​​the nature of reality, the methods of its cognition).

Sorokin criticized the prevailing empirical trend in the United States and developed the doctrine of an "integral" sociology, covering all the sociological aspects of a broadly understood culture. Social reality was considered by P.A. Sorokin in the spirit of social realism, postulating the existence of a supra-individual socio-cultural reality, irreducible to material reality and endowed with a system of meanings. Characterized by an infinite variety that surpasses any of its individual manifestations, sociocultural reality embraces the truths of feelings, rational intellect and suprarational intuition.

All these methods of cognition should be used in the systematic study of sociocultural phenomena, however, Sorokin considered the intuition of a highly gifted person to be the highest method of cognition, with the help of which, in his opinion, all great discoveries were made. Sorokin distinguished systems of sociocultural phenomena of many levels. The highest of them is formed by sociocultural systems, the scope of which extends to many societies (supersystems).

Sorokin identifies three main types of culture: sensual - it is dominated by direct sensory perception of reality; ideational, in which rational thinking prevails; idealistic - the intuitive method of cognition dominates here.

2. The main forms of stratification and the relationship between them

The specific aspects of social stratification are numerous. However, all their diversity can be reduced to three main forms: economic, political and professional stratification. As a rule, they are all closely intertwined. People who belong to the highest stratum in one respect usually belong to the same stratum in other respects, and vice versa. Representatives of the highest economic strata simultaneously belong to the highest political and professional strata. The poor, as a rule, are disenfranchised and are in the lower strata of the professional hierarchy. This is the general rule, although there are many exceptions. So, for example, the richest are not always at the top of the political or professional pyramid, and the poor do not always occupy the lowest places in the political and professional hierarchy. And this means that the interdependence of the three forms of social stratification is far from perfect, because the various layers of each of the forms do not completely coincide with each other. Rather, they coincide with each other, but only partially, that is, to a certain extent. This fact does not allow us to analyze all three main forms of social stratification together. For greater pedantry, it is necessary to analyze each of the forms separately.

Economic stratification

Speaking about the economic status of a certain group, two main types of fluctuations should be distinguished. The first refers to the economic decline or rise of the group; the second - to the growth or reduction of economic stratification within the group itself. The first phenomenon is expressed in the economic enrichment or impoverishment of social groups as a whole; the second is expressed in a change in the economic profile of the group or in an increase or decrease in the height, so to speak, of steepness, of the economic pyramid. Accordingly, there are the following two types of fluctuations in the economic status of a society:

1. Fluctuation of the economic status of the group as a whole:

a) an increase in economic well-being;

b) a decrease in the latter.

2. Fluctuations in the height and profile of economic stratification within society:

a) the rise of the economic pyramid;

b) flattening of the economic pyramid.

The hypotheses of a constant height and profile of economic stratification and its growth in the 19th century are not confirmed. The most correct is the hypothesis of fluctuations in economic stratification from group to group, and within the same group - from one period of time to another. In other words, there are cycles in which increasing economic inequality is replaced by its weakening. Some periodicity is possible in these fluctuations, but for various reasons its existence has not yet been proven by anyone. Except in the early stages of economic evolution, marked by increasing economic stratification, there is no consistent direction in the fluctuations in the height and form of economic stratification. No strict trend towards a decrease in economic inequality was found; there are no serious grounds for recognizing the existence of an opposite trend. Under normal social conditions, the economic cone of a developed society fluctuates within certain limits. Its shape is relatively constant. Under extreme circumstances, these limits may be violated, and the profile of economic stratification may become either very flat or very convex and high. In both cases, this situation is short-lived. And if the "economically flat" society does not perish, then the "flatness" is quickly replaced by increased economic stratification. If economic inequality becomes too strong and reaches a point of overstrain, then the top of society is destined to collapse or be overthrown.

Thus, in any society at any time there is a struggle between the forces of stratification and the forces of equalization. The former work constantly and steadily, the latter - spontaneously, impulsively, using violent methods.

Political stratification

So, as already noted, the universality and constancy of political stratification does not mean at all that it has always and everywhere been identical. Now the following problems should be discussed: a) does the profile and height of political stratification change from group to group, from one period of time to another; b) whether there are established limits for these fluctuations; c) frequency of oscillations; d) whether there is an eternally constant direction of these changes. In revealing all these questions, we must be extremely careful not to fall under the spell of eloquent eloquence. The problem is very complex. And it should be approached gradually, step by step. Changes top of the political stratification. Let's simplify the situation: for starters, let's take only the upper part of the political pyramid, which consists of free members of society. Let's leave for a while without attention all those layers that are below this level (servants, slaves, serfs, etc.). At the same time we will not consider: By whom? How? For what period? For what reasons? Different layers of the political pyramid are involved. Now the subject of our interest is the height and profile of the political edifice inhabited by the free members of society: whether there is a constant tendency in its changes to "level" (that is, to reduce the height and relief of the pyramid) or in the direction of "raise". The generally accepted opinion is in favor of the "leveling" trend. People tend to take it for granted that there is an iron trend in history towards political equality and towards the destruction of political "feudalism" and hierarchy. Such a judgment is typical of the present moment. As G. Vollas rightly noted, “the political creed of the masses of people is not the result of reflections verified by experience, but a collection of unconscious or semi-conscious assumptions put forward out of habit. What is closer to reason is closer to the past, and how a stronger impulse allows you to quickly come to a conclusion. As for the height of the upper part of the political pyramid, my arguments are as follows. Among primitive tribes and at the early stages of the development of civilization, political stratification was insignificant and imperceptible. A few leaders, a layer of influential elders - and, perhaps, everything that was located above the layer of the rest of the free population. The political form of such a social organism somehow, only remotely, resembled a sloping and low pyramid. It rather approached a rectangular parallelepiped with a barely protruding elevation at the top. With the development and growth of social relations, in the process of unification of the originally independent tribes, in the process of natural demographic growth of the population, political stratification intensified, and the number of different ranks increased rather than decreased. The political cone began to grow, but did not even out. The same can be said about the earliest stages in the development of modern European peoples, about ancient Greek and Roman societies. Regardless of the further political evolution of all these societies, it seems obvious that their political hierarchy will never become as flat as it was in the early stages of the development of civilization. If this is the case, then it would be impossible to admit that in the history of political stratification there has been a constant trend towards political "levelling". The second argument is that, whether we take the history of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, or modern European societies, it does not show that over time the pyramid of the political hierarchy becomes lower and the political cone flatter. In the history of Rome during the period of the republic, instead of several ranks of the archaic period, we see the highest pyramid of different ranks and titles, overlapping each other even in terms of privilege. Something similar is happening today. Specialists in constitutional law rightly point out that the US president clearly has more political rights than the European constitutional monarch. The execution of orders given by high officials to their subordinates, by generals to the lowest military ranks, is as categorical and obligatory as in any non-democratic country. Compliance with the orders of an officer of the highest rank in the American army is as mandatory as in any other army. There are differences in recruitment methods, but this does not mean that the political building of modern democracies is flat or less stratified than the political building of many non-democratic countries. Thus, as far as the political hierarchy among citizens is concerned, there is no tendency in political evolution towards a lowering or flattening of the cone. Despite the various methods of recruiting upper class members in modern democracies, the political cone is now as high and stratified as at any other time, and certainly higher than in many less developed societies. But this assertion is in no way supported by anything. “All that we see is “chaotic”, undirected, “blind” fluctuations, leading neither to an increase nor to a weakening of political stratification ...

Consequences of political stratification:

1. The height of the profile of political stratification varies from country to country, from one period of time to another.

2. In these changes there is no constant tendency either to equalization or to an elevation of stratification.

3. There is no constant trend of transition from monarchy to republic, from autocracy to democracy, from minority rule to majority rule, from the absence of government intervention in society to comprehensive state control. There are also no reverse trends.

4. Among the many social forces contributing to political stratification, an important role is played by the increase in the size of the political body and the heterogeneity of the composition of the population.

5. The profile of political stratification is more mobile, and it fluctuates more widely, more often and more impulsively than the profile of economic stratification.

6. In any society there is a constant struggle between the forces of political alignment and the forces of stratification. Sometimes one force wins, sometimes another prevails. When the fluctuation of the profile in one of the directions becomes too strong and sharp, then the opposing forces increase their pressure in various ways and bring the stratification profile to the point of equilibrium.

Occupational stratification

Includes professional and interprofessional stratification. The existence of occupational stratification is established from two main groups of facts. It is obvious that certain occupational classes have always constituted the upper social strata, while other occupational groups have always been at the bottom of the social cone. The most important occupational classes do not lie horizontally, that is, on the same social level, but, so to speak, overlap each other. Secondly, the phenomenon of professional stratification is also found within each professional sphere. Whether we take the field of agriculture, or industry, trade or management or any other professions, people employed in these areas are stratified into many ranks and levels: from the upper ranks, which exercise control, to the lower ranks, which are controlled and which are subordinate to their hierarchy in hierarchy. "directors", "authorities", "managers", "chiefs", etc. Occupational stratification thus appears in these two main forms: 1) in the form of a hierarchy of major occupational groups (interprofessional stratification) and 2) in the form of stratification within each occupational class (professional stratification).

It should be noted that whatever the various temporary foundations of interprofessional stratification in different societies, next to these ever-changing foundations, there are constant and universal foundations. Two conditions, at least, have always been fundamental: 1) the importance of the occupation (profession) for the survival and functioning of the group as a whole, 2) the level of intelligence necessary for the successful performance of professional duties.

Professional groups that carry out the basic functions of social organization and control are placed at the center of the “engine of society”. The bad behavior of a soldier may not greatly affect the entire army, the unscrupulous work of one worker has little effect on others, but the action of the army commander or group leader automatically affects the entire army or group whose actions he controls. Moreover, being at the control point of the "social engine", if only by virtue of such an objectively influential position, the corresponding social groups ensure for themselves the maximum privileges and power in society. This alone explains the correlation between the social significance of a profession and its place in the hierarchy of professional groups. The successful performance of the socio-professional functions of organization and control naturally requires a higher level of intelligence than for any physical work of a routine nature. Accordingly, these two conditions turn out to be closely interrelated: the performance of the functions of organization and control requires a high level of intelligence, and a high level of intelligence is manifested in achievements (directly or indirectly) associated with the organization and control of the group.

Thus it can be said that in any given society the more professional work lies in the exercise of the functions of organization and control, and in the higher level of intelligence necessary for its performance, in the greater privilege of the group and in the higher rank it occupies in the interprofessional hierarchy, and vice versa. Four amendments should be added to this rule. First, the general rule does not rule out the possibility of overlapping the upper strata of the lower professional class with the lower strata of the next higher class. Secondly, the general rule does not apply to periods of disintegration of society. At such moments in history, the ratio can be broken. Such periods usually lead to a reversal, after which, if the group does not disappear, the former ratio is quickly restored. Exceptions, however, do not invalidate the rule. Thirdly, the general rule does not exclude deviations. Fourthly, since the concrete historical character of societies is different and their conditions change with time, it is quite natural that the specific content of professional occupations, depending on one or another general situation, changes.

3. Systems of social stratification

Regardless of the forms that social stratification takes, its existence is universal. Four main systems of social stratification are known: slavery, castes, clans and classes. Let's consider each of these types of systems separately.

Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and an extreme degree of inequality.

Main causes of slavery

An essential feature of slavery is the possession of some people by others. Both the ancient Romans and the ancient Africans had slaves. In ancient Greece, slaves were engaged in physical labor, thanks to which free citizens had the opportunity to express themselves in politics and the arts. Slavery was least typical of nomadic peoples, especially hunter-gatherers, and most prevalent in agrarian societies.

Usually point to three causes of slavery. First, a debt obligation, when a person who was unable to pay his debts fell into slavery to his creditor. Secondly, the violation of laws, when the execution of a murderer or a robber was replaced by slavery, i.e. the culprit was handed over to the affected family as compensation for the grief or damage caused. Thirdly, war, raids, conquest, when one group of people conquered another and the winners used some of the captives as slaves.

Basic conditions of slavery

Conditions of slavery and slaveholding varied significantly in different regions of the world. In some countries, slavery was a temporary condition of a person: having worked for his master for the allotted time, the slave became free and had the right to return to his homeland. Thus, the Israelites freed their slaves in the year of Jubilee, every 50 years. Slaves in ancient Rome generally had the ability to buy their freedom; in order to collect the amount necessary for the ransom, they entered into a deal with their master and sold their services to other people (this is exactly what some educated Greeks who fell into slavery to the Romans did). However, in many cases, slavery was for life; in particular, criminals sentenced to life work were turned into slaves and worked on Roman galleys as rowers until their death.

Not everywhere the status of a slave was inherited. In ancient Mexico, the children of slaves were always free people. But in most countries, the children of slaves automatically also became slaves, although in some cases the child of a slave who served all his life in a rich family was adopted by this family, he received the surname of his masters and could become one of the heirs along with the rest of the children of the masters. As a rule, slaves had neither property nor power. However, for example, in ancient Rome, slaves had the opportunity to accumulate some kind of property and even achieve a high position in society.

Slavery in the New World originates from the indentured service of Europeans. This service in the New World was a cross between a labor contract and slavery.

Many Europeans who decided to start a new life in the American colonies were unable to pay for a ticket. The captains of ships sailing for America agreed to carry such passengers on credit, provided that after their arrival there would be someone who would pay their debt to the captain. Thus, the poor got the opportunity to get to the American colonies, the captain received payment for their transportation, and wealthy colonists received free servants for a certain period.

General characteristics of slavery

Although slaveholding practices varied in different regions and in different eras, but regardless of whether slavery was the result of unpaid debt, punishment, military captivity or racial prejudice; whether it was permanent or temporary; hereditary or not, the slave was still the property of another person, and the system of laws secured the status of a slave. Slavery served as the main distinction between people, clearly indicating which person is free (and legally receives certain privileges) and which is a slave (without privileges).

There are two forms of slavery:

patriarchal slavery - a slave had all the rights of a younger member of the family: he lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free people; it was forbidden to kill him;

classical slavery - the slave was finally enslaved; he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not enter into marriage and had no family, he was considered the property of the owner.

Slavery is the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the property of another, and when the lower stratum is deprived of all rights and freedoms.

A caste is a social group (stratum), membership in which a person owes solely to his birth. The achieved status is not able to change the place of the individual in this system. People who are born into a low-status group will always have this status, no matter what they personally manage to achieve in life.

Societies that are characterized by this form of stratification strive for a clear preservation of the boundaries between castes, therefore endogamy is practiced here - marriages within their own group - and there is a ban on intergroup marriages. To prevent inter-caste contact, such societies develop complex rules regarding ritual purity, according to which it is considered that communication with members of the lower castes defiles the higher caste.

A clan is a clan or a kindred group connected by economic and social ties.

The clan system is typical of agrarian societies. In such a system, each individual is associated with an extensive social network of relatives - a clan. The clan is something like a very extended family and has similar features: if the clan has a high status, the individual belonging to this clan has the same status; all funds belonging to the clan, whether meager or rich, belong equally to each member of the clan; loyalty to the clan is a lifelong obligation of each of its members.

Clans are also reminiscent of castes: belonging to a clan is determined by birth and is lifelong. However, unlike castes, marriages between different clans are quite allowed; they can even be used to create and strengthen alliances between clans, since the obligations that marriage imposes on spouses' relatives can unite members of two clans. The processes of industrialization and urbanization turn clans into more fluid groups, eventually replacing clans with social classes.

Class - a large social group of people who do not own the means of production, occupying a certain place in the system of social division of labor and characterized by a specific way of generating income.

The main characteristic of this system of social stratification is the relative flexibility of its boundaries. The class system leaves room for social mobility, i.e. to move up or down the social ladder. Having the potential to improve one's social position, or class, is one of the main driving forces.

Conclusion

Social stratification has always been one of the main topics of P. Sorokin's scientific research. Today, the problems of social stratification are very relevant, since we have the opportunity every day to observe the processes of transition from one social stratum to another, changes in the social space of an individual. According to Pitirim Sorokin, a person moves up the social ladder thanks to his talent and abilities. Unfortunately, in our life everything is completely different. The dominant role is occupied by money, today they are the main channel of vertical circulation.

The works of Pitirim Sorokin on social stratification are important for the history of Russian sociology. He touched on the most important problems of society, which no one had touched before him. Pitirim Sorokin is one of the most important Russian sociologists, whose works continue to be of great importance not only in Russian, but also abroad in modern sociology.

P. Sorokin belongs to that rare type of scientists whose name becomes a symbol of the science he has chosen. In the West, he has long been recognized as one of the classics of the 20th century, standing on a par with O. Comte, G. Spencer, M. Weber.

Indeed, this Russian-American sociologist made an enormous contribution to the development of social thought and to the development of sociology as a science of society.

Social stratification expresses the social heterogeneity of society, the inequality that exists in it, the unequal social status of people and their groups. Social stratification is understood as the process and result of the differentiation of society into various social groups (strata, strata) that differ in their social status. The criteria for dividing society into strata can be very diverse, moreover, both objective and subjective. But most often today, profession, income, property, participation in power, education, prestige, self-esteem of the individual of his social position are singled out. According to researchers, the middle class of a modern industrial society determines the stability of the social system and at the same time provides it with dynamism, since the middle class is primarily a highly productive and highly skilled, initiative and enterprising worker. Russia is classified as a mixed type of stratification. Our middle class is in its infancy, and this process is of key and broad significance for the formation of a new social structure.

List of used literature

1. Novikova S. "History of the development of sociology", Moscow-Voronezh, 2006

2. Sorokin P.A. "Social stratification and mobility", 2007

3. Sorokin P.A. “Man. Civilization. Society” (Series “Thinkers of the 20th century”), M., 2004

4. Sorokin P.A. "Public textbook of sociology", Nauka, 2007

5. Sorokin P.A. "System of sociology", volume 2, M., 2006

6. Sociological Dictionary / otv. ed. G.V. Osipov, L.N. Moskvichev; С69 account secret O.E. Chernoshchek. - M.: Norma, 2008. - 608 p.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

The origins of the sociological ideas of P. Sorokin. Essence of social stratification P. Sorokina. Modern approaches to social stratification. Conditions for the integration of social phenomena into a single social system. Social stratification and mobility in society.

term paper, added 01/26/2016


Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin is a Russian-American sociologist and culturologist, professor at Harvard University, one of the founders of the theories of social stratification and social mobility, his contribution to the development of sociology as a science of society.

abstract, added 12/20/2011


Socialization as a process of personality formation, its purpose. Views on its understanding and stages of passage in various sociological concepts. The theory of social stratification by Pitirim Sorokin. The main types, types and forms of social mobility.

test, added 03/27/2010


Stratification concepts, social differentiation of populations into classes in a hierarchical rank. The main forms of stratification and the relationship between them, the causes of social inequality. The ratio of inequality, equality and justice.

abstract, added 11/17/2010


The life path and general characteristics of the work of the Russian-American sociologist P. Sorokin. The main ideas of the work "Sociology of revolutions". A law formulated by a scientist for a society in a crisis period. The concept of social stratification and mobility.

abstract, added 04/09/2009


Youth, revolutionary activity, student years. Scientific and teaching activities. social mobility. The concept of social mobility, its forms. Intensity (or speed) and generality of vertical social mobility.

abstract, added 01/19/2006


The essence and analysis of the sources of social stratification. Systems and typologies of classes in society. Description of the features of the stratification processes of modern Russian society. Studying the problem of social mobility, its types, forms and factors.

term paper, added 07/18/2014


A picture of the social differentiation of society on the basis of professional affiliation, income level, education; foundations of the modern approach to the study of social stratification. The evolution of the social stratification of Western societies and their role in the world.

control work, added 10/20/2010


The geological concept of "stratification" (Earth layers along the vertical) in sociology: structured inequalities between groups of people, differentiation of the total population into classes in a hierarchical rank. Stratification term and social strata (strata).

abstract, added 03/25/2009


The essence of social inequality and stratification, which is understood as the unequal opportunities for people to satisfy their needs and achieve their goals. The concept of social mobility. Basic approaches to the analysis of the social structure of society.