The article “Some Principles of Stratification” by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore contributes to my understanding of social class by explaining the functional relevance of social stratification in society. The authors observe that stratification is a consequence of society’s need to place different members in specific positions and to motivate them sufficiently to perform the duties pertaining to their respective positions (Tumin, 1953). This observation reveals two facts about social class: one, that social stratification is necessary for the efficient functioning of society, and two, that stratification is not a social ill that must be eliminated.
The conclusion that follows from this understanding of social class is that society must, as a matter of necessity, be stratified into different classes. The article demonstrates the significance of it by highlighting the existence of certain functions that must be fulfilled, even if they do not bring prestige to those who perform them (Tumin, 1953). For example, there is a need for soldiers, farm laborers, morgue workers, cleaners, and other lowly paid servants.
In his critical response, Melvin Tumin agrees with Davis and Moore, by noting that stratification is not a new phenomenon nor limited to a specific community. He states that stratification is marked by its “ubiquity and antiquity” (Tumin, 1953, p. 387), suggesting that the existence of social inequalities in society is both universal and as old as human society. The implication of this observation is that society has always been stratified, and it is not something unique to modern capitalism.
Although the author does not state why he has such views, one might speculate that he relied on his knowledge of history and observations on how human societies function. For instance, he states that all past societies had social classes. Additionally, he is aware that for society to function efficiently, each member must perform specific duties.
Reference
Tumin, M. M. (1953). Some principles of stratification: A critical analysis. American Sociological Review, 18(4), 387–394.