The main criteria for the allocation of social strata are. Social stratification: concept, criteria and types

Different sociologists explain the causes of social inequality and, consequently, social stratification in different ways.

In the Marxist school of sociology, inequality is based on: property relations, the nature, degree and form of ownership of the means of production.

According to the functionalists (K. Davis, W. Moore), the distribution of individuals across social strata depends on the importance of their professional activities and the contribution that they make with their work to achieve the goals of society. Proponents of the exchange theory (J. Homans) believe that inequality in society arises due to the unequal exchange of the results of human activity.

A number of classic sociologists considered the problem of stratification more broadly. For example, M. Weber, in addition to economic (attitude to property and income level), additionally proposed such criteria as social prestige (inherited and acquired status) and belonging to certain political circles, hence power, authority and influence.

One of the creators of the theory of stratification, P. Sorokin, identified three types of stratification structures:

§ economic(according to the criteria of income and wealth);

§ political(according to the criteria of influence and power);

§ professional(according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).

The founder of structural functionalism T. Parsons proposed three groups of differentiating features:

§ qualitative characteristics of people that they possess from birth (ethnicity, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities and abilities);

§ role characteristics determined by a set of roles performed by an individual in society (education, position, various types of professional labor activity);

§ characteristics due to the possession of material and spiritual values (wealth, property, privileges, the ability to influence and manage other people, etc.).

In modern sociology, it is customary to distinguish the following main criteria for social stratification:

§ income - the amount of cash receipts for a certain period (month, year);

§ wealth - accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or embodied money (in the second case, they act in the form of movable or immovable property);

§ power - the ability and opportunity to exercise one's will, to exert a decisive influence on the activities of other people with the help of various means(authority, rights, violence, etc.). Power is measured by the number of people it extends to;

§ education - a set of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the learning process. The level of education is measured by the number of years of education;

§ prestige- public assessment of the attractiveness, significance of a particular profession, position, a certain type of occupation.

Despite the variety of different models of social stratification currently existing in sociology, most scientists distinguish three main classes: the highest, the middle and the lowest.

In a number of cases, sociologists make a certain division within each class. Thus, the American sociologist W.L. Warner (1898-1970), in his famous study of Yankee City, identified six classes:

§ upper-upper class (representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties with significant resources of power, wealth and prestige);

§ lower-upper class (“new rich” - bankers, politicians who do not have a noble origin and did not have time to create powerful role-playing clans);

§ upper-middle class (successful businessmen, lawyers, entrepreneurs, scientists, managers, doctors, engineers, journalists, cultural and artistic figures);

§ lower-middle class (employees - engineers, clerks, secretaries, employees and other categories, which are commonly called "white collars");

§ upper-lower class (workers engaged mainly in physical labor);

§ lower-lower class (beggars, unemployed, homeless, foreign workers, declassed elements).

There are other schemes of social stratification. But they all boil down to the following: non-basic classes arise by adding strata and layers that are inside one of the main classes - rich, wealthy and poor.

Thus, social stratification is based on natural and social inequality between people, which manifests itself in their social life and has a hierarchical character. It is sustainably supported and regulated by various social institutions, constantly reproduced and modified, which is important condition functioning and development of any society.

34. Social mobility. Types of social mobility.

The term "social mobility" was introduced by P. Sorokin. He called social mobility the transition of an individual between different levels social hierarchy defined in terms of broad professional or social-class categories. That is, mobility is a transition from one social position to another in social space.

There are two main types of social mobility - intergenerational and intragenerational, and two main types - vertical and horizontal.

Intergenerational mobility implies that children achieve a higher social position or fall to a lower rung than their parents.

Intragenerational mobility means that the same individual, beyond comparison with parents, changes social positions several times throughout his life.

Vertical mobility implies moving from one stratum to another, i.e. movement leading to an increase or decrease in social status.

Depending on the direction of movement, vertical mobility can be upward and downward.

Horizontal mobility implies the movement of an individual from one social group to another without raising or lowering social status.

Variety horizontal mobility serves as geographic mobility.

Distinguish individual mobility- movements down, up or horizontally occur for each person independently of others, and group mobility - movements occur collectively.

Types of social mobility can be distinguished according to other criteria:

1. by range;

2. by quantitative indicator;

3. according to the degree of organization:

The study of social mobility is carried out using two systems of indicators. In the first, the individual acts as the unit of account. The main indicators are the volume of mobility (absolute and relative, aggregate and differentiated) and the degree of mobility. The volume of mobility shows the number of individuals who have moved up the social ladder in a vertical direction in a certain period of time. The degree of mobility is determined by two factors: the range of mobility (the number of statuses in a given society) and the conditions that allow people to move. So the maximum mobility is always observed in society during any social and economic transformations. Mobility also depends on historical type stratification.

The second unit of reference is the status. In this case, the volume of mobility (the number of people who changed their status) describes its direction. The measure of mobility is the step of mobility (distance), which shows the number of steps that the individual has moved in the vertical direction. It can be intergenerational and intragenerational, interclass and intraclass.

P.A. Sorokin developed the theory of vertical mobility channels. Social institutions act as such channels: family, school, army, church, property. Moreover, the family and school are one of the most important mechanisms of social selection, determination and inheritance of status.

35. Marginality as a social phenomenon

Marginality is a characteristic of phenomena arising as a result of interaction different cultures, social communities, structures, as a result of which part social actors appears outside of them.

Introduced into science by R. Park, this concept served to study the situation of migrants, mulattoes and other "cultural hybrids", their lack of adaptation in the conditions of various conflicting cultures.

R. Merton defined marginality as a specific case of the theory of the reference (reference) group: marginality characterizes the moment when an individual seeks membership in a positive reference group for him, which is not inclined to accept him. This ratio implies double identification, incomplete socialization and lack of social affiliation.

T. Shibutani considers marginality in the context of the socialization of the individual in a changing society. The central point in understanding marginality here is the dominance of social changes, the transformation of the social structure, leading to the temporary destruction of harmony. As a result, a person finds himself in the face of several reference (reference) groups with different, often conflicting requirements that cannot be satisfied simultaneously. This is the difference from the situation in a stable society, when the reference groups in the life of an individual reinforce each other.

The direction of the study of marginality is also approved as a state of social exclusion (or incomplete inclusion), a position in the social structure characterized by a high distance in relation to the dominant culture of the "main society" ("on the edge" of society).

The following types of marginality are called:
- cultural marginality (cross-cultural contacts and assimilation);
- marginality of the social role (contradictions of being assigned to a positive reference group, etc.);
- Structural marginality (vulnerable, powerless position in political, social and economic terms of a group in society).

There are two main approaches to the consideration of marginality. Marginality as a contradiction, an indefinite state in the process of mobility of a group or individual (change of status); marginality as a characteristic of a special marginal (marginal, intermediate, isolated) position of groups and individuals in the social structure.

The originality of approaches to the definition of marginality and understanding its essence is largely determined by the specifics of a particular social reality and the forms that this phenomenon takes on in it.

Conceptual developments of the concept of "marginality" have led to the emergence of a set of related concepts.

The marginal zone is those sections of social reality where the most intense and significant changes in the structure of relationships, positions, and lifestyles take place.

A marginal situation is a complex and structure of factors that generate and reinforce the state of marginality of an individual or group.

Marginal status is a position of intermediateness, uncertainty in which an individual or group falls under the influence of a marginal situation.

Marginal - a person who is on the border of various social groups, communities, cultures that come into conflict with them, being not accepted by any of them as a full member.

A marginal personality is a complex of psychological traits that characterize a person in a situation of uncertainty associated with the transition from one group to another and aggravated by the contradictions of a social role conflict.

Marginal group - a group in society, united by common criteria that characterize its marginal or transitional position (ethnic, territorial, professional, racial, etc.)

Among the marginals there may be ethnomarginals: national minorities; bio-marginals, whose health ceases to be the concern of society; social marginals, such as groups in the process of incomplete social displacement; age marginals, formed when ties between generations are broken; political marginals: they are not satisfied with legal opportunities and legitimate rules of socio-political struggle; economic marginals of the traditional type (the unemployed) and the so-called "new poor"; religious outcasts - standing outside confessions or not daring to make a choice between them; and, finally, criminal outcasts; and perhaps also simply those whose status in the social structure is not defined.

The emergence of new marginal groups is associated with structural changes in post-industrial societies and mass downward social. mobility of heterogeneous groups of specialists losing their jobs, professional positions, status, living conditions.

36. Social stratification and mobility

Under the social (stratification) structure is understood the stratification and hierarchical organization of various strata of society, as well as the totality of institutions and the relationship between them. The term "stratification" originates from Latin word stratum - layers, layer. Strata are large groups of people who differ in their position in the social structure of society.

All scientists agree that the basis of the stratification structure of society is the natural and social inequality of people. However, on the question of what exactly is the criterion for this inequality, their opinions differ. Studying the process of stratification in society, K. Marx called the fact that a person owns property and the level of his income as such a criterion. M. Weber added to them the social prestige and belonging of the subject to political parties, to power. Pitirim Sorokin considered the cause of stratification to be the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties in society. He also argued that the social space also has many other criteria for differentiation: it can be carried out according to citizenship, occupation, nationality, religious affiliation, etc. Finally, supporters of the theory of structural functionalism proposed as a criterion to rely on those social functions that certain social strata in society.

Historically, stratification, i.e., inequality in income, power, prestige, etc., arises with the birth of human society. With the advent of the first states, it becomes tougher, and then, in the process of development of society (primarily European), it gradually softens.

In sociology, four main types of social stratification are known - slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies, and the last type - open ones.

The first system of social stratification is slavery, which arose in antiquity and still persists in some backward regions. There are two forms of slavery: patriarchal, in which the slave has all the rights of a junior family member, and classical, in which the slave has no rights and is considered the property of the owner (a talking tool). Slavery was based on direct violence, and social groups in the era of slavery were distinguished by the presence or absence of civil rights.

The second system of social stratification should be recognized as caste build. A caste is a social group (stratum) in which membership is transferred to a person only by birth. The transition of a person from one caste to another during his lifetime is impossible - for this he needs to be born again. India is a classic example of a caste society. In India, there are four main castes, descended, according to legend, from various parts of the god Brahma:

a) brahmins - priests;

b) kshatriyas - warriors;

c) vaishyas - merchants;

d) Shudras - peasants, artisans, workers.

A special position is occupied by the so-called untouchables, who do not belong to any caste and occupy a lower position.

following form stratifications make up estates. An estate is a group of people who have rights and obligations enshrined in law or custom, which are inherited.

Finally, another stratification system is the class system. The most complete definition of classes in the scientific literature was given by V. I. Lenin: “Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system social production, according to their relation (for the most part fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, according to their role in public organization labor, and consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. The class approach is often opposed to the stratification approach, although in fact class division is only a special case of social stratification.

Depending on the historical period in society, the following classes are distinguished as the main ones:

a) slaves and slave owners;

b) feudal lords and feudal dependent peasants;

c) the bourgeoisie and the proletariat;

d) the so-called middle class.

Since any social structure is a collection of all functioning social communities, taken in their interaction, the following elements can be distinguished in it:

a) ethnic structure (clan, tribe, nationality, nation);

b) demographic structure (groups are distinguished by age and sex);

c) settlement structure (urban residents, rural residents, etc.);

d) class structure (bourgeoisie, proletariat, peasants, etc.);

e) professional and educational structure.

In the very general view In modern society, three stratification levels can be distinguished: the highest, the middle and the lowest. In economically developed countries, the second level is predominant, giving the society a certain stability. In turn, within each level there is also a hierarchically ordered set of different social strata. A person who occupies a certain place in this structure has the opportunity to move from one level to another, while raising or lowering his social status, or from one group located at any level to another located at the same level. This transition is called social mobility.

Social mobility sometimes leads to the fact that some people find themselves, as it were, at the junction of certain social groups, while experiencing serious psychological difficulties. Their intermediate position is largely determined by the inability or unwillingness for any reason to adapt to one of the interacting social groups. This phenomenon of finding a person, as it were, between two cultures, associated with his movement in social space, is called marginality. A marginal is an individual who has lost his former social status, deprived of the opportunity to engage in his usual business and, moreover, who is unable to adapt to the new socio-cultural environment of the stratum in which he formally exists. The individual value system of such people is so stable that it cannot be replaced by new norms, principles, and rules. Their behavior is characterized by extremes: they are either excessively passive or very aggressive, easily step over moral standards and are capable of unpredictable actions. Among the marginals there may be ethnomarginals - people who find themselves in a foreign environment as a result of migration; political outcasts - people who are not satisfied with the legal opportunities and legitimate rules of the socio-political struggle: religious outcasts - people who stand outside the confession or do not dare to make a choice between them, etc.

Currently being formed social hierarchy characterized by inconsistency, instability and a tendency to significant changes. The highest stratum (elite) today can be attributed to representatives of the state apparatus, as well as owners of big capital, including their top - financial oligarchs. to the middle class in modern Russia include representatives of the class of entrepreneurs, as well as knowledge workers, highly qualified managers (managers). Finally, the lowest stratum is made up of workers of various professions employed in medium and low-skilled labor, as well as office workers and public sector employees (teachers and doctors in state and municipal institutions).

In the process of changing the social structure of modern Russian society the following trends can be identified:

1) social polarization, i.e. stratification into rich and poor, deepening social and property differentiation;

2) mass downward social mobility;

3) mass change of residence by knowledge workers (the so-called "brain drain").

In general, it can be said that the main criteria that determine the social position of a person in modern Russia and his belonging to one or another stratification level are either the size of his wealth or belonging to power structures.

37. The concept of a social institution. The reasons for their emergence and functioning in society. Classification of social institutions.

The life of individuals in society is organized through social institutions. The term "institution" means "device, establishment". In sociology, an institution is defined as a stable set of norms, rules and symbols that regulates any of the aspects of human life and organizes them into a system of roles and statuses. A.R. Radicliffe-Brown understands an institution as the standardized ways of behavior by which a social structure - a network of social relations - maintains its existence over time. Social institutions can be characterized in terms of both their external, formal (material) structure and internal activities. Outwardly, a social institution looks like a collection of individuals, institutions, equipped with certain material resources and carrying out a specific social function. From the content side, it is a given set of expediently oriented standards of behavior of certain individuals in specific situations. A social institution, moreover, is a certain organization social activities and social relations, carried out through standards of behavior, the emergence and grouping of which into a system is determined by the content of a specific task solved by this institution.

So the social institution is

role system, which includes certain norms, statuses and roles;

a set of customs, traditions and rules of behavior of people;

an organized system of formal and informal structures;

a set of norms and institutions that regulate a particular area public relations;

a sustainable set of social actions.

Each social institution is characterized by the presence of an activity goal, specific functions that ensure its achievement, a set of social positions and roles typical for this institution, as well as a system of sanctions that encourage the desired and suppress deviant behavior.

In every society, according to sociologists, there are necessarily at least five groups of social institutions:

1. Economic institutions that regulate the production and distribution of goods and services;

2. Political institutions that regulate the exercise of power and relations around power;

3. Institutions of stratification that regulate the distribution of status positions and incomes in society;

4. Institutions of kinship, organizing relations between relatives, spouses, parents and children, ensuring the reproduction of the population and the transmission of traditions;

5. Institutes of culture, which include religious, educational and cultural institutions proper. They are responsible for the socialization of new generations, the preservation and transmission of social values.

In order to develop a system of social regulation of a particular area public life, i.e. one or another social institution, the conditions necessary for this must exist. First, in society there must exist and be recognized by the majority of individuals social need at this institute. Secondly, society must have the necessary means to satisfy this need - resources (material, labor, organizational), a system of functions, actions, individual goal-settings, symbols and norms that form the cultural environment on the basis of which a new institution will be formed.

All social institutions arose in ancient times. Production in the human community dates back 2 million years, if we take the first tools of labor created by man as a starting point. The age of the family, according to anthropologists, is 500 thousand years. The state is about the same age as education, namely 5-6 thousand years. Religion in its primitive forms appeared about 30-40 thousand years ago.

The system of social institutions is constantly evolving. The sphere of production, political institutions, institutions of religion and education are undergoing evolution. Significant changes are taking place in the institution of the family. Compared with the 19th century, over the past half century, the average age marriage, family size, time to start working life, distribution of marital responsibilities, leadership style in the family, sexual behavior of men and women.

The evolution of social institutions leads to the fact that modern society is characterized by the diversity and complexity of the system of institutions. On the one hand, the same basic need gives rise to the emergence and existence of several specialized institutions, on the other hand, each institutional phenomenon, say, the family, the state, the church, implements a whole series of fundamental needs, including in communication, in the production of services, and in the distribution of benefits, in ensuring the security of citizens, in their individual and collective protection, in maintaining order and control, in the development of the spiritual sphere of society.

38. Social institutions in the economic sphere.

The group of fundamental economic social institutions includes: property, market, money, exchange, banks, finance, various types economic associations, which together form a complex system of production relations, connecting economic life with other areas of social life.

Thanks to the development of social institutions, the entire system functions. economic relations and society as a whole, the socialization of the individual in the social and labor sphere is carried out, there is a transfer of norms of economic behavior and moral values.

Let us single out four features common to all social institutions in the field of economics and finance:

Interaction between participants in social ties and relationships;

Availability of prepared professional personnel that ensure the activities of institutions;

definition of the rights, duties and functions of each participant in social interaction in economic life;

· regulation and control of the effectiveness of the process of interaction in the economy.

The development of the economy as a social institution is subject not only to economic laws, but also to sociological ones. The functioning of this institution, its integrity as a system is ensured by various social institutions and social organizations that monitor the work of social institutions in the field of economics and finance, and control the behavior of their members.

The basic institutions with which the economy interacts are politics, education, family, law, etc.

The main functions of the economy as a social institution are:

· harmonization of social interests of business entities, producers and consumers;

meeting the needs of the individual, social groups, strata and organizations;

· strengthening social ties within the economic system, as well as with external social organizations and institutions;

maintaining order and preventing uncontrolled competition between business entities in the process of satisfying needs.

6.4. social stratification

The sociological concept of stratification (from Latin stratum - layer, layer) reflects the stratification of society, differences in the social status of its members. Social stratification - it is a system of social inequality, consisting of hierarchically arranged social strata (strata). A stratum is understood as a set of people united by common status features.

Considering social stratification as a multidimensional, hierarchically organized social space, sociologists explain its nature and causes of origin in different ways. Thus, Marxist researchers believe that the social inequality that determines the stratification system of society is based on property relations, the nature and form of ownership of the means of production. According to the supporters of the functional approach (K. Davis and W. Moore), the distribution of individuals into social strata occurs in accordance with their contribution to the achievement of society's goals, depending on the importance of their professional activities. According to the theory of social exchange (Zh. Homans), inequality in society arises in the process of unequal exchange of the results of human activity.

To determine belonging to a particular social stratum, sociologists offer a variety of parameters and criteria. One of the creators of the stratification theory, P. Sorokin (2.7), distinguished three types of stratification: 1) economic (according to the criteria of income and wealth); 2) political (according to the criteria of influence and power); 3) professional (according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).

In turn, the founder of structural functionalism T. Parsons (2.8) identified three groups of signs of social stratification:

Qualitative characteristics of members of society that they possess from birth (origin, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities, innate characteristics, etc.);

Role characteristics determined by the set of roles that an individual performs in society (education, profession, position, qualifications, various types of work, etc.);

Characteristics associated with the possession of material and spiritual values (wealth, property, works of art, social privileges, the ability to influence other people, etc.).

In modern sociology, as a rule, the following main criteria for social stratification are distinguished:

income - the amount of cash receipts for a certain period (month, year);

wealth - accumulated income, i.e., the amount of cash or embodied money (in the second case, they act in the form of movable or immovable property);

power - the ability and ability to exercise one's will, to determine and control the activities of people using various means (authority, law, violence, etc.). Power is measured by the number of people affected by the decision;

education - a set of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the learning process. The level of education is measured by the number of years of study (for example, in the Soviet school it was accepted: elementary education- 4 years, incomplete secondary education - 8 years, complete secondary education - 10 years);

prestige - public assessment of the significance, attractiveness of a particular profession, position, a certain type of occupation. Professional prestige acts as a subjective indicator of people's attitude to specific type activities.

Income, power, education and prestige determine the total socio-economic status, which is a generalized indicator of position in social stratification. Some sociologists offer other criteria for identifying strata in society. Thus, the American sociologist B. Barber stratified according to six indicators: 1) prestige, profession, power and might; 2) income or wealth; 3) education or knowledge; 4) religious or ritual purity; 5) the situation of relatives; 6) ethnicity. The French sociologist A. Touraine, on the contrary, believes that at present the ranking of social positions is carried out not in relation to property, prestige, power, ethnicity, but in terms of access to information: the dominant position is occupied by the one who owns the largest amount of knowledge and information.

In modern sociology, there are many models of social stratification. Sociologists mainly distinguish three main classes: the highest, the middle and the lowest. At the same time, the share of the upper class is approximately 5–7%, the middle class is 60–80%, and the lower class is 13–35%.

The upper class includes those who occupy the highest positions in terms of wealth, power, prestige, and education. These are influential politicians and public figures, military elite, big businessmen, bankers, managers of leading firms, prominent representatives of the scientific and creative intelligentsia.

The middle class includes medium and small entrepreneurs, managers, civil servants, military personnel, workers financial sphere, doctors, lawyers, teachers, representatives of the scientific and humanitarian intelligentsia, engineering and technical workers, highly skilled workers, farmers and some other categories.

According to most sociologists, the middle class is a kind of social core of society, thanks to which it maintains stability and stability. As the famous English philosopher and historian A. Toynbee emphasized, modern Western civilization is primarily a middle-class civilization: western society became modern after it succeeded in creating a large and competent middle class.

The lower class is made up of people with low incomes and mainly engaged in unskilled labor (loaders, cleaners, auxiliary workers, etc.), as well as various declassed elements (chronic unemployed, homeless, vagrants, beggars, etc.).

In a number of cases, sociologists make a certain division within each class. Thus, the American sociologist W. L. Warner, in his famous study of Yankee City, identified six classes:

? top - top class(representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties with significant resources of power, wealth and prestige);

? lower - upper class(“new rich”, who do not have a noble origin and did not have time to create powerful tribal clans);

? upper-middle class(lawyers, entrepreneurs, managers, scientists, doctors, engineers, journalists, cultural and art figures);

? lower-middle class(clerks, secretaries, employees and other categories that are commonly called "white collars");

? upper-lower class(workers engaged mainly in physical labor);

? lower - lower class(chronic unemployed, homeless, vagrants and other declassed elements).

There are other schemes of social stratification. Thus, some sociologists believe that the working class constitutes an independent group that occupies an intermediate position between the middle and lower classes. Others include highly skilled workers in the middle class, but in its lower stratum. Still others suggest distinguishing two strata in the working class: upper and lower, and three strata in the middle class: upper, middle, and lower. The variations vary, but they all boil down to this: non-basic classes arise by adding strata or layers that lie within one of the three main classes - rich, wealthy, and poor.

Thus, social stratification reflects the inequality between people, which manifests itself in their social life and acquires the character of a hierarchical ranking. various kinds activities. The objective need for such a ranking is related to the need to motivate people to perform their social roles more effectively.

Social stratification is fixed and supported by various social institutions, constantly reproduced and modernized, which is an important condition for the normal functioning and development of any society.

| |

social stratification is main topic sociology. It describes how the strata of society are divided according to their way of life, according to the level of income, according to whether they have any privileges or not. Sociologists "borrowed" this term from geologists. There it indicates how the layers of the Earth are located in a vertical section. Sociologists, too, like the structure of the Earth, arranged strata - social strata - vertically. The criteria in a simplified version are limited to one scale - the level of income. The bottom rung is the poor, the middle is the wealthy, and the top is the richest. Each stratum includes people whose income, prestige, power and education are approximately the same.

There are the following criteria of social stratification, according to which the population is divided into strata: power, education, income and prestige. They are located vertically on the coordinate axis and are inextricably linked with each other. Also, all the listed criteria of social stratification have their own distinctive dimension.

Income is the amount of money that a family or individual receives for a specific time period. This amount of money can be received in the form of a pension, salary, allowance, fee, alimony, interest on profits. Income is measured in national currency or in dollars.

When incomes exceed living expenses, they gradually accumulate and turn into wealth. As a rule, it remains to the heirs. The difference between income and inheritance is that only working people receive it, while non-working people can also receive inheritance. Accumulated movable or immovable property is the main sign of the upper class. The rich may not work, while the lower and middle classes, on the contrary, will not be able to live without a salary. Uneven and wealth and causes economic inequality in society.

The next criterion of social stratification is education. It is measured by years spent studying at school and university.

The third criterion is power. Whether a person has it can be judged by the number of people to whom the decision made by him applies. The essence of power lies in the ability to impose your will on others, without taking into account their desire. And whether it will be carried out is already the second question. For example, the president's decision applies to several million people, and the decision of the director of a small school - to several hundred. In modern society, power is protected by tradition and law. Many social benefits and privileges are available to her.

People with power (economic, political, religious) constitute the elite of society. It determines the policy within the state, its relations with other countries in such a way that it is beneficial to it. Other classes do not have this capability.

These criteria of social stratification have quite tangible units of measurement: people, years, dollars. But prestige is subjective. It depends on what profession or enjoy respect in society. If the country does not conduct research on this topic by special methods, then the prestige of the position is determined approximately.

The criteria of social stratification in a complex determine a person, that is, his social position. And the status, in turn, determines belonging to a closed society or to an open one. In the first case, the transition from stratum to stratum is impossible. This includes castes and estates. In an open society, moving up the social ladder (whether up or down) is not prohibited. Classes belong to this system. These are the historically established types of social stratification.

Marxist tradition in class analysis

concept Class used in various scientific disciplines to refer to any set consisting of elements, each of which has at least one property common to all. The term social classification(from lat. classis- rank, class, and facio- I do) means a single system of large groups of people located in a hierarchical row, which together form society as a whole.

The concept of "social class" was introduced into the scientific vocabulary in early XIX centuries, French historians Thierry and Guizot, investing in it, mainly political meaning, showing the opposition of the interests of various social groups and the inevitability of their collision. Somewhat later, a number of English economists, including Riccardo and Smith, made the first attempts to reveal the "anatomy" of classes, i.e. their internal structure.

Despite the fact that social class is one of the central concepts in sociology, scientists still do not have a single point of view regarding the content of this concept. For the first time we find a detailed picture of class society in the works of K. Marx. Most of Marx's works are connected with the theme of stratification and, above all, with the concept of social class, although, oddly enough, he did not give a systematic analysis of this concept.

We can say that Marx's social classes are economically determined and genetically conflicting groups. The basis of division into groups is the presence or absence of property. The feudal lord and the serf in a feudal society, the bourgeois and the proletarian in a capitalist society are antagonistic classes that inevitably appear in any society that has a complex hierarchical structure based on inequality. Marx also allowed the existence of small social groups in society that could influence class conflicts. In studying the nature of social classes, Marx made the following assumptions:

1. Every society produces a surplus of food, shelter, clothing and other resources. Class differences arise when one of the population groups appropriates resources that are not immediately consumed and are not currently needed. These resources are considered private property.

2. Classes are determined on the basis of the fact of ownership or non-ownership of the produced property.

3. Class relations presuppose the exploitation of one class by another, i.e. one class appropriates the results of the labor of another class, exploits and suppresses it. This kind of relationship is constantly reproduced class conflict, which is the basis of social changes taking place in society.

4. There are objective (for example, possession of resources) and subjective signs class (sense of class).

Despite the revision, from the point of view of modern society, of many provisions of the class theory of K. Marx, some of his ideas remain relevant in relation to the currently existing social structures. This primarily applies to situations of interclass conflicts, clashes, and class struggle to change the conditions for the distribution of resources. In this regard, Marx's doctrine of class struggle currently has a large number of followers among sociologists and political scientists in many countries of the world.

The most influential, alternative Marxist theory social classes are represented by the work of Max Weber. Weber, in principle, recognized the correctness of the division of the population into classes on the basis of the presence or absence of ownership of capital and the means of production. However, he considered such a division too rough and simplistic. Weber believed that social stratification has three different measures of inequality.

The first - economic inequality, which Weber called the position of the class. The second indicator is status, or social prestige, and the third - power.

Class is interpreted by Weber as a group of people with the same life opportunities. Weber considers the attitude to power (political parties) and prestige as one of the most important signs of a social class. Each of these dimensions is a separate aspect of social gradation. However, for the most part, these three dimensions are interconnected; they feed and support each other, but still may not be the same.

Thus, individual prostitutes and criminals have great economic opportunities, but do not have prestige and power. The teaching staff of universities and the clergy enjoy high prestige, but in terms of wealth and power they are usually evaluated relatively low. Some officials may wield considerable power and at the same time receive little wages and no prestige.

Thus, Weber for the first time lays the basis for the class division of the system of stratification that exists in a given society.

In modern Western sociology, Marxism is opposed by the theory of social stratification.

Classification or stratification? Representatives of the theory of stratification argue that the concept of class is not applicable to the modern post-industrial society. This is due to the uncertainty of the concept of "private property": in view of the wide corporatization, as well as the exclusion of the main shareholders from the sphere of production management and their replacement by hired managers, property relations turned out to be blurred, lost their certainty. Therefore, the concept of "class" should be replaced by the concept of "stratum" or the concept of a social group, and the theory of social class structure of society should be replaced by theories of social stratification. However, classification and stratification are not mutually exclusive approaches. The concept of "class", convenient and appropriate for the macro approach, will be clearly insufficient when we try to consider the structure of interest to us in more detail. In a deep and comprehensive study of the structure of society, the mere economic dimension offered by the Marxist class approach is clearly not enough. Stratification dimension- this is a fairly fine grading of layers within the class, allowing for a deeper detailed analysis of the social structure.

Most researchers believe that social stratification- a hierarchically organized structure of social (status) inequality that exists in a certain society, in a certain historical period of time. The hierarchically organized structure of social inequality can be imagined as a division of the whole society into strata. Layered, multi-level society in this case can be compared with the geological layers of the soil. In modern sociology, there are four main criteria of social inequality:

ü Income It is measured in rubles or dollars that an individual or family receives during a certain period of time, say, one month or a year.

ü Education measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university.

ü Power is measured by the number of people who are affected by the decision you make (power is the ability to impose your will or decisions on other people, regardless of their desire).

ü Prestige- respect for the status that has developed in public opinion.

The criteria of social stratification listed above are the most universal for all modern societies. However, the social position of a person in society is also influenced by some other criteria that determine, first of all, his " starting opportunities. These include:

ü social background. The family brings the individual into social system, determining in many respects his education, profession and income. Poor parents reproduce potentially poor children, which is determined by their health, education, qualifications. Children from poor families are 3 times more likely to die due to negligence, from diseases, accidents and violence in the first years of life than children from rich families.

ü gender. Today in Russia there is an intensive process of feminization of poverty. Despite the fact that men and women live in families belonging to different social levels, the income, status of women and the prestige of their professions are usually lower than those of men.

ü Race and ethnicity. So, in the US, white people get better education and have a higher professional status than African Americans. Ethnicity also affects social status.

ü Religion. In American society, members of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, as well as Jews, occupy the highest social positions. Lutherans and Baptists occupy a lower position.

Pitirim Sorokin made a significant contribution to the study of status inequality. To determine the totality of all social statuses of society, he introduced the concept social space.

In his work "Social mobility" in 1927, P. Sorokin, first of all, emphasized the impossibility of combining or even comparing such concepts as "geometric space" and "social space". According to him, a person of the lower class can physically come into contact with a noble person, but this circumstance will not in the least reduce the economic, prestige or power differences existing between them, i.e. will not reduce the existing social distance. Thus, two people between whom there are significant property, family, official or other social differences cannot be in the same social space, even if they are embracing.

According to Sorokin, social space is three-dimensional. It is described by three coordinate axes - economic status, political status, professional status. Thus, the social position (general or integral status) of each individual who is integral part given social space, is described using three coordinates ( x, y, z). Note that this system coordinates describes exclusively the social, and not the personal statuses of the individual.

The situation when an individual, having a high status on one of the coordinate axes, at the same time has a low status level on the other axis, is called status incompatibility.

For example, individuals with a high level of acquired education, which provides high social status along the occupational dimension of stratification, may occupy a poorly paid position and therefore have a low economic status. Most sociologists rightly believe that the presence of status incompatibility contributes to the growth of resentment among such people, and they will support radical social changes aimed at changing stratification. And vice versa in the case of the “new Russians” who aspire to get into politics: they are clearly aware that the high economic level they have achieved is unreliable without being compatible with an equally high political status. Similarly, a poor person who has received a fairly high political status of a deputy State Duma inevitably begins to use the acquired position for the corresponding "pulling up" of his economic status.

Social stratification involves the division of people into groups that are characterized by certain characteristics. There are special criteria of social stratification that allow us to determine how classes are formed in a modern state and how differences between people affect the development of society.

The main criteria for social stratification

The concept of a criterion in this case carries the meaning of a sign, on the basis of which the definition of social strata in the structure of modern society is given.

The main criteria for the division of society are:

Income

This refers to all the money that a person receives for a certain period of time. Income stands out as a criterion, since it is not the same for all people.

a large income that allows you to satisfy all needs and accumulate funds, purchase luxury goods;
the average income that is spent exclusively on meeting the needs of a person and his family;
insignificant income, which is not enough even to support life.

Power

Opens opportunities for managing society. Depending on the level, it can apply to a different number of people.

Education

This criterion is measured by the number of years that a person has spent studying in an educational organization.

This figure is also not the same for all people: if a professor of philosophy can have more than 20 years that he spent on education, then an electrician or a driver - only 12.

Prestige

Prestige is understood as society's respect for the position a person occupies. There are things that people strive to have in order to be respected. For example, in modern society it is highly valued if a person has his own expensive car. Professions can also be prestigious. Now these include a lawyer, a doctor, a manager, a pilot. And vice versa, such professions as a driver, janitor, plumber and others are not popular and respected.

According to studies, in Russia the prestige of those professions that allow you to receive high salaries and provide great opportunities to make a career (lawyer, manager) is growing, and the prestige of professions that require high qualifications and a level of education (engineer, teacher) is noticeably declining.

The peculiarity of society is that most often representatives of the upper classes concentrate in their hands all the top positions of these criteria: wealth, power, prestige and quality education. Although some indicators may not match.