The Funcional Theory of Stratification and Its Critics

The functional theory of stratification as artculated by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore
(1945) is perhaps the best-known single piece of work in stuctural-functionaltheory. Davis and
Moore made it clear that they regarded social stratification as toth universal and necessary. They
argued that no society is ever unstratified, or totally classles. Stratification is, in their view, a
functional necessity. All societies need such a system, and this need brings into existence a
system of stratification. They also viewed a stratification system as a structure, pointing out that
stratification refers not to the individuals in the stratification system but rather to a system of
poitions. They focused on how certain positions come to carry with them different degrees of
prestige, not on how individuals come to occupy certain positions.
Given this focus, the major functional issue is how a society motivates and places people
in their proper positions in the stratification system. This is reducible to two problems. First,
how does a society instill in the proper individuals the desire to fill certain positions? Second,
once people are in the right positions, how does society then instill in them the desire to fulfill
the requirements of those positions?
Proper social placement in society is a problem for there basic reasons. First, some
positions are more pleasant to occupy than than others. Second, some positions are more
important to the survival of society than others. Third, different social positions require different
abilities and talents.
Although these issues apply to all social positions, Davis and Moore were conterned with
the functionallymore important positions in society. The positions that rank high whithin the
stratification system are presumed to be those that are less pleasant to occupy but more important
to the survival of society and that require the greatest ability and talent. In addition, society must
attact sufficient rewards to these positions so that enough people will seek to occupy them and
the individuals who do come to occupy them will work diligently. The converse was implied by
Davis and Moore but was not discussed. That is, low-ranking positions in the stratification
system are presumed to be more pleasant and less important and to require less ability and talent.
Also, society has less need to be sure that individuals occupy these positions and perform their
duties with diligence.
Davis and Moore did not argue that a society consciously develops a stratification system
in order to be sure that the high-level positions are filled, and filled adequately. Rather, they
made it clear that stratification is an unconsciously evolved device. However, it is device that
every society does, and must, develop if it is to survive.
To be sure that people occupy the higher-ranking positions, society must, in Davis and
Moores view provide these individuals with various rewards, including great prestige, a high
salary, and sufficient leisure. For example, to ensure enough doctors for our society, we need to
offer them these and other rewards. Davis and Mooreimplied that we could not expect people to
undertake the burdensome and expensive process of medical education if we did not offer
such rewards. The implication seems to be that people at the top mustreceive the rewards that
they do. If they did not, those positions would remain understaffed or unfilled and society would
crumble.
The structural-functionaltheory of stratification has beensubject to much criticismsince its
publication in 1945. (Sociological Theory: 230)

Functionalist Theory
Although functionalism has had many articulate spokesmen, including Talcott Parsons,
who elaborated functionalist theory in a number of books and articles (1937, 1951), perhaps the
most important functionalist theorist has beeb Robert Merton. Among his contributions has been
a critical analysis of several basic functionalist concepts (1957). The first is the functional
unitypostulate, the idea that social system are necessarily tightly integrated. In place of this
postulate, Merton argued, should be an emphasis on different forms and levels of integration
must be empirically determined to exist, not simply presumed to in here in the system. A second
target of Mertons criticism was the idea of functional universality, which held that any social
item (such as Malinowskis magic) that existed in the social system must be an integral part of
the system. Merton held that social items, like the appendix, might have no apparent function or
even be dysfunctional. In addition, he distinguished between manifest functions, the recognized
consequences (either functional or dysfunctional). For example, the manifestfunction of the
public school system is to teach students reading, writing, and other basic skills; one talent
function is to contribute to social order by inculcating certain values as well-fair play. Respect
for the rights of others, avoidance of violence, and so on.
Finally, Merton questioned Malinowskis original idea that each cultural item fulfilled a vital and
indispenseble role. To the earliner functionalists, the very esisterice of a custom or institution
was taken as evidence that it met an important need, and much of early functionalist theory (such
the work of Parsons) was aan attempt to identify exactly which institutions and customs were
universal functional requisites. In contrast, Merton stresses that the variety of structures that
have developed in human society is more significant than any universals that might be
hypothesized to exixt.

Social Penetration Theory

Social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973) is another theory that attempts to
develop a broad set of ideas relevant to the growth of interpersonal relationships. The term social
penetration refers to overt interpersonal behaviors that occur in social interaction as well as
internal subjective processes that precede, accompany, and follow overt exchange. Altman and
Taylor were concerned with the entire range of interpersonal events occurring during the
development of social relationships. Their stated goal was to describe the development and
dissolution of such relationships and what happens as individuals form and manage various types
of interrelationships. They attempted to answer such questions as: what kinds of things do two
people reveal about themselves at different stages of a relationship? Do their activities differ at
different points in the history of the relationship? Does emotional involvement vary from early to
late periods in the development of a relationship? In dealing with these kinds of questions, they
suggested that three general classes of factors play a role in hastening or restraining the growth
of interpersonal relationship:
1. Personal characteristitics of participants.
2. Outcomes of exchange.
3. Situational context. (Theory of Social Psychology, 1982: 153)
 DAFTAR PUSTAKA
McGraw.Hill Eogakusha, Theory of Social Psychology. 1982.
Random House, Society Today.1982
McGraw.Hill Companies, Sociological Theory. Avenue of the Aamericas New York,
2004.