What Explains Social Inequality?

By Janis Prince Inniss

Surely you’ve seen someone holding a sign with something similar to the following:

Hungry. No job. Please help.

What is the purpose of that person or that class of persons? Yes, purpose. Are you surprised by that question? Do you think it odd to consider that the poor may have a role with regard to the rest of us?

Arguably, the poor function to make the rest of us (some might say lucky and/or blessed souls) feel better about ourselves for not being in their shoes. Further, the poor can serve to inspire us to be different, lest we end up in their position. And if we help those who are less fortunate by volunteering in a soup kitchen or other establishment -- if you’ve done this, then you know how pleased you might feel about being so altruistic and caring. Perhaps your career is dedicated to assisting the poor; well, in that case the poor provide you with employment.

These ideas may be odd-sounding to you unless you have encountered functionalist theory, one of the major sociological perspectives. Functionalist theory has an auspicious promoter: Émile Durkheim, the founder of sociology as a unique discipline.

Functionalist theorists equate society with the way the human body works: they see society as being made up of interrelated parts that must all work in harmony for the larger system to perform. As a lens from which to consider social inequality then, functionalists highlight the ways in which inequality is functional for society. (For some examples and discussions of social inequality see here and here.)

Proponents of this theoretical outlook point out that the poor play a central role in society and are necessary for several reasons. For example, they argue that we need the poor to do the “dirty” jobs that nobody else wants, particularly given the low wages for working in difficult conditions such as work in many factories and farms. Although I don’t want a dirty job, my life depends on someone else doing these jobs. (Can you think of some of the dirty jobs that make your own life possible and/or easier?)

One version of functionalism addresses differential income and status accorded various professions. According to Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, in order to function, society must have people working in a variety of professions including physician, teacher, politician, janitor, and file clerk. Due to the personal ability, extensive training and advanced degrees required for the more specialized positions, people in these professions are rewarded with increased earnings and higher status than those whose positions require less.

Let’s look at example of this. Viewed from this framework, if you finish high school, attend college, and then go on to law school and become an attorney, your income and status should reflect the skills needed for your profession.

Conversely, if you drop out of high school and work as a janitor you would still be making a contribution to society—but your contribution would be less central—and therefore not deserving of as much income and status as an attorney. Therefore, according to the functionalist perspective, social inequality is inevitable and functional for society.

Another sociological perspective is that of conflict theory. The ideas for this theory originate in the work of German-born Karl Marx, who saw society as marked by class conflict.

Conflict theory focuses on the competition between classes for scarce resources. The upper classes (capitalists) then can be seen as doing battle with those beneath them (workers), in an effort to maintain their power, prestige, and wealth. This perspective suggests that the class system is very deep-rooted because the “haves” control social institutions (such as education, religion, politics, and the law, for example) and set them up in favor of their positions and values and also because they pass on their spoils to their children. The same is true for the “have-nots” who also pass on what they have to their children; unfortunately this class has little to pass on but a disadvantaged position.

Rather than seeing high income/high prestige jobs as reward for a person’s talent and time as functionalists do, conflict theorists point out that many people in unskilled jobs are pushed into that kind of employment because of social inequality: they have not had the educational and other opportunities afforded those who are better-off.

Given equal opportunity and support, they argue, many people in low wage jobs could perform in higher level positions. The conflict perspective therefore, characterizes social inequality as the result of a struggle for scarce resources. (For a more nuanced and complete understanding of them, you will want to read more about these theories, including how the original ideas have been built upon by those who came later.)

As I suggested in my previous post, I hope you have been applying the theoretical perspectives to various sociological issues and problems. This post demonstrates how social inequality looks from two perspectives; what evidence can you find that suggests either is a better explanation of inequality than the other?

Comments

[citlali moreno]

Citlali Moreno
Soci 1301 V04
"What evidence can you find that suggests either is a better explanation of inequality than the other?"

As for evidence: functionalist side with those whom have higher prestige jobs not realizing that some people are somewhat forced upon low income job simply because of their inequality. Therefore, not understanding that the poor working class may in fact be able to complete the same jobs but are being shut down due to inequality.
In favor of conflict theorist; just like mentioned in “The Real World” textbook, Paris Hilton is set an example of how she has followed into a family of wealth and therefore has a high prestige no matter her position. There was no work necessary from her behalf towards a high level of society as she was born an heiress of the fortune. Which brings to the understanding that a person whom was born in poverty has no choice in their upbringing until he or she are able to make decisions upon their future and level of society in which they might fall in.

Concluding that conflict theorists have a better grasp of inequality and why it is that they do. In my believe their view is somewhat optimistic, for they appreciate the higher class for they work hard but also are supportive to the poor and the working poor for they must work harder.

[Maxwell Wise]

The author of this article was describing how society works and how certain people in society all have a purpose to form a larger picture. She explained how social inequality is necessary in a society. For example someone has to do dirty jobs. This proves that even the most minor occupation is needed in the bigger picture in order for society to work. Also, this article made me think that in a society everyone should have equal opportunity and support. Many people focus on their personal problems and classify them as social issues and try to make connections to other people who make up society. In the reading the author suggests that if you see a homeless person you think how are they contributing to a working society. In addition to that statement those people make you feel better about yourself and you feel like you have more of a purpose.

[Heather]

This is an interesting concept to consider in a sociological manner: what do homeless people contribute to society? I had never thought about that before, but after reading this article, they do actually serve to provide jobs to others (soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc.), and the lower class in general do the jobs that, frankly, no one else wants to do. In a sociology text book, I have read that there is no "correct" perspective to view the world with, so I can see both arguments provided by the functionalist and conflict theories. On one hand, the lower class IS serving a purpose, and they do contribute an important aspect to society which can't be taken for granted. However, the conflict theory challenges that lower class people aren't given a fair chance to make it in the world, thus they are disadvantaged and stuck in those positions forever. I can see how this is a logical argument, but I am also a firm believer that people are in control of their own lives, and they must take responsibility instead of blaming their unfortunate circumstances. If I had to choose a particular perspective with which I agree more, I would have to say I'm a functionalist because I like to acknowledge the lower class's contribution, no matter how overlooked it may be.

[Stephanie Holt]

this is very interesting, i never thought about people in lower oaying jobs as being a balcance for society. You say it is inevitable to get rid of social inequality, i agree to an extent. On the other hand if people would stop judging people by what they put on paper, and by their work ethics they might be surprised at what the lower class citezen with no college degree can achieve.

[Hollie]

Very much enjoyed this post, and the question of what homeless people contribute to society.
The argument of Meritocracy and Marxism was also objective and entertaining to read, well done.

[Dan]

This is a joke... If you can see homelessness as functional then you should start looking at things differently.