82 PART TWO: EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION: STRATIFICATIONTHEORIES From the earliest writings on the human condition we find an interest in inequality and social divisions. Whatever the reason-guilt, curiosity, anger, or justification-the topic has often been one of lively concern. "Some of the earliest records of thought on this subject are found in the writings of the early Hebrew prophets who lived approxi- mately 800 years before Christ. In the writings of such men as Amos, Micah, and Isaiah we find repeated denunciations of the rich and powerful members of society" (Lenski 1966:3). Aristotle as well had much to say about inequality; but for him there was no criticism of this "natural condition." As he wrote in Politics, about 350 B.C. (see Dahrendorf 1968:153), "It is thus clear that there are by nature free men and slaves, and that servitude is agreeable and just for the latter. Equally, the relation of the male to the female is by nature such that one is superior and the other is dominated. ." During the seventeenth and especially the eighteenth century the nature and causes of social inequality were the subject of even more lively debate. It was during the Age of Enlightenment that the old inequalities of the feudal period were attacked by such philosophers as hcke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. Somewhat later, after revolution- ary movements had taken their toll on many feudal inequalities, nineteenth-century philosophers such as Bonald, Maistre, and Saint-Simon further developed systematic theories of society, theories in which the nature of human kqualities played a central role (see Zeitlin 1968; Strasser 1976). A science of society emerged from the work of these philosophers. And as with these earlier philosophers, the nature of human in- equalities provided the central question for the new science called sociology (Dahren- dorf 1968:152). In this chapter we will examine some of the earliest sociological thought on social stratification. For our purpose-which is to understand the foundations of modern Wngon the subject--the works of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and fimile Durkheirn are most important. Beginning with Marx, we will examine the major assumptions be- hind these theories, as well as show the roots of major contemporary theories of social stratification to be explored in Chapter 5. With each of the three giants from sociol- ogy's classical period we will focus also on some key concepts found in his work that J have contributed most to our understanding of modern stratification systems. I COMPETING PARADIGMS IN THE STUDY OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION Contrary to the idealized view of scientific rkrhods and theory, a scientist's view of the subject matter and the construction of tbeolry are not based only and completely on a cold calculation of available empirid data. Rather, scientists must, to some degree, work from a set of prescientific and untested assumptions about the phenomena under study. This is true for physical science no less than for social science. As Albert Ein- stein put it, "For the creation of a theory the mere collection of recorded phenomena never sufficedere must always be added a free invention of the human mind that attacks the heart of the matter" (quoted in Dukas and Hoffman 1979:24-25). At times Einstein went further by rejecting the idea that "facts by themselves can and should yield scientific knowledge without the free conceptual construction" (quoted in Clark 1971:63). We can call the general images of reality (which shape more specific theo- CHAPTER FOUR: SOCIAL STRATIFICATION THEORY: EARLY STATEMENTS 83 ries) paradigms, and the assumptions about reality within paradigms can be called paradigm assumptions. Before we consider the most important theories of social stratification in this chapter and the next, it will be useful to begin with a brief examination of conflicting para- digms in the study of social stratification. But two points of caution must first be made: 1. Although we will see that values and politically related assumptions at times have shaped or influenced theories of social stratification, we do not find only political debates in the study of social stratification. There is a reality out there, however com- plex and many-sided it may be, that these theories are struggling to understand. Just as the physical scientist must attempt to understand his or her subject matter by making certain untested or even untestable assumptions, as Kuhn's (1970) work clearly shows, so must the social ~cientist.~ 2. Related to this, at the level of general theory or paradigms, we cannot ask whether a paradigm is right or wrong, true or false. Rather, we must ask whether a par- adigm is useful or less useful in answering specific questions about the subject matter. All of the paradigms and general theories outlined in the following lead us to some im- portant insights about the nature of social stratification. But, depending on the ques- tions asked, some may be more useful than others. As will be seen throughout the re- mainder of this book, if in the study of social stratification we are most concerned with the question of who gets what, and why, it is increasingly recognized in sociology that some type of conflict theory will be able to supply the most useful answers. Since the earliest years of sociology there have been two main macrolevel general theories or paradigms that have influenced the development of theories of social strat- ification. In comparing these two general theories of society, we must begin by recog- nizing the main task of what can be called functional and conflict theories of soci- ety. They are both attempts at answering the most basic question in sociology-How is society possible? In other words, With a mass of people in large industrial socie$ia, how is it that most people obey the mles most of the time? How is it that we can have orderly interaction without perpetual disruptive conflict between differing interest groups? From the works of several sociologists (see Dahrendorf 1959; van den Berghe 1963; Hartan 1966; Cl$en 1968). we can select three main model assump- tions found to diverge bekeen functional and conflict pamhgms (also see Wallace and Wolf 1999: 11). 1. Functional theorists maintain that swi& is.Md together primariIy by a gen- eral consensus over the major values and mr@hkt the so@My. People tend to obey the mles because through a long socialization pro~ess&&y bve come to accept these rules, so for the most part they live by them. Cadict.'Wsts, on the other hand, maintain that society is held together in the face of ccarflicting interests because either (a)one group in the society has the power to enforce the ruks (and thus make subordi- nate groups follow rules that may pimafily serve the interests of the superordinate group) or (b) there me so many overlapping and divided interest groups that individu- als or groups must learn to cooperate. The overall aagr~mtmade by conflict theorists, however, is that through the stmcture of conflict in socity, dercan be maintained in one of these two ways. 84 PART TWO: EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION: STRATIFGATKM THEORIES TABLE 4-1 VALUE AND MODEL ASSUMPTIONS IN SOCIAL STRATIFICATION PARADIGMS Value assumptions Critical Uncritical 1. Inequality not inevitable 1. Inequality inevitable (at least to present degrees) (little or no criticism) 2. Optimistic view of human nature 2. Distrust of human nature 3. Better, more just, societies 3. Sociology should be value-free the goal of social science Model assumptions Conflict Order 1. Society held together by 1. Society held together by conflict and unequal power consensus (norms and values) 2. Focus on parts and processes 2. Holistic view of society within the society 3. Society a setting for struggles 3. Focus on a sucial system with between classes or interest groups weds of its own 2. One reason for these divergent model assumptions between functional and conflict theorists is that whereas functional theorists tend focus more on societies as holistic systems (much like biological orga-), cWct theorists tend to focus on parts and processes within what we call societies. 3. It follows from this organic analogy that functional theorists tend to view soci- eties as social systerp with specific needs of their own that must be met if the soci- eties are to function properly, and thus survive. Conflict theorists, on the other hand, view societies as settings within which various groups with differing interests interact and compete. These three sets of divergent a$sumptions represent two competing models of soci- ety that attempt to answer the most basic questio,n of how social order is possible. They are, as we defined paradigms, differing images of 'the subject matter (society), just as 'the physicist has an image of his or heK srrbject matter (for example, an Ein- steirtiae image of the universe). These images ate not right or wrong, but simply more ar less swful in answering specific questions about the subject matter. Qut typology Qf stz&&&on paradigms is constructed by combining two divergent sets of pPredigm ssswnptims. One*setof assumptions comes from those discussed earlier separating functid and conflict images or models of society. The other set of three assumptiom Is taken from hnski's (1984) discussion of conservative and radical value assumptions on social stmtification, using more politically neutral terms-what we will ref= to as critical and uncritical value assumptions. Table 4-1 summarizes these two sets of model and value assumptions. Combining these gives us a four-cell typology (Table 4-2) similar to one suggested by Strasser (1976). In the first cell we CHAPTER FOUR: SOCIAL mFlu4lWWAT1ON THEORY: EARLY STATEMENTS 85 TABLE 4-2 A TYPOLOGY OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION PARADIGMS * val;;; ahpptions Critical Uncdtbai Order Critical-order paradigm Uncriwrder paradigm FU&~~SOIY Model of (Durkheim)' society Conflict Critical-conflict paradigm Uncriticalconflldhradigm - 7he placement of apedfic theorist8 will be discussed lster In this chapter.