Functionalist Explanations of Class Inequality (Parsons, Davis and Moore, Tumin)

A set of Vocabulary-style flashcards covering Parsons’ organic analogy, value consensus, meritocracy, stratification, and the Davis–Moore and Tumin critiques, including key concepts like role allocation, functional uniqueness, and criticisms of functionalist explanations.

Organic analogy

Viewing society as an organism where different organs (institutions) work together to maintain the whole.

System (Parsons)

A self-regulating network of inter-related but independent parts (social institutions) that fit together to meet the system’s needs.

Needs (Parsons)

Society requires well-socialised people and resources (e.g., taxation, consumerism) to survive and function.

Functions (Parsons)

Institutions and their parts serve purposes that help meet the system’s/ society’s needs.

Value consensus

General agreement on shared values; functionalism argues society works best under broad value agreement.

Meritocracy

Idea that rewards are earned by individuals through effort and ability; those who work hardest deserve higher rewards.

Stratification

Structured inequality where some gain at the expense of others; linked to value consensus in functionalism but contested by critics.

Life chances

Differences in opportunities to improve social position; lower classes often face restricted access to top positions.

Highest rewards (entrepreneurs/executives)

In modern industrial societies, the top rewards go to those who run businesses and contribute to wealth and job creation.

Consensus theory

Functionalism is viewed as a consensus theory because it assumes widespread agreement on values.

Davis and Moore: functional necessity of stratification

Stratification is functionally necessary to allocate roles and motivate people to fill important positions.

Role Allocation

Allocating the most able people to the most important positions, often with higher rewards.

Functional Uniqueness

A position is functionally unique if only a small number of people perform it, requiring rare skills.

Degree of Dependence

The extent to which others rely on a person; influences the perceived importance of a role.

Tumin

Critic who argued that power, not just function, influences rewards; inequality may reflect social power structures.

Pool of Talent

Davis and Moore assumed talent for important roles is limited; critics argue the talent pool may be larger and talent is underdeveloped by inequality.

High Standards

Key roles require high performance because others depend on those in position, motivating individuals to excel.

Determining Functional Importance

Criticism: there is no objective way to measure how functionally important a position is; judgments are subjective.

Power and rewards (criticism)

Critique: rewards may reflect power relations rather than objective social value or merit.

The Pool of Talent (criticism)

Critique: talent for important roles may be more abundant than assumed; talent pool is not as limited as Davis and Moore claim.

Training – Is it a sacrifice?

Critique: the costs of training and education (e.g., lost earnings) may challenge justification for unequal rewards.

Motivation – Are unequal rewards a successful incentive?

Critique: unequal rewards may demotivate talent or create barriers to recruitment and retention.

Inequality of Opportunity

Critique: stratification cannot ensure equal opportunities; those born into lower strata have fewer chances to realise talents.

Social Divisions

Critique: differential rewards can foster hostility and distrust, making stratification divisive rather than integrative.