What is the most important sign of social stratification. The concept of social stratification. Questions and tasks

Social stratification- the central theme of sociology. She describes social inequality in society, the division of social strata according to income level and lifestyle, according to the presence or absence of privileges. In primitive society, inequality was negligible, so there was almost no stratification. In complex societies, inequality is very strong, it divided people by income, level of education, power. Castes arose, then estates, and later classes. In some societies, the transition from one social stratum (stratum) to another is prohibited; there are societies where such a transition is limited, and there are societies where it is completely permitted. Freedom of social movement (mobility) determines whether a society is closed or open.

1. Stratification terms

The term "stratification" comes from geology, where it refers to the vertical arrangement of the earth's strata. Sociology has likened the structure of society to the structure of the Earth and placed social strata (strata) also vertically. The basis is income ladder: the poor are at the bottom, the wealthy are at the middle, and the rich are at the top.

The wealthy hold the most privileged positions and the most prestigious professions. As a rule, they are better paid and are associated with mental work and the performance of managerial functions. Leaders, kings, kings, presidents, political leaders, business leaders, academics and artists make up the elite of society. The middle class in modern society includes doctors, lawyers, teachers, qualified employees, the middle and petty bourgeoisie. To the lower strata - unskilled workers, unemployed, beggars. The working class, according to modern ideas, constitutes an independent group that occupies an intermediate position between the middle and lower classes.

The wealthy from the upper class have a higher level of education and more power. The lower-class poor have little power, income, or education. Thus, the prestige of the profession (occupation), the amount of power and the level of education are added to income as the main criterion of stratification.

Income- the amount of cash receipts of an individual or family for a certain period of time (month, year). Income is the amount of money received in the form of salaries, pensions, benefits, alimony, royalties, deductions from profits. Income is most often spent on maintaining life, but if it is very high, then it accumulates and turns into wealth.

Wealth- accumulated income, that is, the amount of cash or materialized money. In the second case, they are called movable(car, yacht, securities, etc.) and immovable(home, artwork, treasure) property. Usually wealth is transferred by inheritance. Both working and non-working people can receive inheritance, and only working people can receive income. In addition to them, the pensioners and the unemployed have income, but the poor do not have it. The rich may or may not work. In either case, they are owners, because they have wealth. The main asset of the upper class is not income, but accumulated property. The share of the salary is small. For the middle and lower classes, the main source of subsistence is income, since the former, if there is any wealth, is insignificant, while the latter does not have it at all. Wealth allows you not to work, and its absence forces you to work for a salary.

The essence of power- in the ability to impose their will against the wishes of other people. In a complex society, power institutionalized, those. protected by laws and tradition, surrounded by privileges and wide access to social benefits, allows making decisions that are vital for society, including laws that are usually beneficial to the upper class. In all societies, people with some form of power - political, economic, or religious - constitute an institutionalized elite. It determines the domestic and foreign policy of the state, directing it in a direction favorable to itself, which other classes are deprived of.

Prestige- the respect that is enjoyed in public opinion by this or that profession, position, occupation. The profession of a lawyer is more prestigious than the profession of a steelmaker or a plumber. The position of the president of a commercial bank is more prestigious than the position of a cashier. All professions, occupations and positions existing in a given society can be arranged from top to bottom on ladder of professional prestige. We define professional prestige intuitively, approximately. But in some countries, primarily the United States, sociologists measure it using special methods. They study public opinion, compare different professions, analyze statistics and, as a result, get an accurate scale of prestige. The first such study was conducted by American sociologists in 1947. Since then, they regularly measure this phenomenon and monitor how the prestige of the main professions in society changes over time. In other words, they build a dynamic picture.

Income, power, prestige, and education determine cumulative socio-economic status, that is, the position and place of a person in society. In this case, status is a generalized indicator of stratification. It used to be noted for its key role in the social structure. Now it turns out that he does crucial role in sociology in general. The assigned status characterizes a rigidly fixed system of stratification, i.e. closed society, in which the transition from one stratum to another is practically prohibited. These systems include slavery and caste. The achieved status characterizes the mobile system of stratification, or open society, where free transitions of people down and up the social ladder are allowed. This system includes classes (capitalist society). Finally, feudal society with its inherent estate structure should be reckoned among intermediate type, that is, to a relatively closed system. Here, crossings are legally prohibited, but in practice they are not excluded. These are the historical types of stratification.

2. Historical types of stratification

Stratification, that is, inequality in income, power, prestige and education, arose with the birth of human society. In its embryonic form, it is found already in a simple (primitive) society. With the emergence of an early state - Eastern despotism - stratification becomes tougher, and with the development of European society, the liberalization of morals, the stratification softens. The estate system is freer than caste and slavery, and the class system that has replaced the estate has become even more liberal.

Slavery- historically the first system of social stratification. Slavery originated in ancient times in Egypt, Babylon, China, Greece, Rome and has survived in a number of regions almost to the present day. It existed in the United States back in the 19th century.

Slavery- an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and an extreme degree of inequality. It has evolved historically. The primitive form, or patriarchal slavery, and the developed form, or classical slavery, differ significantly. In the first case, the slave had all the rights of the younger member of the family: he lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free, inherited the owner's property. It was forbidden to kill him. At the mature stage, the slave was finally enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, inherited nothing, did not marry and did not have a family. It was allowed to kill him. He did not own property, but he himself was considered the property of the owner ("talking tool").

So slavery turns into slavery. When one speaks of slavery as a historical type of stratification, one means its highest stage.

Castes. Like slavery, the caste system characterizes a closed society and rigid stratification. It is not as ancient as the slave system, and less widespread. If almost all countries went through slavery, of course, to varying degrees, then castes are found only in India and partly in Africa. India is a classic example of a caste society. It arose on the ruins of the slave system in the first centuries of the new era.

Castoy call a social group (stratum), membership in which a person owes exclusively to birth. He cannot pass from one caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. The caste position of a person is fixed by the Hindu religion (it is now understandable why castes are not widespread). According to her canons, people live more than one life. Each person falls into the appropriate caste, depending on what his behavior was in a previous life. If bad, then after the next birth he must fall into a lower caste, and vice versa.

In total, there are 4 main castes in India: brahmanas (priests), kshatriyas (warriors), vaisyas (merchants), sudras (workers and peasants) and about 5 thousand non-main castes and a podcast. The untouchables (outcasts) are especially worthy - they do not belong to any caste and occupy the lowest position. In the course of industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is becoming more and more class-based, and the village, in which 7/10 of the population lives, remains a caste one.

Estates. Estates are the form of stratification that precedes classes. In the feudal societies that existed in Europe from the 4th to the 14th centuries, people were divided into estates.

Estate - a social group that has established custom or legal law and inherited rights and obligations. The estate system, which includes several strata, is characterized by a hierarchy expressed in the inequality of their position and privileges. The classic example of the estate organization was Europe, where at the turn of the XIV-XV centuries. society was divided into the upper classes (nobility and clergy) and the unprivileged third class (artisans, merchants, peasants). And in the X-XIII centuries. there were three main estates: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia, from the second half of the 18th century. the class division into the nobility, the clergy, the merchants, the peasantry and the bourgeoisie (middle urban strata) was established. Estates were based on land ownership.

The rights and obligations of each class were determined by legal law and sanctified by religious doctrine. Membership in an estate was determined by inheritance. Social barriers between estates were quite tough, so social mobility existed not so much between estates as within estates. Each estate included many layers, ranks, levels, professions, ranks. So, only nobles could be engaged in public service. The aristocracy was considered a military estate (chivalry).

The higher the class was in the social hierarchy, the higher was its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were fully tolerated, and individual mobility was also allowed. An ordinary person could become a knight by purchasing a special permit from the ruler. Merchants bought titles of nobility for money. As a relic, this practice has been partially preserved in modern England.

Russian nobility.
A characteristic feature of the estates is the presence of social symbols and signs: titles, uniforms, orders, titles. Classes and castes did not have state distinctive signs, although they were distinguished by clothing, adornments, norms and rules of behavior, and a ritual of conversion. In feudal society, the state assigned distinctive symbols to the main class - the nobility. How exactly was this expressed?

Titles are verbal designations established by law for the official and estate-clan status of their owners, which briefly determined the legal status. In Russia in the XIX century. there were such titles as "General", "State Councilor", "Chamberlain", "Count", "Adjutant Wing", "Secretary of State", "Excellency" and "Lordship".

Uniforms are official uniforms that correspond to titles and visually express them.

Orders - material insignia, honorary awards, complementing titles and uniforms. The order (knight of the order) was a special case of the uniform, and the order itself was a common addition to any uniform.

The core of the system of titles, orders and uniforms was the rank - the rank of each civil servant (military, civilian or courtier). Before Peter I, the concept of "rank" meant any position, honorary title, social status of a person. On January 24, 1722, Peter I introduced a new system of titles in Russia, legal basis which served as the "Table of Ranks". Since then, "rank" has acquired a narrower meaning, referring only to public service. The report card provided for three main types of service: military, civilian and court. Each was divided into 14 ranks, or classes.

Civil service was built on the principle that an employee had to go through the entire hierarchy from the bottom up entirely, starting with the length of service of the lowest class rank. In each class it was necessary to serve a certain minimum of years (in the lower 3-4 years). There were fewer higher positions than lower ones. The class denoted the rank of the position, which was called the class rank. The name "official" was assigned to its owner.

Only the nobility - local and servicemen - was allowed to public service. Both were hereditary: the title of nobility was passed on to his wife, children and distant descendants in the male line. Daughters who got married acquired the status of a husband. The noble status was usually formalized in the form of genealogy, family coat of arms, portraits of ancestors, tradition, titles and orders. So in the minds gradually formed a sense of the continuity of generations, pride in their family and the desire to preserve its good name. Taken together, they constituted the concept of "noble honor", an important component of which was the respect and trust of others to an unblemished name. The total number of the nobility and class officials (with family members) was equal in the middle of the 19th century. 1 million

The noble origin of a hereditary nobleman was determined by the merits of his family to the Fatherland. The official recognition of such merits was expressed by the common title of all nobles - "your honor". The private title "nobleman" was not used in everyday life. It was replaced by the predicate "master", which eventually began to refer to any other free class. In Europe, other substitutions were used: “background” for German surnames, “don” for Spanish surnames, “de” for French surnames. In Russia, this formula has been transformed into the indication of the name, patronymic and surname. The nominal three-term formula was used only in addressing the noble class: the use of the full name was the prerogative of the nobles, and the half-name was considered a sign of belonging to the ignoble class.

In the class hierarchy of Russia, achievable and attributed titles were very complexly intertwined. The presence of a pedigree indicated an attributed status, and its absence indicated an achievable one. In the second generation, the achieved (granted) status turned into attributed (inherited).

Adapted from the source: Shepelev L.E. Titles, uniforms, orders.-M., 1991.

3. Class system

Belonging to the social stratum in the slave-owning, caste and estate-feudal societies was fixed by official legal or religious norms. In pre-revolutionary Russia, every person knew what class he was in. People, as they say, were attributed to one or another social stratum.

In a class society, the situation is different. The state does not deal with the issues of social consolidation of its citizens. The only controller is the public opinion of the people, which is guided by customs, established practices, income, lifestyle and standards of behavior. Therefore, it is very difficult to accurately and unambiguously determine the number of classes in a particular country, the number of strata or strata into which they are divided, and the belonging of people to strata. Criteria are needed that are chosen rather arbitrarily. That is why in a country as developed from a sociological point of view as the United States, different sociologists propose different class typologies. In one there are seven, in the other six, in the third five, etc. social strata. The first typology of classes in the United States was proposed in the 40s. XX century American sociologist L. Warner.

Upper-upper class included the so-called old families. They consisted of the most successful businessmen and those who were called professionals. They lived in privileged parts of the city.

Lower-upper class by level material well-being was not inferior to the upper - the upper class, but did not include old clan families.

Upper-middle class consisted of owners and professionals who had less material wealth in comparison with people from the upper two classes, but they actively participated in the public life of the city and lived in rather comfortable districts.

Lower-middle class were lower employees and skilled workers.

Upper-lower class included low-skilled workers employed in local factories and living in relative prosperity.

Lower-lower class were those who are commonly called the "social bottom". These are the inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places of little use for life. They constantly feel an inferiority complex due to extreme poverty and constant humiliation.

In all two-part words, the first word denotes a stratum, or layer, and the second, the class to which this layer belongs.

Other schemes are proposed, for example: upper-upper, upper-lower, upper-middle, middle-middle, lower-middle, worker, lower classes. Or: upper class, upper-middle, middle and lower-middle class, upper working and lower working class, underclass. There are many options, but it is important to understand two fundamental points:

• there are only three main classes, whatever they are called: rich, prosperous and poor;
• minor classes arise by adding strata, or layers, lying within one of the main classes.

More than half a century has passed since L. Warner developed his concept of classes. Today it has been replenished with one more layer and in its final form represents a seven-point scale.

Upper-upper class includes the "aristocrats by blood" who emigrated to America 200 years ago and accumulated untold wealth over many generations. They are distinguished by a special way of life, high society manners, impeccable taste and behavior.

Lower-upper class consists mainly of the "new rich" who have not yet managed to create powerful tribal clans that have seized the highest posts in industry, business, and politics.

Typical representatives - a professional basketball player or pop star, receiving tens of millions, but in the family who do not have "aristocrats by blood."

Upper-middle class consists of the petty bourgeoisie and highly paid professionals - big lawyers, famous doctors, actors or television commentators. The way of life is approaching the high society, but they cannot afford a fashionable villa in the most expensive resorts in the world or a rare collection of art rarities.

Middle-middle class represents the most massive stratum of a developed industrial society. It includes all well-paid employees, middle-paid professionals, in a word, people of intelligent professions, including teachers, teachers, middle managers. It is the backbone of the information society and the service industry.

Half an hour before starting work
Barbara and Colin Williams are an average English family. They live in the suburb of London, Watford Junction, which can be reached from central London in 20 minutes in a comfortable, clean train car. They are over 40, both work in the optical center. Colin grinds glasses and inserts them into frames, and Barbara sells ready-made glasses. A family contract, so to speak, although they are salaried workers, not owners of an enterprise numbering about 70 optical workshops.

It is not surprising that the correspondent chose not to visit a family of factory workers, who for many years personified the most numerous class - workers. The situation has changed. Of the total number of British people with work (28.5 million people), most are employed in the service sector, only 19% are industrial workers. Unskilled workers in the UK earn an average of 908 pounds a month, skilled workers - 1308 pounds.

The minimum base salary that Barbara can count on is £ 530 a month. Everything else depends on her diligence. Barbara admits that she also had "black" weeks when she did not receive bonuses at all, but sometimes she managed to get bonuses and more than 200 pounds a week. So the average comes out about £ 1200 a month, plus the thirteenth salary. On average, Colin earns about £ 1,660 a month.

It can be seen that the Williams value their work, although it takes 45-50 minutes to get there by car during rush hour. My question, how often they are late, seemed strange to Barbara: “My husband and I prefer to arrive half an hour before the start of work”. Spouses regularly pay taxes, income and social insurance, which is about a quarter of their income.

Barbara is not afraid of losing her job. Perhaps this is due to the fact that she was lucky before, she was never unemployed. But Colin had to sit idle for several months, and he recalls how he once applied for a vacant position for which another 80 people applied.

As a lifelong worker, Barbara speaks with undisguised disapproval of people using unemployment benefits without struggling to find a job. “You know how many cases when people receive benefits, do not pay taxes and still secretly earn money somewhere,” she says indignantly. Barbara herself chose to work even after the divorce, when, with two children, she could live on an allowance that was higher than the salary. In addition, she refused alimony, having agreed with her ex-husband that he would leave her home with her children.

The registered unemployed in the UK is about 6%. The unemployment benefit depends on the number of dependents, averaging around £ 60 per week.

The Williams family spends about 200 pounds a month on food, which is slightly below the average cost of an English family for food (9.1%). Barbara buys food for the family at the local supermarket, cooks at home, although she and her husband and I stop by a traditional English “pub” 1-2 times a week, where you can not only drink good beer, but also have an inexpensive dinner, and even play cards ...

What distinguishes the Williams family from others is primarily their home, but not the size (5 rooms plus a kitchen), but low rent (20 pounds a week), while the "average" family spends 10 times more.

Lower-middle class are lower employees and skilled workers who, by the nature and content of their labor, tend not to physical, but to mental labor. The hallmark is a befitting lifestyle.

Russian miner's family budget
The Graudenzerstrasse street in the Ruhr town of Recklinghausen (Germany) is located near the General Blumenthal mine. Here in a three-story, outwardly nondescript house, at number 12, lives the family of the hereditary German miner Peter Scharf.

Peter Scharf, his wife Ulrika and two children - Katrin and Stefanie - occupy a four-room apartment with a total living area of ​​92 m 2.

Peter earns 4382 marks a month at the mine. However, on the printout of his earnings, there is a pretty decent deduction line: 291 marks for medical care, 409 marks for the contribution to the pension fund, 95 marks for the unemployment benefit fund.

So, a total of 1253 marks have been withheld. It seems a bit too much. However, according to Peter, these are contributions to the right cause. For example, health insurance provides preferential service not only for him, but also for his family members. This means that they will receive many medicines free of charge. He will pay the minimum for the operation, the rest will be covered by the health insurance fund. For example:

the removal of the appendix costs the patient six thousand marks. For a member of the cashier - two hundred marks. Teeth are treated free of charge.

Having received 3 thousand marks in his hands, Peter pays 650 marks monthly for an apartment, plus 80 for electricity. Its costs would have been even greater if the mine had not provided each miner with seven tons of coal free of charge annually in terms of social assistance. Including retirees. Those who do not need coal are recalculated to pay for heating and hot water. Therefore, heating and hot water are free for the Scharf family.

In total, 2250 marks remain on hand. The family does not deny themselves food and clothing. Children eat fruits and vegetables all year round, and they are not cheap in winter. They also spend a lot on children's clothes. To this must be added another 50 marks for the telephone, 120 - for life insurance of adult family members, 100 - for insurance of children, 300 - per quarter for car insurance. And they have it, by the way, not new - "Volkswagen Passat" 1981 release.

We spend 1,500 marks a month on food and clothing. The rest of the expenses, including rent and electricity, are 1,150 marks. If you subtract this from the three thousand that Peter gets in his hands at the mine, then there are a couple of hundred marks left.

Children go to gymnasium, Katrin goes to third grade, Stefanie goes to fifth. Parents pay nothing for their studies. Paid only notebooks and textbooks. There are no school breakfasts in the gymnasium. Children bring sandwiches with them. The only thing they are given is cocoa. It is worth the pleasure of two brands a week for each.

Ulrik's wife works three times a week for four hours as a saleswoman at a grocery store. Receives 480 marks, which, of course, are a good help to the family budget.

- Do you put anything in the bank?

- Not always, and if it were not for my wife's salary, we would have passed "by zero."

The tariff agreement for miners for this year states that each miner will receive so-called Christmas money at the end of the year. And this is neither more nor less than 3898 marks.

Source: Arguments and Facts. - 1991. - No. 8.

Upper-lower class includes medium - and low - skilled workers employed in mass production, in local factories, living in relative prosperity, but in demeanor significantly different from the upper and middle class. Distinctive features: low education (usually complete and incomplete secondary, specialized secondary), passive leisure (watching TV, playing cards or dominoes), primitive entertainment, often excessive drinking and non-literary vocabulary.

Lower-lower class are inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places of little use for life. They either do not have any education, or have only elementary education, most often they are interrupted by odd jobs, begging, constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and humiliation. They are usually called the "social bottom", or the underclass. Most often, their ranks are recruited from chronic alcoholics, ex-prisoners, homeless people, etc.

The working class in modern post-industrial society includes two strata: lower-middle and upper-lower. All knowledge workers, however little they receive, are never enrolled in the lower class.

The middle class (with its inherent strata) is always distinguished from the working class. But the working class is also distinguished from the lower class, which may include non-working, unemployed, homeless, beggars, etc. As a rule, highly skilled workers are included not in the working class, but in the middle class, but in its lower stratum, which is filled mainly by low-skilled workers mental labor - employees.

Another option is possible: skilled workers are not included in the middle class, but they make up two strata in the general working class. Specialists are included in the 'next layer of the middle class, because the very concept of "specialist" presupposes at least college education.

Between the two poles of the class stratification of American society - very rich (fortune - 200 million dollars or more) and very poor (income less than 6.5 thousand dollars per year), constituting approximately the same share of the total population, namely 5% , a part of the population is located, which is usually called the middle class. In industrially developed countries, it constitutes the majority of the population - from 60 to 80%.

It is customary to refer to the middle class as doctors, teachers and teachers, the engineering and technical intelligentsia (including all employees), the middle and petty bourgeoisie (entrepreneurs), highly qualified workers, leaders (managers).

Comparing Western and Russian society, many scientists (and not only them) are inclined to believe that in Russia there is no middle class in the generally accepted sense of the word, or it is extremely small in number. The basis is two criteria: 1) scientific and technical (Russia has not yet passed to the stage of post-industrial development and therefore the layer of managers, programmers, engineers and workers associated with high-tech production is smaller here than in England, Japan or the USA); 2) material (the incomes of the Russian population are immeasurably lower than in Western European society, therefore, the representative of the middle class in the West will turn out to be a rich man in our country, and our middle class drags out existence at the level of the European poor).

The author is convinced that each culture and each society should have its own model of the middle class, reflecting the national specifics. It's not about the amount of money earned (more precisely, not only about them alone), but about the quality of their spending. In the USSR, most workers received more intelligentsia. But what was the money spent on? For cultural leisure, education, expansion and enrichment of spiritual needs? Sociological research show that money was spent on maintaining a physical existence, including the cost of alcohol and tobacco. The intelligentsia earned less, but the composition of expenditure items of the budget did not differ from what the educated part of the population of Western countries spent money on.

The criterion for a country to belong to a post-industrial society is also questionable. Such a society is also called informational. The main feature and the main resource in it is cultural, or intellectual, capital. In a post-industrial society, it is not the working class, but the intelligentsia that runs the show. She can live modestly, even very modestly, but if she is numerous enough to set the standards of life for all segments of the population, if she has done so that the values, ideals and needs she shares become prestigious for other segments, if the majority strives to get into her ranks population, there is reason to say that a strong middle class has formed in such a society.

By the end of the existence of the USSR, there was such a class. Its boundaries still need to be clarified - it was 10-15%, as most sociologists think, or still 30-40%, as can be assumed, based on the above criteria, this still needs to be discussed and this issue still needs to be studied. After Russia's transition to the extensive construction of capitalism (which one is also a debatable issue), the standard of living of the entire population, and especially the former middle class, sharply decreased. But has the intelligentsia ceased to be such? Unlikely. A temporary deterioration in one indicator (income) does not mean a deterioration in another (educational level and cultural capital).

It can be assumed that the Russian intelligentsia as the basis of the middle class did not disappear in connection with the economic reforms, but, as it were, is hiding and waiting in the wings. With the improvement of material conditions, its intellectual capital will not only recover, but also increase. It will be in demand by time and society.

4. Stratification of Russian society

Perhaps this is the most controversial and unexplored issue. Domestic sociologists have been studying the problems of the social structure of our society for many years, but all this time ideology has influenced their results. Only recently have the conditions appeared for objectively and impartially understanding the essence of the matter. In the late 80s - early 90s. sociologists such as T. Zaslavskaya, V. Radaev, V. Ilyin and others have proposed approaches to the analysis of the social stratification of Russian society. Despite the fact that these approaches do not converge in many ways, they still allow us to describe the social structure of our society and consider its dynamics.

From estates to classes

Before the revolution in Russia, it was the estate, not the class, division of the population that was official. It was divided into two main classes - taxable(peasants, bourgeois) and unaffordable(nobility, clergy). Within each class, there were smaller classes and layers. The state provided them with certain rights enshrined in legislation. The rights themselves were guaranteed to the estates only insofar as they performed certain duties in favor of the state (they grew bread, engaged in trades, served, paid taxes). The state apparatus and officials regulated relations between estates. This was the benefit of bureaucracy. Naturally, the estate system was inseparable from the state one. That is why we can define estates as social and legal groups that differ in the scope of rights and obligations in relation to the state.

According to the 1897 census, the entire population of the country, which is 125 million Russians, was divided into the following estates: nobles - 1.5% of the total population, clergy - 0,5%, merchants - 0,3%, bourgeois - 10,6%, peasants - 77,1%, Cossacks - 2.3%. The first privileged class in Russia was considered the nobility, the second - the clergy. The rest of the estates were not privileged. The nobles were hereditary and personal. Not all of them were landowners, many were in the civil service, which was the main source of livelihood. But those nobles who were landowners constituted a special group - the class of landowners (among the hereditary nobles there were no more than 30% of landowners).

Gradually, classes appear within other estates as well. The once united peasantry at the turn of the century stratified into the poor (34,7%), middle peasants (15%), wealthy (12,9%), fists(1.4%), as well as small and landless peasants, together accounting for one third. The bourgeoisie was a heterogeneous formation - the middle urban strata, which included small employees, artisans, handicraftsmen, domestic servants, postal and telegraph employees, students, etc. From their midst and from the peasantry came Russian industrialists, the petty, middle and large bourgeoisie. True, the latter was dominated by yesterday's merchants. The Cossacks were a privileged military class serving on the border.

By 1917, the process of class formation did not end, he was at the very beginning. The main reason is the lack of an adequate economic base: commodity-money relations were in their infancy, like the country's domestic market. They did not cover the main productive force of society - the peasants, who, even after the Stolypin reform, did not become free farmers. The working class, numbering about 10 million people, did not consist of hereditary workers, many were half-workers, half-peasants. By the end of the XIX century. the industrial revolution was not fully completed. Manual labor was never supplanted by machines, even in the 80s. XX v. it accounted for 40%. The bourgeoisie and proletariat did not become the main classes of society. The government created huge privileges for domestic entrepreneurs by restricting free competition. The lack of competition strengthened monopoly and held back the development of capitalism, which never passed from an early to a mature stage. The low material level of the population and the limited capacity of the domestic market did not allow the working masses to become full-fledged consumers. Thus, the per capita income in Russia in 1900 was 63 rubles a year, in England - 273, in the USA - 346. The population density was 32 times less than in Belgium. 14% of the population lived in cities, and in England - 78%, in the USA - 42%. There were no objective conditions for the emergence of a middle class acting as a stabilizer of society in Russia.

Classless society

The October Revolution, perpetrated by the extra-class and extra-class strata of the urban and rural poor, led by the battle-worthy Bolshevik Party, easily destroyed the old social structure of Russian society. A new one had to be created on its ruins. Officially she was named classless. So it was in fact, since the objective and only basis for the emergence of classes - private property - was being destroyed. The process of class formation that had begun was eliminated in the bud. The official ideology of Marxism, which officially equalized everyone in rights and in material status, did not allow the restoration of the estate system.

In history, within the framework of one country, a unique situation arose when all known types of social stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes - were destroyed and were not recognized as eligible. However, as we already know, society cannot exist without social hierarchy and social inequality, even the simplest and most primitive. Russia was not one of those.

Arrangement social organization society was taken over by the Bolshevik Party, which acted as a representative of the interests of the proletariat - the most active, but far from the most numerous group of the population. It is the only class to have survived the devastating revolution and bloody civil war. As a class, he was solidary, united and organized, which could not be said about the class of peasants, whose interests were limited to land ownership and the protection of local traditions. The proletariat is the only class in the old society devoid of any form of ownership. This is exactly what suited the Bolsheviks most of all, who for the first time in history conceived to build a society where there would be no property, inequality, and exploitation.

New class

It is known that not a single social group of any size can organize itself spontaneously, no matter how much it wants to. The administrative functions were taken over by a relatively small group - the political party of the Bolsheviks, which had accumulated the necessary experience over the long years of the underground. Having carried out the nationalization of land and enterprises, the party appropriated all state property, and with it the power in the state. Gradually formed new class the party bureaucracy, who appointed ideologically devoted cadres to key posts in the national economy, in the sphere of culture and science - first of all, members of the Communist Party. Since the new class was the owner of the means of production, it was the exploiting class that exercised control over the whole of society.

The basis of the new class was nomenclature - the upper layer of party functionaries. Nomenclature denotes a list leadership positions, which are replaced by the decision of the higher authority. The ruling class includes only those who are in the regular nomenclature of party organizations - from the nomenclature of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the main nomenclature of district party committees. None of the nomenclature could be elected or replaced by the people. In addition, the nomenclature included heads of enterprises, construction, transport, agriculture, defense, science, culture, ministries and departments. The total number is about 750 thousand people, and with family members, the number of the ruling class of the nomenklatura in the USSR reached 3 million people, that is, 1.5% of the total population.

Stratification of Soviet society

In 1950, the American sociologist A. Inkels, analyzing the social stratification of Soviet society, found 4 large groups in it - the ruling elite, the intelligentsia, the working class and the peasantry. With the exception of the ruling elite, each group, in turn, disintegrated into several layers. So, in the group intelligentsia 3 subgroups were found:

the upper stratum, the mass intelligentsia (professionals, middle officials and managers, junior officers and technicians), "white collars" (ordinary employees - accountants, cashiers, lower managers). Working class included the "aristocracy" (the most skilled workers), ordinary workers of average skill and lagging, low-skilled workers. Peasantry consisted of 2 subgroups - successful and average collective farmers. In addition to them, A. Inkels highlighted the so-called residual group, where he enrolled prisoners held in labor camps and correctional colonies. This part of the population, like the outcasts in the caste system of India, was outside the formal class structure.

Differences in the income of these groups turned out to be larger than in the United States and Western Europe. In addition to high wages, the elite of Soviet society received additional benefits: a personal chauffeur and an official car, a comfortable apartment and a country house, closed shops and clinics, boarding houses, and special rations. The style of life, style of dress and demeanor also differed significantly. True, social inequality was to a certain extent leveled out thanks to free education and health care, pension and social insurance, as well as low prices on public transport and low rent.

Summarizing the 70-year period of development of Soviet society, the famous Soviet sociologist T.I. Zaslavskaya in 1991 identified 3 groups in its social system: upper class, lower class and separating them interlayer. The basis top class constitutes a nomenclature that unites the highest strata of the party, military, state and economic bureaucracy. She is the owner of the national wealth, most of which she spends on herself, receiving explicit (salary) and implicit (free goods and services) income. Lower class formed by hired workers of the state: workers, peasants, intelligentsia. They have no property and no political rights. Specific traits lifestyle: low incomes, limited consumption patterns, overcrowding in communal apartments, poor medical care, poor health.

Social layer social groups serving the nomenclature are formed between the upper and lower classes: middle managers, ideological workers, party journalists, propagandists, social science teachers, medical staff of special clinics, drivers of personal cars and other categories of servants of the nomenklatura elite, as well as successful artists, lawyers, writers, diplomats commanders of the army, navy, the KGB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. While the serving stratum appears to occupy a place usually belonging to the middle class, such similarities are misleading. The base of the middle class in the West is private property, which ensures political and social independence. However, the service stratum is dependent in everything; it has neither private property nor the right to dispose of public property.

These are the main foreign and domestic theories of the social stratification of Soviet society. We had to turn to them because the issue is still controversial. Perhaps, in the future, new approaches will appear that in some way or in many respects clarify the old ones, because our society is constantly changing, and it sometimes happens in such a way that all the predictions of scientists are refuted.

The peculiarity of Russian stratification

Let's summarize and from this point of view, define the main contours state of the art and the future development of social stratification in Russia. The main conclusion is as follows. Soviet society has never been socially homogeneous, social stratification has always existed in it, which is a hierarchically ordered inequality. Social groups formed a kind of pyramid, in which the layers differed in the amount of power, prestige, and wealth. Since there was no private property, there was no economic basis for the emergence of classes in the Western sense. The society was not open, but closed, like caste-class. However, estates in the usual sense of the word did not exist in Soviet society, since there was no legal consolidation of social status, as was the case in feudal Europe.

At the same time, in Soviet society, there really were classlike and class-like groups. Let's consider why this was so. For 70 years, Soviet society was the most mobile the world is a society along with America. Free education available to all strata opened up for everyone the same promotion opportunities that existed only in the United States. Nowhere in the world has the elite of society formed in a short time literally from all strata of society. According to American sociologists, the most dynamic Soviet society was in terms of not only education and social mobility, but also industrial development. For many years the USSR held the first place in terms of the rate of industrial progress. All these are signs of a modern industrial society, which put forward the USSR, as written by Western sociologists, among the leading nations of the world.

At the same time, Soviet society must be classified as a class society. Class stratification is based on non-economic coercion, which persisted in the USSR for more than 70 years. After all, only private property, commodity-money relations and a developed market can destroy it, and they just did not exist. The place of legal consolidation of social status was taken by ideological and party ones. Depending on party experience, ideological loyalty, a person moved up the ladder or fell down into the "residual group." Rights and obligations were determined in relation to the state, all groups of the population were its employees, but depending on the profession, party membership, they occupied different places in the hierarchy. Although the ideals of the Bolsheviks had nothing to do with feudal principles, the Soviet state returned to them in practice - having substantially modified them - in that. which divided the population into "taxable" and "non-taxable" strata.

Thus, Russia should be classified as mixed type stratification, but with a significant caveat. Unlike England and Japan, feudal remnants were not preserved here in the form of a living and highly revered tradition, they did not overlap with the new class structure. There was no historical continuity. On the contrary, in Russia the estate system was first undermined by capitalism, and then finally destroyed by the Bolsheviks. The classes that did not have time to develop under capitalism were also destroyed. Nevertheless, essential, albeit modified, elements of both systems of stratification have revived in a type of society that, in principle, does not tolerate any stratification, any inequality. It is historically new and a unique type of mixed stratification.

Stratification of post-Soviet Russia

After famous events in the mid-80s and early 90s, called a peaceful revolution, Russia turned to market relations, democracy and a class society of the Western type. Over the course of 5 years, the country has almost formed the upper class of property owners, which makes up about 5% of the total population, the social lower classes of society have formed, whose standard of living is below the poverty line. And the middle of the social pyramid is occupied by small entrepreneurs who, with varying degrees of success, try to get into the ruling class. As the standard of living of the population rises, the middle part of the pyramid will be replenished with an increasing number of representatives not only of the intelligentsia, but also of all other business-oriented strata of society. professional work and a career. From it the middle class of Russia will be born.

The basis, or social base, of the upper class was still the same nomenclature, which by the beginning of economic reforms held key positions in the economy, politics, culture. The opportunity to privatize enterprises, transfer them to private and group ownership came in handy. In fact, the nomenclature only legalized its position as a real manager and owner of the means of production. Two other sources of replenishment of the upper class are the businessmen of the shadow economy and the engineering stratum of the intelligentsia. The first were in fact the pioneers of private entrepreneurship at a time when they were prosecuted by law. Behind them not only practical experience business management, but also prison experience prosecuted by the law (at least in part). The second are rank-and-file civil servants who left the research institutes, design bureaus and SLE on time, the most active and inventive.

Opportunities for vertical mobility for the majority of the population opened very unexpectedly and closed very quickly. It became almost impossible to get into the upper class of society 5 years after the start of reforms. Its capacity is objectively limited and amounts to no more than 5% of the population. The ease with which large capitals were made in the first "five years" of capitalism has disappeared. Today, in order to gain access to the elite, capital and opportunities are required that most people do not have. It happens as if top class closure, he passes laws restricting access to his ranks; he creates private schools that make it difficult for others to obtain the necessary education. Elite entertainment is no longer available to all other categories. It includes not only expensive salons, boarding houses, bars, clubs, but also rest in world resorts.

At the same time, access to the rural and urban middle class is open. The layer of farmers is extremely insignificant and does not exceed 1%. The middle urban strata have not yet formed. But their replenishment depends on how soon the “new Russians”, the elite of society and the country's leadership will pay for skilled mental labor not at the subsistence level, but at its market price. As we recall, the backbone of the middle class in the West is made up of teachers, lawyers, doctors, journalists, writers, academics and middle managers. The stability and prosperity of Russian society will depend on the success in the formation of the middle class.

5. Poverty and inequality

Inequality and poverty are concepts closely related to social stratification. Inequality characterizes the uneven distribution of scarce resources of society - money, power, education and prestige - between different strata, or strata of the population. The main measure of inequality is the amount of liquid assets. This function is usually performed by money (in primitive societies, inequality was expressed in the number of small and cattle, shells, etc.).

If inequality is presented in the form of a scale, then at one pole there will be those who own the greatest (rich), and at the other - the least (poor) amount of goods. Thus, poverty is the economic and socio-cultural condition of people with a minimum amount of liquid values ​​and limited access to social benefits. The most common and easiest way to measure inequality is to compare the lowest and highest incomes in a given country. Pitirim Sorokin thus compared different countries and different historical eras. For example, in medieval Germany the ratio of the highest to the lowest income was 10,000: 1, and in medieval England it was 600: 1. Another way is to analyze the share of household income spent on food. It turns out that the rich spend only 5-7% of their family budget, and the poor - 50-70%. The poorer the individual, the more he spends on food, and vice versa.

The essence social inequality lies in the unequal access of different categories of the population to social goods such as money, power and prestige. The essence economic inequality in the fact that a minority of the population always owns most of the national wealth. In other words, the smallest part of society receives the highest incomes, and the majority of the population receives the middle and lowest incomes. The latter can be distributed in different ways. In the United States in 1992, the smallest incomes, as well as the largest, are received by a minority of the population, while the average - by the majority. In Russia in 1992, when the exchange rate of the ruble fell sharply and the overwhelming majority of the population absorbed all the ruble reserves, the lowest incomes were received by the majority, the average income was a relatively small group, and the highest was the minority of the population. Accordingly, the income pyramid, their distribution between population groups, in other words, inequality, in the first case can be depicted in the form of a rhombus, and in the second - a cone (Figure 3). As a result, we get a stratification profile, or inequality profile.

In the United States, 14% of the total population lived near the poverty line, in Russia - 81%, the rich were 5% each, and those who could be classified as wealthy, or the middle class, were respectively

81% vs. 14%. (For data on Russia, see: Poverty: Scientists' View of the Problem / Edited by M. A. Mozhina. - M., 1994. - P. 6.)

Rich

Money is the universal measure of inequality in modern society. Their number determines the place of an individual or a family in social stratification. The rich include those who own the maximum amount of money. Wealth is expressed in the amount of money that determines the value of everything that a person owns: a house, a car, a yacht, a collection of paintings, stocks, insurance policies, etc. They are liquid - they can always be sold. The rich are so called because they own the most liquid assets, be it oil companies, commercial banks, supermarkets, publishing houses, castles, islands, luxury hotels or art collections. A person who possesses all of these is considered to be rich. Wealth is something that accumulates over many years and is inherited, which allows you to live comfortably without working.

The rich are called differently millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires. In the United States, wealth is distributed as follows: 1) 0.5% of the super-rich own values ​​worth $ 2.5 million. and more; 2) 0.5% of the very wealthy own from 1.4 to 2.5 million dollars;

3) 9% of the wealthy - from 206 thousand dollars. up to 1.4 million dollars; 4) 90% of those belonging to the class of the wealthy own less than 206 thousand dollars. In total, in the United States, 1 million people own assets worth more than $ 1 million. These include the "old rich" and the "new rich". The former accumulated wealth for decades and even centuries, passing it on from generation to generation. The latter have created their own well-being in a matter of years. These include, in particular, professional athletes. It is known that the average annual income of an NBA basketball player is $ 1.2 million. They have not yet managed to become hereditary nobility, and it is not known whether they will be. They can spread their fortune among many heirs, each of whom will receive a small part and, therefore, will not be classified as rich. They can go broke or lose their wealth in some other way.

Thus, the “new rich” are those who have not had time to test the strength of their fortune over time. On the contrary, the “old rich” have their money invested in corporations, banks, real estate, which bring reliable profits. They are not scattered, but are multiplied by the efforts of tens and hundreds of the same rich people. Mutual marriages between them create a clan network that insures each separately from possible ruin.

The stratum of the "old rich" consists of 60 thousand families belonging to the aristocracy "by blood", that is, by family origin. It includes only white Anglo-Saxons of the Protestant denomination, whose roots stretch back to the American settlers of the 18th century. and whose wealth was accumulated back in the 19th century. Among the 60 thousand richest families, 400 families of the super-rich stand out, constituting a kind of property elite of the upper class. In order to get into it, the minimum amount of wealth must exceed $ 275 million. The entire wealthy class in the United States does not exceed 5-6% of the population, which is more than 15 million people.

400 chosen

Since 1982, Forbes, the business magazine, has published a list of the 400 richest people in America. In 1989, the total value of their property minus liabilities (assets minus debts) was equal to the total value of goods and. services created by Switzerland and Jordan, namely $ 268 billion. The membership "contribution" to the elite club is $ 275 million, and the average wealth of its members is $ 670 million. Of these, 64 were men, including D. Trump, T. Turner and H. Perrault, and two women had a fortune of $ 1 billion. and higher. 40% of the elect inherited wealth, 6% built it on a relatively modest family foundation, 54% were self-made people.

Few of the great American wealthy date back to the pre-Civil War period. However, this "old" money is the basis of wealthy aristocratic families like the Rockefellers and Dupont. On the contrary, the accumulation of the "new rich" began in the 40s. XX century

They grow only because they have little time, in comparison with others, for their wealth to have time to "scatter" - thanks to inheritance - over several generations of relatives. The main channel for savings is ownership of the media, movable and immovable property, financial speculation.

87% of the super-rich are men, 13% are women who inherited their wealth as the daughter or widow of multimillionaires. All the rich are white, mostly Protestants of Anglo-Saxon roots. The overwhelming majority lives in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Washington. Only 1/5 graduated from elite universities, most of them have 4 years of college behind them. Many graduated from university with a bachelor's degree in economics and law. Ten of them have no higher education. 21 people are emigrants.

Abbreviated from source y:HessV.,MarksonE.,Stein P. Sociology... - N.Y., 1991.-P.192.

Poor

If inequality characterizes society as a whole, then poverty affects only part of the population. Depending on how high the level economic development countries, poverty covers a significant or insignificant part of the population. As we have seen, in 1992, 14% of the population was classified as poor in the United States, and 80% in Russia. Sociologists refer to the proportion of a country's population (usually expressed as a percentage) living near the official poverty line, or threshold, as the scale of poverty. The terms “poverty level”, “poverty lines” and “poverty rate” are also used to denote the scale of poverty.

The poverty line is the amount of money (usually expressed, for example, in dollars or rubles), officially set as the minimum income that allows an individual or family to purchase food, clothing and housing. It is also called the “poverty rate”. In Russia, he received an additional name - living wage. A living wage is a set of goods and services (expressed in prices of real purchases) that allows a person to satisfy the minimum scientifically acceptable needs. The poor spend 50 to 70% of their income on food; as a result, they do not have enough money for medicines, utilities, apartment renovations, and the purchase of good furniture and clothes. They are often unable to pay for the education of their children in a paid school or university.

Poverty lines change over time. Previously, humanity lived much worse and the number of the poor was higher. In ancient Greece, 90% of the population by the standards of that time lived in poverty. In Renaissance England, about 60% of the population was considered poor. In the XIX century. the scale of poverty dropped to 50%. In the 30s. XX century only a third of the British were poor, and after 50 years - only 15%. According to J. Galbraith's apt remark, in the past, poverty was the lot of the majority, and today it is the lot of the minority.

Traditionally, sociologists have distinguished between absolute and relative poverty. Under absolute poverty a condition is understood in which an individual, on his own income, is not able to satisfy even the basic needs for food, housing, clothing, warmth, or is able to satisfy only the minimum needs that ensure biological survival. The numerical criterion is the poverty threshold (cost of living).

Under relative poverty it is understood that it is impossible to maintain a level of befitting life, or a certain standard of life accepted in a given society. Relative poverty shows how poor you are compared to other people.

• unemployed;
• low-paid workers;
• recent immigrants;
• people who have moved from village to city;
• national minorities (especially blacks);
• vagabonds and vagabonds;
• people who are unable to work due to old age, injury or illness;
• incomplete families headed by a woman.

The new poor in Russia

Society has split into two unequal parts: outsiders and marginalized (60%) and wealthy (20%). Another 20% fell into the group with an income of $ 100 to $ 1000, i.e. with a 10-fold difference at the poles. Moreover, some of its "inhabitants" clearly gravitate towards the upper pole, while others - to the lower one. Between them is a hole, a "black hole". Thus, we still do not have a middle class - the basis for the stability of society.

Why did almost half of the population fall below the poverty line? We are constantly being told that we live as we work ... So there is nothing, as they say, to blame the mirror ... Yes, our labor productivity is lower than, say, the Americans. But, according to Academician D. Lvov, our salary is hideously low even in relation to our low labor productivity. With us, a person receives only 20% of what he earns (and even then with huge delays). It turns out that, in terms of one dollar of wages, our average worker produces three times more output than an American. Scientists believe that as long as wages do not depend on labor productivity, there is no reason to expect people to work better. What incentive to work can be, for example, nurse if she can buy only a monthly pass with her salary?

It is believed that helps to survive additional earnings... But, as studies show, those who have money - highly qualified specialists, people in high official positions - have more opportunities to earn extra money.

Thus, additional earnings do not smooth out, but increase the income gap - 25 times or more.

But people do not see even their meager wages for months. And this is another reason for massive impoverishment.

From a letter to the editor: “This year my children - 13 and 19 years old - had nothing to wear to school and college: we have no money for clothes and textbooks. There is no money even for bread. We eat crackers, which were dried 3 years ago. There are potatoes, vegetables from your garden. A mother who is starving to death shares her pension with us. But we are not quitters, my husband does not drink, does not smoke. But he is a miner, and they have not been paid for several months. I was a tutor in kindergarten but was recently closed. The husband cannot leave the mine, since there is nowhere else to get a job and until retirement is 2 years. Go to trade, as our leaders urge? But we already have the whole city trading. And nobody buys anything, because nobody has money - everything to the miner! " (L. Lisyutina, Venev, Tula region). Here is a typical example of a “new poor” family. These are those who, by their education, qualifications, social status, have never been among the needy before.

Moreover, it must be said that the burden of inflation hits the poor the hardest. At this time, prices rise for essential goods and services. And all the expenses of the poor come down to them. 1990-1996 for the poor, the cost of living increased 5-6 thousand times, and for the rich - 4.9 thousand times.

Poverty is dangerous because it seems to reproduce itself. Poor material security leads to poor health, loss of qualifications, and deprofessionalization. And in the end - to degradation. Poverty pulls to the bottom.

The heroes of Gorky's play "At the Bottom" came into our lives. 14 million of our fellow citizens are “bottom dwellers”: 4 million are homeless people, 3 million are beggars, 4 million are street children, 3 million are street, station-side prostitutes.

In half of the cases, they become outcasts because of a tendency to vice, weakness of character. The rest are victims of social policy.

3/4 of Russians are not sure that they will be able to avoid poverty.

The funnel that pulls to the bottom is sucking in more and more people. The most dangerous zone is the bottom. There are now 4.5 million people.

More and more often, life pushes desperate people to the last step, which saves them all their problems.

In terms of the number of suicides, Russia has come out on top in the world in recent years. In 1995, out of 100 thousand people, 41 committed suicide.

Based on materials from the Institute of Socio-Economic Problems of Population of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Introduction

Human society at all stages of its development was characterized by inequality. Sociologists call structured inequalities between different groups of people stratification.

Social stratification is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence and absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community. The specific forms of social stratification are varied and numerous. However, all their diversity can be reduced to three main forms: economic, political and professional stratification. As a rule, they are all closely intertwined. Social stratification is a constant characteristic of any organized society.

In real life, human inequality plays a huge role. Inequality is a specific form of social differentiation, in which individual individuals, strata, classes are at different levels of the vertical social hierarchy, have unequal life chances and opportunities to satisfy needs. Inequality is the yardstick by which we can place some groups above or below others. Social structure arises in relation to the social division of labor, and social stratification - in relation to the social distribution of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits.

Stratification is closely related to the prevailing system of values ​​in society. It forms a normative scale for assessing various types of human activity, on the basis of which people are ranked according to the degree of social prestige.

Social stratification performs a double function: it acts as a method for identifying the strata of a given society and at the same time represents its social portrait. Social stratification is characterized by a certain stability within a specific historical stage.

1. Term of stratification

Social stratification is a central theme of sociology. She describes social inequality in society, the division of social strata according to income level and lifestyle, according to the presence or absence of privileges. In primitive society, inequality was negligible, so there was almost no stratification. In complex societies, inequality is very strong, it divided people by income, level of education, power. Castes arose, then estates, and later classes. In some societies, the transition from one social stratum (stratum) to another is prohibited; there are societies where such a transition is limited, and there are societies where it is completely permitted. Freedom of social movement (mobility) determines whether a society is closed or open.

The term "stratification" comes from geology, where it refers to the vertical arrangement of the earth's strata. Sociology likened the structure of society to the structure of the Earth and placed social strata (strata) also vertically. The basis is the income ladder: the poor occupy the bottom rung, the wealthy groups of the population - the middle, and the rich - the top.

Each stratum includes only those people who have approximately the same income, power, education, and prestige. Inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. The social stratification of any society includes four scales - income, education, power, prestige.

Income - the amount of money received by an individual or family for a certain period of time (month, year). Income is the amount of money received in the form of salaries, pensions, benefits, alimony, royalties, deductions from profits. Income is measured in rubles or dollars that an individual (individual income) or family (family income) receives over a certain period of time, say one month or a year.

Income is most often spent on maintaining life, but if it is very high, then it accumulates and turns into wealth.

Wealth is accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or materialized money. In the second case, they are called movable (car, yacht, securities, etc.) and immovable (house, works of art, treasures) property. Usually wealth is inherited. Both working and non-working people can receive inheritance, and only working people can receive income. In addition to them, the pensioners and the unemployed have income, but the poor do not. The rich may or may not work. In either case, they are owners because they have wealth. The main asset of the upper class is not income, but accumulated property. The share of the salary is small. For the middle and lower classes, the main source of subsistence is income, since the former, if there is any wealth, is insignificant, while the latter does not have it at all. Wealth allows you not to work, and its absence forces you to work for a salary.

Wealth and income are unevenly distributed and mean economic inequality. Sociologists interpret it as an indicator that different groups of the population have unequal life chances. They buy different quantities and qualities of food, clothing, housing, etc. People with more money eat better, live in more comfortable houses, prefer a private car to public transport, can afford expensive vacations, etc. But apart from obvious economic advantages, the well-to-do strata have hidden privileges. The poor have shorter lives (even if they enjoy all the benefits of medicine), less educated children (even if they go to the same public schools), etc.

Education is measured by the number of years of study at a public or private school or university. Let's say elementary school means 4 years, incomplete secondary - 9 years, upper secondary - 11, college - 4 years, university - 5 years, graduate school - 3 years, doctoral studies - 3 years. Thus, a professor has more than 20 years of formal education behind his back, and a plumber may not even have eight.

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

The essence of power is the ability to impose one's will against the wishes of other people. In a complex society, power is institutionalized, i.e. protected by laws and tradition, surrounded by privileges and wide access to social benefits, allows making decisions that are vital for society, including laws that are usually beneficial to the upper class. In all societies, people with some form of power - political, economic, or religious - constitute an institutionalized elite. It represents the domestic and foreign policy of the state, directing it in a direction favorable to itself, which other classes are deprived of.

Three scales of stratification - income, education, and power - have quite objective units of measurement: dollars. Years, people. Prestige is outside this range, since it is a subjective indicator.

Prestige is the respect that a particular profession, position, occupation enjoys in public opinion. The profession of a lawyer is more prestigious than the profession of a steelmaker or a plumber. The position of the president of a commercial bank is more prestigious than the position of a cashier. All professions, occupations and positions existing in a given society can be placed from top to bottom on the ladder of professional prestige. As a rule, professional prestige is determined by us intuitively, approximately.

2. Systems of social stratification

Regardless of the forms that social stratification takes, its existence is universal. There are four main systems of social stratification: slavery, castes, clans and classes.

Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality. An inherent feature of slavery is the possession of some people by others.

There are usually three reasons for slavery. First, a promissory note, when a person who was unable to pay debts fell into slavery to his creditor. Secondly, violation of laws, when the execution of a murderer or robber was replaced by slavery, i.e. the culprit was handed over to the injured family as compensation for the grief or damage caused. Thirdly, war, raids, conquest, when one group of people conquered another and the victors used some of the captives as slaves.

Conditions of slavery. The conditions of slavery and slavery varied significantly in different regions of the world. In some countries, slavery was a temporary condition of a person: after working for his master for the allotted time, the slave became free and had the right to return to his homeland.

General characteristics of slavery. Although the practice of slavery was different in different regions and in different eras, regardless of whether slavery was the result of unpaid debt, punishment, war captivity, or racial prejudice; whether it was for life or temporary; hereditary or not, the slave was still the property of another person, and the system of laws fixed the status of a slave. Slavery served as the main distinction between people, clearly indicating which person is free (and according to the law receives certain privileges), and which is a slave (having no privileges).

Slavery has evolved historically. There are two forms of it:

Patriarchal slavery - the slave had all the rights of a younger member of the family: he lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free; it was forbidden to kill him;

Classical slavery - the slave lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not marry and did not have a family, he was considered the property of the owner.

Slavery is the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the property of another, and when the lower stratum is deprived of all rights and freedoms.

Caste is a social group (stratum), membership in which a person owes exclusively to his birth.

The achieved status is not able to change the place of the individual in this system. People who are born in a low-status group will always have that status no matter what they have personally achieved in life.

Societies that are characterized by this form of stratification strive to clearly preserve the boundaries between castes, therefore endogamy is practiced here - marriages within one's own group - and there is a ban on intergroup marriages. To prevent contacts between castes, such societies develop complex rules regarding ritual purity, according to which it is believed that communication with representatives of lower castes defiles the higher caste.

A clan is a clan or related group linked by economic and social ties.

The clan system is typical of agrarian societies. In such a system, each individual is associated with an extensive social network relatives - by the clan. A clan is something like a very ramified family and has similar features: if a clan has a high status, an individual belonging to this clan has the same status; all funds belonging to the clan, poor or rich, equally belong to each member of the clan; loyalty to the clan is a lifelong responsibility of each clan member.

Clans also resemble castes: belonging to a clan is determined by birth and is lifelong. However, unlike castes, marriages between different clans are quite tolerated; they can even be used to create and strengthen alliances between clans, since the obligations imposed by marriage on the spouse's relatives can unite the members of the two clans. The processes of industrialization and urbanization transform clans into more volatile groups, eventually replacing clans with social classes.

Clans are especially close in times of danger, as the following example shows.

A class is a large social group of people who do not own the means of production, occupying a certain place in the system of social division of labor and characterized by a specific way of earning income.

Stratification systems based on slavery, castes and clans are closed. The boundaries dividing people are so clear and firm that they leave no room for people to move from one group to another, with the exception of marriages between members of different clans. The class system is much more open, as it is based primarily on money or material property. Belonging to a class is also determined at birth - an individual receives the status of his parents, but the social class of an individual during his life can change depending on what he has managed (or failed) to achieve in life. In addition, there are no laws that determine the occupation or profession of an individual depending on birth or prohibit marriage with members of other social classes.

Consequently, the main characteristic of this system of social stratification is the relative flexibility of its boundaries. The class system leaves room for social mobility, i.e. to move up or down the social ladder. Having the potential to improve their social position, or class, is one of the main driving forces that motivate people to study well and work hard. Of course, the marital status inherited from birth by a person is capable of determining extremely unfavorable conditions that will not leave him a chance to rise too high in life, and provide the child with such privileges that it will be practically impossible for him to "slide down" the class ladder.

What class typologies have been invented by scientists and thinkers. The ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle were the first to propose their model.

Sociology today offers different class typologies.

More than half a century has passed since Lloyd Warner developed his concept of classes. Today it has been replenished with one more layer and in its final form represents a seven-point scale.

The upper - upper class includes "aristocrats by blood" who emigrated to America 200 years ago and accumulated untold wealth over many generations. They are distinguished by a special way of life, high society manners, impeccable taste and behavior.

The lower - upper class consists mainly of the "new rich" who have not yet managed to create powerful tribal clans that have seized the highest posts in industry, business, and politics. Typical representatives - a professional basketball player or pop star, receiving tens of millions, but in a family that does not have "aristocrats by blood."

The upper - middle class consists of the petty bourgeoisie and highly paid professionals, such as big lawyers, famous doctors, actors or television commentators. The lifestyle is approaching the high society, but they still cannot afford a fashionable villa in the most expensive resorts in the world or a rare collection of art rarities.

Middle - middle class represents the most massive stratum of a developed industrial society. It includes all well-paid employees, middle-paid professionals, in a word, people of intellectual professions, including teachers, teachers, middle managers. It is the backbone of the information society and the service industry.

The lower - middle class was made up of lower employees and skilled workers, who, by the nature and content of their labor, tend not to physical, but to mental labor. The hallmark is a befitting lifestyle.

The upper - lower class includes middle and low-skilled workers employed in mass production, in local factories, living in relative prosperity, but in demeanor significantly different from the upper and middle class. Distinctive features: low education (usually complete and incomplete secondary, secondary specialized), passive leisure (watching TV, playing cards or dominoes), primitive entertainment, often excessive drinking and non-literary vocabulary.

The lower - lower class is made up of the inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other poorly habitable places. They do not have any primary education, most often they are interrupted by odd jobs or begging, they constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and constant humiliation. They are usually called the "social bottom", or the underclass. Most often, a number of them are recruited from chronic alcoholics, ex-prisoners, homeless people, etc.

The term "top - top class" means the top layer of the top class. In all two-part words, the first word denotes a stratum or layer, and the second denotes the class to which the data layer belongs. The "upper-lower class" is sometimes called what it is, and sometimes the working class is referred to by it.

In sociology, the criterion for attributing a person to a particular stratum is not only income, but also the amount of power, the level of education and the prestige of an occupation, which presuppose a specific way of life and style of behavior. You can get a lot, but spend or drink all the money. It is not only the arrival of money that is important, but their expenditure, and this is already a way of life.

The working class in modern post-industrial society includes two strata: lower - middle and upper - lower. All knowledge workers, however little they receive, are never enrolled in the lower class.

The middle class is always distinguished from the working class. But the working class is distinguished from the lower class, which may include unemployed, unemployed, homeless, beggars, etc. As a rule, highly skilled workers are included not in the working class, but in the middle class, but in its lower stratum, which is filled mainly by low-skilled workers of mental labor - office workers.

Another variant is possible: workers are not included in the middle class, but they constitute two strata in the general working class. Specialists are included in the next layer of the middle class, because the very concept of "specialist" implies at least college education. The upper stratum of the middle class is filled mainly by "professionals".

3. Stratification profile

and a stratification profile.

Thanks to the four scales of stratification, the sociologist is able to create such analytical models and tools that can be used to explain not only the individual status portrait, but also the collective one, that is, the dynamics and structure of society as a whole. For this, two concepts are proposed that are similar in their appearance. But they differ in their internal content, namely, the stratification profile and the profile of stratification.

Thanks to the stratification profile, it is possible to take a deeper look at the problem of status incompatibility. Status incompatibility is a contradiction in the status set of one person, or a contradiction in the status characteristics of one status set of one person. Now we have the right to connect the category of stratification to the explanation of this phenomenon and express the status incompatibility in stratification characteristics. If some concepts showed a specific status, for example, a professor and a policeman, go beyond the boundaries of their (middle) class, then status incompatibility can also be interpreted as stratification incompatibility.

Stratification incompatibility causes a feeling of social discomfort, which can turn into frustration, frustration - into unsatisfactory place in society.

The fewer cases of status and stratification incompatibility in a society, the more stable it is.

So, a stratification profile is a graphical expression of the position of individual statuses on four scales of stratification.

It is necessary to distinguish another concept from the stratification profile - the stratification profile. Otherwise, it is called the profile of economic inequality.

A stratification profile is a graphical expression of the percentage of the upper, middle and lower classes in a country's population.

Conclusion

According to the evolutionary theory of stratification, as culture becomes more complex and develops, a situation arises in which no individual can master all aspects of social activity, there is a division of labor and specialization of activity. Some activities turn out to be more important, requiring long-term preparation and appropriate remuneration, while others are less important and therefore more massive, easily replaceable.

The concepts of stratification, in contrast to the Marxist idea of ​​classes and the construction of a classless society, do not postulate social equality, on the contrary, they consider inequality as a natural state of society, therefore the strata not only differ in their criteria, but are also located in a rigid system of subordination of some strata to others, privileged the position of the higher and the subordinate position of the lower. Even the idea of ​​some social contradictions is allowed in a dosage form, which are neutralized by the possibilities of social mobility of the vertical type, i.e. it is assumed that individual talented people can move from the lower strata to the higher ones, both equally and vice versa, when inactive people who occupy places in the upper strata of society due to the social status of their parents can go broke and end up in the lowest strata of the social structure.

Thus, the concepts of the social stratum, stratification and social mobility, complementing the concepts of class and class structure of society, concretize the general idea of ​​the structure of society and help to detail the analysis of social processes within the framework of certain economic and socio-political formations.

This is why the study of stratification is one of the most important areas of social anthropology. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, there are three main objectives of such research: "The first objective is to establish the extent to which class or status systems dominate at the level of society, asserting modes of social action. The second is to analyze class and status structures and factors that determine the process of formation of classes and statuses. Finally, social stratification documents the inequality of conditions, opportunities and incomes, as well as the ways in which groups maintain class or status boundaries. In other words, it raises the question of social isolation (clousure) and examines the strategies by which some groups maintain their privileges while others seek to gain access to them. "

List of used literature

Avdokushin E.F. International economic relations: Textbook - M .: Economist, 2004 - 366 p.

Bulatova A.S. World economy: Textbook - M .: Economist, 2004 - 366 p.

Lomakin V.K. World economy: Textbook for universities. - 2nd ed., Rev. and add. - M .: UNITI-DANA, 2001 .-- 735 p.

Moiseev S.R. International monetary and credit relations: Textbook. - M .: Publishing house "Business and Service", 2003. - 576 p.

Radjabova Z.K. World Economy: Textbook. 2nd ed., Rev. and add. - M .: INFRA-M, 2002 .-- 320s.

1. Social stratification (12)

   Abstract >> Sociology

   Sociology widely uses concept“social stratification”. When considering the problem social inequality is justified to proceed ... the principle, then they are social layers. V social stratification tends to inherit positions. ...

2. Social stratification (11)

   Abstract >> Sociology

   Groups of people in sociology widely use concept « social stratification ". Social stratification- (from Latin stratum - ... three fundamental concepts sociology - social structures, social composition and social stratification... In the domestic ...

3. Social stratification as a tool social analysis

   Coursework >> Sociology

   Between concepts « social stratification" and " social structure ", and V. Ilyin draws a parallel between concepts « social stratification" and " social inequality". Social

Using the concept of social stratification (from lat. stratum - layer, stratification) sociologists try to describe and explain the fact of social inequality, the subordination of large groups of people, the presence of a social order.

The generally accepted position is that inequality is eternal in society, that the differences between social subjects are predetermined, which ultimately takes shape in the hierarchy system adopted in a given society, in which all members of society are included and in relation to which they act and evaluate their own and other people's behavioral practices.

Social stratificationis a set of functionally related statuses and roles (grouped in strata), reflecting the vertical projection of the social system, which in turn indicates the inequality of subjects in the social hierarchy. At the same time, the concept of inequality is devoid of an ethical-chain character (although it is difficult to accept) and is viewed as a natural and necessary way of organizing and functioning of society. In this regard, absolute equality is assessed as a destructive factor for the social system, although we can mention several models of universal equality that do not destroy the social hierarchy - these are Roman law (“all are equal before the law”) and religion (“all are equal before God”) , however, their implementation in practice is far from perfect.

From the standpoint of the theory of social stratification, society is a hierarchy (pyramid) of strata (social strata), which consist of carriers of the same or similar statuses and roles. The concept of a stratum passed into sociology from geology, where it denoted a geological layer of rock when describing a section of the earth. It was applied in sociology in the 1920s. XX century P.A. Sorokin, who developed and systematized a number of concepts that formed the basis of the theory of social stratification.

The concept of social stratification as inequality should be distinguished from the concept of social differentiation, which implies all kinds of social differences, not necessarily associated with inequality. For example, it is possible to distinguish groups of philatelists and football fans, whose pastime forms these groups, but has nothing to do with social inequality or something similar. In this regard, the question arises about the foundations of social stratification, about the initial prerequisites for the emergence of a system of inequality in society. Russian researcher G.A. Avanesova suggests that such grounds include:

• social connections of people(as a natural basis for the processes of stratification of society), which always presuppose the formation of hierarchization over time: leaders and subordinates, authorities and outcasts, leaders and followers are distinguished;
• value-symbolic basis, which is related to comprehending social norms and prescriptions, endowment social roles specific evaluative content and meaning;
• the norm(motivational-repressive basis) as a boundary within which the ordering of social ties and value ideas takes place;
• biological and anthropological qualities: “... Few of the researchers objected to the very fact that the functional-hierarchical nature of the social organization in the natural environment and the animal world is predominant.<...>Many anthropologists, using the example of pre-modern and surviving archaic communities, have traced a positive relationship between, firstly, the territory and the natural environment, secondly, the satisfaction of the initial (primary) human needs and, thirdly, the forms of interaction, value-stimulating systems.<...>Such anthropological qualities of people as gender, physical, psychological abilities, as well as traits mastered from the first days of life - family-role ties, ethno-national stereotypes, etc., also acquire a great influence on stratification processes. " 1 .

The emergence of ideas about social stratification is associated with the development of ideas about social structure, when it became clear that “all relations in society - between systems and communities different types or between social groups and specific people - placed in systems of different ranks. Such stable types of institutional ties, concrete behavior of people give stability to society. " Understanding this made it necessary to create a new categorical-conceptual apparatus with the help of which it was possible to scientifically describe and understand the vertical projection of society, inequality. The basic concepts of the theory of social stratification include: "social class", "stratum", "social status", "social role", "social mobility".

Social class(from lat. classis- group) in broad sense - a large group of people as a part of society. The basis of this group is a certain unifying (common) feature, which entails the similarity of interests and behavioral practices of those who belong to this class.

The inequality of people in the system of organization and functioning of society was already obvious to Plato and Aristotle, who explained and justified this fact. In the VI century. BC NS. the Roman emperor Servius Tullius divided his subjects into five classes according to wealth in order to streamline the process of forming an army.

The theoretical opening of classes took place in the late 18th - early 19th centuries. thanks to the works of French historians F. Guizot,

O. Thierry, O. Minier and others, who, using the material of bourgeois revolutions, approached the concepts of class interest, class struggle, class as subjects of history. British political economists A. Smith and D. Ricardo tried to clarify the economic reasons for the emergence and functioning of social classes. This vector of research was continued in Marxism, which made the greatest contribution to the development of class theory.

K. Marx proceeded from the fact that the weight of the reasons for the appearance of classes proposed before him (mental and physical differences between people, different levels of income, violence and wars) do not reflect the real state of affairs, since classes are the essence of socio-economic formations: the appearance, development and disappearance social classes are determined by the level and specifics of material production. Classes arise as a result of the development of productive forces, the division of labor and the formation of private property relations during the period of the disintegration of the tribal system. These processes led to the separation of agriculture from cattle breeding, later - crafts from agriculture, to the emergence of surplus product and private property, which determined the social differentiation of people in society, which became the basis for the formation of classes.

The materialistic analysis of history allowed Karl Marx to assert that it is the economic aspect (attitude to the means of production) that determines the role of classes in public organization labor and the system of political power, affects their social status and way of life. The struggle of the classes in turn is driving force social development(changes in the social structure of society).

The classical definition of social class was given by the successor of the Marxist theory V.I. Lenin. He identified four main features of a class: classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in relation to the means of production, role in the social organization of labor, methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. The essence of relations between classes lies in the ability of some to appropriate the labor of others, which is possible due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy.

Within the framework of Marxist theory, any society exists as a system major and non-core classes. The existence of the former is due to the dominant mode of production (the specifics of the economic basis), while the presence of the latter is determined by the processes of preservation (or gradual disappearance) of the remnants of old economic relations or the formation of a new (not yet dominant) mode of production. Social groups that do not belong to existing classes (do not have clear class characteristics) form specific (intermediate, transitional) social strata (strata). An example of such a stratum is the intelligentsia - a significant group of people professionally trapped in mental labor, the production of knowledge, meanings, symbols.

An alternative to the Marxist logic of class analysis (of that period) was the theory of violence by G. Spencer and E. Dühring and the polystructural Weberian approach. The first alternative proceeded from the leading role of war and violence in the formation of social classes: as a result of war and the enslavement of some groups by others, a distinction arises in labor functions, wealth, prestige. For example, G. Spencer believed that the winners create the ruling class, and the losers become producers (slaves, serfs, etc.). The system of inequality includes three classes: upper (domination, leadership), middle (delivery, purchase and sale of products of production), lower (extraction and production of a product).

Unlike K. Marx, M. Weber did not want to see in the class only economic features that oversimplify both the nature of the class and the variety of elements of the social structure of society. Along with the category "class", he used the categories "stratum" and "party", in relation to which he distinguished three stratification projections of society (three orders): economic, social, political. Differences in property form classes, prestige differences - strata (status groups), differences in the sphere of power - political parties.

M. Weber represented a class as a group of people who have similar life chances, determined by their power (influence), which makes it possible to receive specific benefits and have an income. Being in the ns class is fatal, irresistible (in contrast to the beliefs of K. Marx), since the determining factor of the class situation is the market, i.e. types of human opportunities to enjoy goods and receive income in certain conditions. Thus, a class is people who are in the same class situation, having a general position in the sphere of economics, which can be changed depending on the conjuncture. The transition from one class to another is not difficult, since the class-forming features are blurred and it is not always possible to draw clear boundaries between classes.

There are three classes: owner class(property owners different forms and sizes), profit class(entities related to banking, trade and the service sector) and social class(proletariat, petty bourgeoisie, intelligentsia, officials, persons, commas in the education system). These three classes are essentially groups of classes, since each of them consists of several classes (subclasses), belonging to which is determined not by the relation to the means of production, but by arbitrary criteria (mainly by the level of consumption and forms of property ownership). For example, the class of owners looks like this: owners of slaves, owners of land, owners of mines, owners of equipment and instruments, owners of steamships, owners of jewelry and artistic values, financial creditors. The class (subclass) of poor owners (owners with a minus sign) includes slaves, declassed people, debtors, and the “poor”.

V modern sociology class theory has disintegrated into many directions and schools that are trying to comprehend modern processes transformations of the class structure of traditional capitalist society, determined by the new quality of social realities (post-industrialism, information society, globalization). The main topics of class research include the analysis of transformations in the property-management-control system (M. Zeitlin, G. Karchedi, H. Bravsrman, P. Burds), the study of the processes of changing the working class and the restructuring of classes (S. Mallet, A. Gorz , P. Saunders, P. Townsend, A. Touraine), analysis of the micro-level of class structure (E. Wright), theory of exploitation (J. Remer), research in the field of modern class struggle (M. Foucault, T. Marshall, R. Darsndorf ).

A strata (status group) is a collection of people who have a certain amount of socially attributed prestige (honor) shared by all. Evaluation (positive or negative) of this prestige is status. Status, honor, according to M. Weber, is not associated with the class situation of the subject and may even be in opposition to economic indicators. The fundamental difference between classes and strata is that the former arise in the process of development of production and commodity relations, and strata are formed as the principles of consumption are established in all spheres of social life.

Strata(from lat. stratum- layer), or social stratum - a set of subjects with the same or similar statuses (a set of status signs). Sometimes these concepts (stratum and stratum) are distinguished: stratum is a social group that has a certain status in the social hierarchy; social stratum - an intermediate (or transitional) social group that does not possess all the characteristics of a class.

The concept of a stratum in its modern form arose after the Marxist-Leninist theory of class as a more flexible and accurate tool for analyzing modern systems of stratification. The hierarchical set of strata forms a vertical cut of the social system and reflects the inequality of its members. Historically, status groups in different societies were formed and consolidated in different types: castes, estates, clans, etc.

As ideal model descriptions of social inequality most often offer a pyramid of three levels: the upper - the upper class (elite), the middle - the middle class (main class), the lower - the lower class (social bottom).

The stratification pyramid functions according to its universal laws, which allow us to give it some invariant characteristics: there are always fewer positions at the top than at the bottom; the amount of social benefits circulating (consumed) at the top is always greater than at the bottom; advancement to the top positions is always associated with overcoming social filters (property qualification, education, age, etc.) - the higher the position, the tougher the effect of these filters. Each of these levels can consist of a whole set of strata that reflect the real status diversity of social groups in a given society. For example, within the framework of the analysis of the structure of the middle class, it is possible (under appropriate conditions) to single out the upper stratum of the middle class, the main class, the lower stratum of the middle class, the boundary layer, etc. - everything depends on the initial material of the study and the criteria for identifying strata. The latter concerns the main methodological question of the theory of stratification: on what basis should a scientist distinguish a stratum, distinguish them from each other? The answer was formed during the development of the concept of status.

Social status, or rank - the position of the subject in society, position in the social hierarchy. Status, status is formed on the basis of both objective features (for example, industrial and professional) and subjective (for example, cultural and psychological assessments). With regard to status, a person is treated as a status set, i.e. carrier of many statuses at the same time (they are acquired and manifested in different situations). It is customary to distinguish between the following statuses:

• basic (key) and minor that differ in the manifestation situation;
• attributed that does not depend on personality (biologically (race, gender) or socially (class title, inheritance)), and achievable(depends on the personal merit of the subject);
• social(objective position in the social hierarchy) and private(position in small group based on personal qualities).

Status is a consequence of the action of status (stratification) characteristics. It is according to them that sociologists distribute people according to the "floors" of the social ladder, it is they who serve as the basis for identifying social strata. These signs are concretely historical, depend on the time and place of action, although in the theory of stratification there have been attempts to find universal, invariant status signs. K. Marx, for example, singled out the main and only sign of social stratification - economic. It is based on the attitude towards the means of production. German sociologist R. Dahrendorf believed that a status sign is political authority, which reflects the involvement of the authorities. Hence the division into managers (owners and non-owners) and managed (lower and higher). French sociologist A. Touraine believed that in modern society(informational, post-industrial) main class feature - access to the information because the forms of domination today are based on knowledge and education: the new ruling class (technocrats) is determined by the level of education and the availability of knowledge.

However, most researchers believe that there is no single universal stratification feature, that it is complex and should correspond to the polystructural realities of the social system. P.A. Sorokin (the author of the classical theory of stratification) argued that to describe the social inequality of subjects, it is necessary to use in the aggregate economic, professional and political grounds. The American researcher L. Warner named income, profession prestige, education, ethnicity as stratification indicators, on the basis of which in the US society in the 1930-1940s. he identified six social strata. His colleague B. Barber identified the following features: prestige, profession, power, power, income, education, degree of religiosity (ritual purity); status of relatives, ethnicity.

When analyzing social inequality in modern societies, the following elements of stratification are most often assessed:

• economic well-being(property, form and size of income), which can be used to distinguish the rich, the wealthy, the middle-income and the poor;
• education, according to the level of which citizens can be divided into groups of persons with higher education, medium, etc .;
• profession(place in the system of division of labor, sphere of implementation of labor behavior, type, nature and qualifications of labor). Depending on the nature of the activity, it is customary to distinguish between mental workers, workers employed in agriculture, industry, etc .;
• power(the amount of power, access to the distribution of scarce and significant resources), in relation to which ordinary workers, middle managers, top managers in business, senior government officials, etc. can be distinguished;
• authority, prestige(the significance and influence of certain subjects in the perception of others), in accordance with which leaders, elite, "stars", etc. can be distinguished.

When analyzing the social stratification of a given society, it is necessary to remember the specific historical context, which is reflected in the system of status (stratification) signs, which can be rank (basic) and nominal (additional or accompanying). Ranked- these are the signs that "work" in a given situation, are real indicators of correlation with a particular stratum. Nominal- those signs that “do not work” or show their effect in a latent form (for example, for systems of stratification of modern democratic societies, gender, race, religion, nationality, place of residence will be nominal, but when they are transferred to the analysis of medieval society, they turn into rank ).

Social role - status-related system of actions (functions, behavior) subject. This concept was introduced by R. Linton in 1936. He defined the social role as the dynamic side of status.

The social role is formed as an objective and subjective expectation on the part of others of the proper behavior of the carrier of this status. The concept and content of the role is formed in the individual in the process of socialization. Through the performance of roles, the social interaction of individuals is carried out, a system of role connections is created.

According to T. Parsons, any social role is described by the following characteristics: the emotional side (some roles require emotional restraint, others - relaxedness), the way of getting a role (some roles are prescribed, others are won), scale (roles are strictly limited or blurred), the degree of formalization role (acting according to strictly established rules or arbitrarily), motivation (orientation towards personal benefit, towards the common good, towards the interests of the group), a structure that includes a description of the type of behavior, rules of behavior, assessment of role performance, a system of sanctions for violation of the rules.

When performing social roles, which fit the system of social relations and interactions of a given society, situations such as role conflict and distance from the role may arise. Role conflict(with respect to one subject) arises in a situation of mismatch of roles in the presence of several statuses at the same time (for example, the situation of Taras Bulba, when he killed his son Ondriy: in the person of Bulba, the statuses of a father and a military adversary simultaneously converged). Distance from the role is a deliberate violation of the strategy of the prescribed role behavior. This situation falls under the definition of deviation. Mass distancing from the role can serve as a sign of social tension, a requirement to change the existing rules of the status-role system.

Social mobility - the movement of the subject in the social space or the change by the subject of his place in the social structure. She speaks essential characteristic a stratified system that allows you to describe its dynamics and changes. P.A. Sorokin argued that social mobility is present in any hierarchized society and it is necessary in the same way as blood vessels for an animal organism.

Speaking about social mobility, it is necessary to distinguish between its types. So, in modern sociology, there are:

• vertical(ascending and descending) and horizontal mobility. Vertical mobility is associated with a change in status to higher (upward mobility) or lower (downward mobility), horizontal - with movements within the stratum without changing status and rank signs. An example of horizontal mobility is geographic mobility, which is a simple movement from one place to another while maintaining the previous social status (but if a change of place is added to a change of status, then geographic mobility becomes migration);
• individual mobility(move up, down, horizontally an individual independently of others) and group mobility(a situation of increasing or decreasing the social significance (value) of an entire group - class, estate, caste). According to P.A. Sorokin, the reasons for group mobility can be social revolutions, invasions and foreign interventions, wars, coups and change of political regimes, replacement of the old constitution with a new one, the creation of an empire, peasant uprisings, internecine struggle of aristocratic families;
• intergenerational and intragenerational mobility. Intergenerational mobility assumes that the new generation reaches a higher or lower social level than the previous one, and intragenerational mobility describes a situation in which the same individual changes social positions several times throughout his life (the phenomenon of social career).

Moving in the social hierarchy is carried out with the help of "social elevators", which are legalized ways and means of changing the existing social status. Some researchers identify six standard "lifts" (ways to improve status):

• 1) economic activity with the help of which a poor, self-motivated person can become a millionaire;
• 2) an area of ​​politics where you can make a political career with all the ensuing beneficial consequences;
• 3) service in the army, where an ordinary soldier can rise to the rank of general;
• 4) serving God as a way to achieve a high position in the church hierarchy;
• 5) scientific activity, allowing, although not immediately, thanks to tremendous efforts to achieve a high position;
• 6) a successful marriage, with the help of which you can instantly improve your social status and financial situation.

The presence and nature of social mobility make it possible to characterize societies as closed and open. The first are social systems in which mobility is difficult, and some of its types are prohibited (caste and estate societies). The latter approve and encourage social mobility, create conditions for the promotion of the subject up the social ladder. However, it should be remembered that the separation of closed and open societies- a rather ideologized construction that appeared during the Cold War to describe the advantages of the West over the USSR and never stand up to criticism.

The concept of marginal ™, which was introduced in the 1920s, is closely related to the concept of social mobility. XX century American sociologist R. Park to designate the socio-psychological consequences of the inability of immigrants to adapt to the new environment.

Marginality(from lat. margo - on the edge) - the state of a social subject (personality or group), which is characterized by borderline relative to socially significant structures, social groups or strata. Marginalization as a social phenomenon includes the following characteristics:

The main factors of marginalization include poverty, unemployment closely related to it, urbanization processes (when the rural population is forced to change their way of life), high rates of modernization of traditional spheres of public and individual life.

Social stratification - an attributive feature of society - appears to an insignificant extent already in primitive society (the stratification of the tribal community is of a dull character). The further development of society gives rise to various historical systems (types) of stratification, among which are most often distinguished:

• slavery, where the main historically relevant stratification feature was the personal freedom / lack of freedom of the subject;
• castes- the main features are religious purity and the origin of the individual (a classic example is Indian society);
• estates- the stratification feature here is origin (feudal Europe, in which the estates initially, by law and (or) tradition, possess unequal rights);
• classes- with this system of stratification, a number of stratification features of economic, political, cultural content (income, education, power, profession, prestige) are distinguished, there are no formal social boundaries, equality of opportunity is legalized, and the right of everyone who wants to change their position is declared.

The first three historical systems of stratification are characteristic of closed societies, the last one for open societies.

The fact of social stratification, i.e. the presence of real social inequality of members of society, always gave rise to the problem of its assessment and explanation. In modern social theory, four methodological approaches to assessing social inequality have been formed: functionalist, evolutionary, conflictological and symbolic.

Functionalists insist on the inevitability, naturalness and necessity of stratification (inequality), which is determined by the variety of needs of social subjects, the multiplicity of their roles and functions. Stratification, in their opinion, ensures the optimal functioning of society, and through the mobility system, ensures a fair distribution of benefits and resources.

Evolutionists note the twofold nature of stratification - it cannot be unequivocally assessed as a positive and necessary phenomenon: the system of inequality is not always associated with justice, is not always useful and necessary, since it arises not only due to the natural needs of society, but also as a result of provoked conflicts over about the allocation of scarce resources; the existing system of stratification is capable not only of ensuring the development of society, but also of hindering it.

Representatives of the conflictological logic see the source of the formation of the inequality system in intergroup conflicts and do not consider it fair (it serves the interests of the elite).

Symbolists place an emphasis not on its "functionality - dysfunctionality" or "fairness - injustice", but on the content. From their point of view, the system of inequality is evolving from an open, physical justification for the better position of the elite to forms of hidden, symbolic violence of the elite and the distribution of social benefits; the modern system of social inequality is a system of symbolic distinction between the top and bottom of the social pyramid.

As for the social stratification of modern society, all sociologists talk about its complexity and the ambiguity of the criteria for identifying strata and classes, but the dominant point of view remains that is associated with the exploitation economic indicators subject (income, type of labor, profession, consumption structure, etc.). For example, Russian researchers I.I. Sanzharevsky, V.A. Titarenko and others, according to their place in the system of social production, distinguish production ( material production), commercial (exchange), state distribution (distribution and redistribution) and service (ensuring the normal functioning of production, exchange and distribution) classes, declassed elements.

Using the example of Great Britain, E. Giddens proposes to distinguish (according to the level of economic well-being) the upper class, the middle class: the old middle class (small business and farmers), the upper middle class (managers and high-level specialists) and the lower middle class (small clerks, salespeople, teachers, nurses); working class: upper working class (skilled workers - "labor aristocracy") and lower working class (low-skilled workers); lower class.

In modern Belarus, there are five levels of stratification (depending on income and consumption structure): 1) the lower stratum (employees without specialization, low-skilled workers, pensioners, disabled people, housewives, unemployed);

2) the base stratum (specialists of mass professions, pensioners, workers of average qualification); 3) the middle stratum (highly qualified specialists, highly qualified workers, medium-sized entrepreneurs); 4) the top layer (specialists in demand, successful entrepreneurs, the most skilled workers); 5) the elite (high-paid employees, entrepreneurs). In the Republic of Belarus, the middle class is about 30%, the base and bottom - about 70%.

• Sociological encyclopedia / under total. rsd. A.N. Danilov. Minsk, 2003, p. 349-352.
• Sociological encyclopedia / under total. ed. A.N. Danilov. S. 351-352.
• In the same place. P. 348.

Where it denotes the location of the layers of the earth. But people initially likened the social distances and partitions existing between them to layers of the earth, floors of located buildings, objects, tiers of plants, etc.

Stratification is the division of society into special strata (strata) by combining various social positions with approximately the same social status, reflecting the prevailing concept of social inequality in it, aligned horizontally (social hierarchy), along its axis along one or several stratification criteria (indicators of social status). The division of society into strata is carried out on the basis of the inequality of social distances between them - the main property of stratification. Social strata are lined up vertically and in strict sequence according to indicators of welfare, power, education, leisure, and consumption.

V social stratification a certain social distance is established between people (social positions) and a hierarchy is built from social strata. Thus, the unequal access of members of society to certain socially significant scarce resources is fixed by establishing social filters at the boundaries dividing social strata. For example, the allocation of social strata can be carried out according to the levels of income, education, power, consumption, the nature of work, spending free time. The social strata identified in society are assessed in it according to the criterion of social prestige, which expresses the social attractiveness of certain positions.

The simplest stratification model is the dichotomous one - the division of society into elites and masses. In some of the earliest, archaic social systems, the structuring of society into clans is carried out simultaneously with the implementation of social inequality between them and within them. This is how the "initiates" appear, i.e. those who are initiated into certain social practices (priests, elders, leaders) and the uninitiated - "profane" (profane - from Lat. pro fano- devoid of holiness, uninitiated; profane - all other members of society, ordinary members of the community, tribesmen). Within them, society can further, if necessary, be stratified.

As the complexity (structuring) of society, a parallel process takes place - the embedding of social positions into a certain social hierarchy. This is how castes, estates, classes, etc. appear.

Modern ideas about the stratification model prevailing in society are quite complex - they are multilayered (polychotomous), multidimensional (carried out along several axes) and variable (sometimes they allow the existence of many stratification models): qualifications, quotas, certification, determination of status, ranks, benefits, privileges, other preferences.

The most important dynamic characteristic of society is social mobility. According to P. Sorokin's definition, "social mobility is understood as any transition of an individual, or a social object, or value, created or modified through activity, from one social position to another." However, social agents do not always move from one position to another, it is possible to move the social positions themselves in the social hierarchy, such a movement is called "positional mobility" (vertical mobility) or within the same social stratum (horizontal mobility). Along with social filters that establish barriers to social displacement, there are also "social elevators" in society that significantly accelerate this process (in a crisis society - revolutions, wars, conquests, etc.; in a normal, stable society - family, marriage, education , property, etc.). The degree of freedom of social movement from one social stratum to another largely determines what kind of society is - closed or open.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what "Social stratification" is in other dictionaries:

- (social stratification) Study of classes and strata in society, primarily the social gradation of professions. Sometimes the relationship to the means of production is taken as a basis (See: class - class). However, more often stratification is carried out on the basis of a combination ... ... Political science. Dictionary.

- (from Lat. stratum layer and facio I do), one of the main. concepts of the bourgeois. sociology, denoting a system of signs and criteria of social stratification, inequality in society, the social structure of society; branch of the bourgeois. sociology. Theories of S. with. ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Modern encyclopedia

A sociological concept that denotes: the structure of society and its individual strata; a system of signs of social differentiation; branch of sociology. In theories of social stratification based on such characteristics as education, living conditions, ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

The concept by which sociology denotes uneven distribution material wealth, power functions and social prestige between individuals and social groups (see STRAT) in a modern industrial society, ... ... The latest philosophical dictionary

A sociological concept that denotes the structure of society and its strata, a system of signs of social differentiation (education, living conditions, occupation, income, psychology, religion, etc.), on the basis of which society is divided into classes and ... ... Business glossary

Social stratification- SOCIAL STRATIFICATION, a sociological concept denoting the structure of society and its strata, a system of signs of social differentiation (education, living conditions, occupation, income, psychology, religion, etc.), on the basis of which society ... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION- (social stratification) hierarchically organized structures of social inequality (ranks, status groups, etc.) that exist in any society (compare class, especially 1 5). As in geology, the term refers to layered structuring or ... ... Comprehensive explanatory sociological dictionary

Sociological concept denoting: the structure of society and its individual layers; a system of signs of social differentiation; branch of sociology. In the theories of social stratification based on such characteristics as education, living conditions, ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Social stratification- (according to Pitirim Sorokin) differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank (including the upper and lower strata). Its essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and ... ... Geoeconomic Dictionary

Books

• Theoretical sociology. Study guide, Bormotov Igor Vladimirovich. The tutorial is devoted to the basics of theoretical sociology. It sets out history, methods, basic concepts and categories, analyzes such social phenomena as: social structure, ...

Social stratification(from lat. stratum- layer and facio- doing) - one of the basic concepts sociology , denoting a system of signs and criteria of social stratification, position in society; social structure society; branch of sociology.

Under social stratification means the presence in a particular society of a multitude of social formations, whose representatives differ among themselves in an unequal amount of power and material wealth, rights and obligations, privileges and prestige. In such a hierarchically structured distribution of socio-cultural benefits, the essence of social stratification is expressed, through which in any social system it becomes possible to stimulate some types of activity and interaction, tolerate others and suppress others. Thus, social stratification differs from social differentiation. The concept of "social differentiation" is broader in scope and implies any social differences, including those not related to inequality, with stimulation (or, conversely, repression) of various forms of activity.

The term "stratification" is borrowed by sociology from geology, where it refers to the location of layers of the earth.

Social stratification Is the division of society into special strata (strata) by combining various social positions with approximately the same social status, reflecting the prevailing idea of ​​social inequality in it, built vertically (social hierarchy), along its axis along one or several stratification criteria (indicators of social status).

The division of society into strata is carried out on the basis of the inequality of social distances between them - the main property of stratification. Social strata are lined up vertically and in strict sequence according to indicators of welfare, power, education, leisure, and consumption.

In social stratification, a certain social distance is established between people (social positions) and a hierarchy is formed from social strata. Thus, the unequal access of members of society to certain socially significant scarce resources is recorded by establishing social filters at the boundaries dividing social strata.

For example, the allocation of social strata can be carried out according to the levels of income, knowledge, power, consumption, the nature of work, spending free time. The social strata distinguished in society are assessed in it according to the criterion of social prestige, which expresses the social attractiveness of certain positions.

The simplest stratification model is the dichotomous one - the division of society into elites and masses. In the earliest archaic social systems, the structuring of society into clans is carried out simultaneously with the establishment of social inequality between them and within them. This is how “initiates” appear, that is, those who are initiated into certain social practices (priests, elders, leaders) and the uninitiated - the profane. Internally, such a society can further, if necessary, be stratified as it develops. This is how castes, estates, classes, etc. appear.

Most researchers believe that social stratification is a hierarchically organized structure of social inequality that exists in a certain society at a certain historical period of time. The hierarchically organized structure of social inequality can be imagined in the form of dividing the entire society into strata (this word comes from the Latin stratum - layer, flooring). A layered, multilevel society in this case can be compared with geological layers of soil. At the same time, social stratification has at least two essential differences in comparison with simple stratification. First, stratification is a rank stratification in which the upper strata are in a more privileged position (in terms of the possession of resources or opportunities for receiving rewards) than the lower strata. Secondly, the upper strata are much smaller in terms of the number of their members of society. So, the elite, the upper strata are certainly a minority in comparison with the lower strata of society. The same can be said about the rest of the layers, if they are viewed sequentially from top to bottom. However, in modern, highly developed, prosperous societies, this order is violated. The poor strata in quantitative terms may be inferior to the stratum that makes up the so-called "middle class" and some other strata of the population.

Modern ideas about the stratification model prevailing in society are quite complex - they are multi-layered (polychotomous), multidimensional (carried out along several axes) and variable (allow the coexistence of many stratification models): qualifications, quotas, certification, determination of status, ranks, benefits, privileges, etc. preferences.

Currently, the most influential point of view on the formation of social strata can be considered the theory of stratification by K. Davis and W. Moore. According to this theory, each society must solve the problem of placing and motivating individuals in the social structure. The social order in society is based on the distribution of individuals by social status (in accordance with their functional capabilities, i.e. their maximum contribution to the achievement of the goals of society) and encouraging them to fulfill social roles corresponding to these statuses. Society can choose two ways of motivation for the best performance of social roles. So, the competitive system is primarily aimed at mobilizing individuals in relation to achieving the most attractive status, while the non-competitive system in relation to social statuses pays more attention to motivation to perform functional duties, i.e. contribution to the activities of society as a whole. A society with any social structure uses both of these systems, only to varying degrees.

The most important dynamic characteristic of society is social mobility... According to the definition of P. A. Sorokin, "social mobility is understood as any transition of an individual, or a social object, or value, created or modified through activity, from one social position to another." However, social agents do not always move from one position to another, it is possible to move the social positions themselves in the social hierarchy, such a movement is called "positional mobility" (vertical mobility) or within the same social stratum (horizontal mobility). Along with social filters that establish barriers to social displacement, there are also “social elevators” in society that significantly accelerate this process (in a crisis society - revolutions, wars, conquests, etc.; in a normal, stable society - family, marriage, education , property, etc.). The degree of freedom of social movement from one social stratum to another largely determines what kind of society is - closed or open.

The point of view of K. Sorokin is successfully developed by his student, one of the prominent teachers of the Harvard School in sociology, the representative of functionalism T. Parsons, who believes that the basis of stratification is the value orientations of members of society. At the same time, the assessment and assignment of people to certain social strata is carried out according to the following main criteria:

• - the qualitative characteristics of members of society, which are determined by genetic traits and prescribed statuses (origin, family ties, personal qualities and abilities);
• - role characteristics, which are determined by the set of roles that an individual performs in society (position, level of professionalism, level of knowledge, etc.);
• - characteristics of the possession of material and spiritual prices of posts (money, means of production, works of art, opportunities for spiritual and ideological influences on other strata of society, etc.).

Attempts to explain the mechanism of the stratification of society have been made more than once in different periods of human history. However, only in the last decades of our century we were able to teach to comprehend this most important social problem, without understanding which it is impossible to explain the processes taking place in society, to imagine the future of this society.

Typology of strata

The strata includes many people with some common status sign of their position, who feel connected with each other by this community. As common feature, allowing to unite people into strata, can be different in nature characteristics - production, economic, political, socio-demographic, cultural, etc. Thus, the researcher gets the opportunity to analyze the population according to a variety of - important, secondary and even insignificant - criteria. As a result, people belonging to different classes may find themselves in one stratum, distinguished, for example, by education or by job characteristics... At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the basis for distinguishing a stratum is not any feature, but only a status feature, that is, one that objectively acquires a rank character in a given society “higher-lower”, “better-worse”, “prestigious —Not prestigious ”, etc. A number of features can be used as the basis for identifying only differentiated, but not status groups. For example, lovers of folk music or fans of a football team are most often viewed as representatives of a particular cultural group, regardless of its status aspect.

What class typologies have not been invented by scientists and thinkers. The ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle were the first to propose their model.

Sociologists today propose different class typologies. In one there are seven, in the other six, in the third five, etc. social strata.

The first typology of US classes was proposed in the 40s of the XX century by the American sociologist Lloyd Warner. It included six classes. In addition to this, other schemes were proposed, for example: upper-upper, upper-lower, upper-middle, middle-middle, lower-middle, worker, lower classes. Or: upper class, upper-middle, middle and lower-middle class, upper working and lower working class, underclass. There are many options, but it is important to understand two fundamental points:

• ... the main classes, whatever they are called, are only three: the rich, the well-to-do and the poor;
• ... minor classes arise by adding strata or layers that lie within one of the major classes.

When talking about the elements of social stratification, they use such units of analysis as "Class", "social stratum", "social group" denoting different social communities. The inclusion of people in this or that community is determined primarily by the form of their social interaction, which allows them to be considered as a whole, as well as by the place or social positions that they occupy in the social space.

A social class is a large taxonomic unit of social division. This concept was born long before the appearance of the stratification theory. It firmly entered the scientific apparatus of social thinkers in Western Europe in Newest time... Prior to this, the units of social structure were spoken about, relying on class concepts, using the names of specific social or social ipynn, representatives of certain professions, etc. and the poor.

Let us list the typological groupings of the most important features, some of their empirical referents, as well as layers that are distinguished on the basis of these features and indicators:

• ... signs associated with the economic situation of people, that is, the presence of private property, types and amount of income, the level of material well-being; strata are distinguished accordingly: rich, middle-income and poor; high-paid and low-paid workers; property owners and residents of municipal apartments, etc .;
• ... signs associated with the division of labor, i.e., the scope of application, types and nature of labor, the hierarchy of professional statuses, the level of qualifications and professional skills, professional training; strata are distinguished accordingly: workers in heavy industry; service workers; persons with secondary specialized education, etc .;
• ... signs associated with the amount of power: here, production relations and the organization of labor are of great importance, within which a different degree and an unequal amount of opportunities to influence others through official position, through types and forms management activities, through the possession of socially significant information, etc .; accordingly, the following layers can be distinguished: ordinary workers at a state enterprise; managers in small businesses; senior government officials; elective posts of the municipal level of government, etc .;
• ... signs associated with social prestige, authority, influence.

Class concept

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. We can say that social classes in Marx are economically determined and genetically conflicting groups. The basis for division into groups is the presence or absence of ownership. The feudal lord and serf in a feudal society, the bourgeois and the proletarian in a capitalist society are antagonistic classes that inevitably appear in any society with a complex hierarchical structure based on inequality. Marx also admitted the existence in society of small social groups capable of influencing class conflicts. Studying the nature of social classes, Marx made the following assumptions:

1. Every society produces surplus 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. Such resources are considered private property.
2. Classes are determined on the basis of ownership or non-ownership of produced property. In different historical periods there were different kinds property (slaves, water, land, capital) that had crucial in human relationships, but all social systems were based on two antagonistic social classes.In the modern era, according to Marx, there are two main antagonistic classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

H. The importance of the study of classes lies in the fact that class relations necessarily 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. Relations of this kind constantly reproduce class conflict, which is the basis of social changes taking place in society.

1. There is an object (for example, the possession of resources) and the subjective attributes of a class. The latter represent the fact of belonging to a class, which does not have to be accompanied by an awareness of such belonging or a feeling of political closeness to the interests of the class. Only when members of a society realize their class belonging, when they begin to act together in the interests of their class, can we talk about a fully formed social class.

Despite the revision, from the point of view of modern society, many provisions of the class theory of K. Marx, some of his ideas remain relevant in the currently existing social structures.

The most influential alternative to the Marxist theory of social classes is represented by works of M. Weber... Unlike Marx, Weber singles out other factors that influence the formation of inequality relations. In particular, he considers prestige as one of the most important features of social class. At the same time, he examines the links between opportunities for promotion to higher, attractive statuses and belonging to a social class, while assuming that a class is a group of people with similar promotion or career opportunities. Just like Marx, Weber sees the attitude to property as the basic status distribution in society and the basis for the formation of social classes. However, Weber attaches much more importance to the division within the main classes (the presence of intermediate classes) than Marx. For example, Weber divides the class of owners and the commercial class, divides the working class into several classes (depending on the type of ownership of the enterprises in which they work), proceeding from the opportunities for increasing their status that they have. Unlike Marx, Weber views the bureaucracy as a class, as a necessary link of power in modern society. Weber for the first time lays in the basis of class division a system of stratification; existing in a given society.

Modern theories of social class are also based on the theory of stratification. Most sociologists see a basic difference in attitudes towards property; nevertheless, they recognize class-forming factors such as job status, power, prestige, etc. If a social stratum can denote division according to one parameter, then a social class is not only an enlarged stratum.

1. First, a social class is formed on the basis of the proximity of status profiles, i.e., it is based on a number of class-forming parameters, and ownership (the ability to dispose of) resources is the basis of the class division of society.
2. Secondly, each social class has a specific subculture, which is maintained in the form of traditions, taking into account the existing social distances between representatives of different classes, as well as class consciousness, which becomes universal within the framework of this class in conditions of self-identification and collective achievement of class interests.
3. Third, each class has different social opportunities and privileges, which is a decisive condition for achieving the most prestigious and rewarding statuses.

Models of the class structure of society

Currently, there are a large number of models of class structures, and sociologists are now coming to the conclusion that in modern society the basis of these structures remains unchanged, and only certain structural units change depending on the cultural, economic, structural and other characteristics of each society. In this case, the determination of the class positions of individuals is carried out using complex indices that assess the position of an individual in many dimensions (in our case, this is a status profile).

Among the models of stratification adopted in Western sociology, the most famous should be considered the model of W. Watson, which was the result of research carried out in the 30s in the United States. It should be said that all modern Western models of the class structure of society to one degree or another contain elements of Watson's model.

When conducting the study, Watson and his colleagues initially focused on a fairly simple three-tier system of class division of society, the upper class, the middle class, and the lower class. However, the results of the study showed that it is advisable to single out intermediate classes within each of these enlarged classes. As a result, Watson's model acquired the following final form:

1. Upper-upper class are representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties with very significant resources of power, wealth and prestige on a national scale, Their position is so strong that it practically does not depend on competition, falls in the exchange rate valuable papers and other socio-economic changes in society. Very often, representatives of this class do not even know the exact size of their empires.
2. Lower-upper class are bankers, prominent poly owners of large firms who have achieved higher status in the course of competition or due to different qualities. They cannot be accepted into the upper-upper class, since either they are considered upstarts (from the point of view of representatives of the upper-upper class), or they do not have sufficient influence in all areas of the society. Usually representatives of this class are in a tough competition and depend on the political and economic situations in society.

H. Upper-middle class includes successful businessmen, salaried business managers, prominent lawyers, doctors, outstanding athletes, and the scientific elite. Representatives of this class do not pretend to have influence on the scale of the state, however, in rather narrow areas of activity, their position is quite strong and stable. They have a high prestige in their fields of activity. Representatives of this class are usually referred to as the wealth of the nation.

1. Lower-middle class make up wage-earners- engineers, middle and small ranks teachers, scientists, heads of departments at enterprises, highly qualified workers, etc. Currently, this class is in developed Western countries most numerous. His main aspirations are to improve his status within this class, success and career. In this regard, for representatives of this class, a very important point is economic, social and political stability in society. Speaking for stability, members of this class are the main support for the existing government.
2. Upper-lower class are mainly wage workers who create surplus value in a given society. Being in many ways dependent on the upper classes for their livelihoods, this class has struggled throughout its existence to improve living conditions. In those moments when its representatives realized their interests and rallied to achieve goals, their conditions of existence improved.
3. Lower-lower class are poor, unemployed, unemployed, foreign workers and other members of marginalized groups.

The experience of using the Watson model has shown that in the presented form it is in most cases unacceptable for the countries of Eastern Europe and Russia, where in the course of historical processes a different social structure was formed, there were fundamentally different status groups. However, at the present time, in connection with the changes that have occurred in our society, many elements of Watson's structure can be used in the study of the composition of social classes in Russia. For example, social structure of our society in the research of N.M. Rimashevskaya looks like this:

1. "All-Russian elite groups", combining the possession of property in sizes comparable to the largest Western states, and the means of power influence at the all-Russian level.
2. “Regional and corporate elites” possessing a significant state and influence on the Russian scale at the level of regions and sectors of the economy.
3. The Russian "upper middle class", which has property and incomes that meet Western consumption standards, claims to improve its social status and is guided by established practices and ethical standards economic relationships.
4. The Russian "dynamic middle class", which has incomes that ensure the satisfaction of the average Russian and higher consumption standards, a relatively high potential adaptability, significant social claims and motivations, social activity and an orientation towards legal ways of manifesting it.
5. “Outsiders” characterized by low adaptation and social activity, low incomes and an orientation towards legal ways of obtaining them.
6. "Marginalized", characterized by low adaptation and asocial and antisocial attitudes in their socio-economic activities.
7. “Criminals” possessing high social activity and adaptation, but at the same time quite rationally acting contrary to the legal norms of economic activity.

As you can see, the Rimashevskaya model is similar in many respects to the Watson model. First of all, this is noted in relation to the importance of the "dynamic middle class", which is in the stage of formation, which largely influences the existence of significant social instability in modern Russia. Rimashevskaya emphasizes this moment in the development of Russian society: “If it is possible to maintain this type of social dynamics, to orient it towards the gradual transfer of social expectations to the corresponding status positions, the level of income, then this will mean that the“ dynamic middle class ”will begin to transform into a classical support of stability and social order ".

In conclusion, we can say that the social-class structure is built on the basis of inequality, taking into account such characteristics as heterogeneity. The system of inequality is formed on the basis of the basic parameters of society, which include income, origin, position, power, education and other rank indicators. The proximity of social statuses leads to the formation of social strata, which, in addition to the difference in rewards, have different attitudes, norms of behavior, ideals, etc.

Social strata can be combined into social classes that have a certain attitude towards the means of production, their own subculture and opportunities for occupying more attractive social statuses. The class structure of society has unique specific features and is subject to changes in the course of social development.

 

It might be helpful to read:

• How scammers sell fake iPhones under the guise of real iPhones Sent a fake what to do;
• Drivers are categorized as workers;
• Syrup to strengthen the immune system (in a jar in the form of a bear);
• You are a person who wants to achieve more than others;
• How to organize an event;
• When discounts start in spring;
• Telesem magazine: getting married is unbearable;
• When is the day of a cadre worker in Russia Day of cadre workers;