A form of social stratification inherent in open societies. Systems of social stratification. Class social stratification

Main systems (types) social stratification are:

1. slavery. Under this system of stratification, two main groups of the population are distinguished, differing in their status, rights and duties: free and slaves;

2. castes. Under the caste system of stratification, status is determined from birth and is lifelong;

3. clans. This type is typical for agrarian societies. Clans are like highly ramified families;

4.classes.

The first three types of social stratification are closed, the fourth is open. A closed system is a social structure whose members can hardly change their status. An open system is a social structure whose members can change their status relatively easily. Changes in status are associated with the concept of "social mobility" (see below).

The degree of social stratification of a society changes over time in the same country. According to the theory of G. Lenski (1970), the maximum level of stratification of society was observed in the era of slavery and feudalism. According to Karl Marx's theory, inequality in society is constantly growing (“escalation of inequality”). PA Sorokin argues that the level of inequality in society fluctuates (fluctuates).

Methods for studying social stratification are reduced to the choice of criteria for identifying groups of the population in society and actually conducting a study to identify these groups. The main problem is the choice of criteria according to which groups of the population are distinguished. It depends on the theoretical views of the researcher on the problem of social stratification, as well as the name of the groups identified (stratum, classes, strata). The historical epoch has a great influence through the level of development of society itself and the relations that have developed in it (estates, new groups of the population corresponding to new industries) and the level of development of sociology as a science.

As a rule, each researcher gives his own names to the allocated groups, determines their number. It is not possible to bring all points of view within the framework of this work. 12

One of the main criteria for identifying strata in society is the level of income, profession, social status, level of education, position in the "management - execution" system.

TI Zaslavskaya proposed several models of stratification: 1) depending on the status and place in the process of reforming society; 13 2) by place in the country's economy. 14

Currently, due to the use of computer technology allowing in short time to process huge amounts of information, it is possible to use multivariate analysis.

For example, using the procedure of cluster analysis, N.I. Lapin in 2002 conducted a study of the stratification of Russian society according to three criteria: power functions, standard of living and education. 15 Five clusters were identified: “high-status”, “experts”, “realists”, “new poor”, “old poor”.

Two stratification indicators are used all over the world:

1.height of stratification - the social distance between the highest and lowest statuses of a given society;

2. stratification profile - shows the ratio of the number of places (social positions) in the social structure of society as the status rises.

The main groups (strata) of Russian society and their characteristics.

Belyaeva L.A. 16 in his work points out two features of the stratification of society in modern Russia:

1. dynamic character;

2. "youth" and incompleteness of the structure, ongoing transformation processes.

Zaslavskaya T.I. 17 identified the following strata in modern Russian society:

1. upper stratum of society(elites and sub-elites):

a) ruling elite... This stratum of Russian society includes the leaders of power structures and political parties, the top echelon of the state bureaucracy, as well as the owners of big capital (oligarchs). Over the years of reforms, its personal and social composition has been significantly updated. But this happened mainly due to the economic wing of the elite, while the composition of its political wing has not so much changed as it has regrouped. As numerous studies show, most of the party and Komsomol nomenklatura managed to maintain their high status by converting their political and social capital into economic capital. At present, the Russian elite is as closed and opposed to society as the former communist nomenclature;

b) upper (subelite) layer... This stratum is represented mainly by owners of medium and relatively large firms, directors of large and medium-sized privatized enterprises, as well as the wealthiest part of other groups of the employed population (mainly managers and business professionals). Three-quarters of it is represented by men, almost 90% of whom are young or middle-aged; 2/3 have a higher education, and the majority of the rest have a specialized secondary education. This is the most urbanized layer.

2. middle proto layer... About 2/5 of this proto-layer are small entrepreneurs and managers, somewhat more are qualified specialists (professionals), and about 1/5 are service people (the middle echelon of the bureaucracy and officers). The factor uniting these groups is the middle position on the socio-stratification scale. However, they bear little resemblance to the middle classes of modern Western societies. Rather, it is the embryo of a full-fledged middle layer, a kind of proto-layer. The groups that we refer to as the middle stratum are not similar to each other either in position or sociocultural appearance, their totality is socially heterogeneous. At least two groups can be distinguished 18: the first is the “new stratum” that formed during the period of economic reforms, which adopted orientations of the Western type and stood out in terms of the level of well-being; the second is the old "pre-market" middle class, which belongs to a certain " top quality»Personality (high morality, priority of spiritual values). The resulting income gap between these two groups is compensated by such important characteristics of the old class as education, culture, information, range social connections.

a) upper layer represented mainly by managers and entrepreneurs, specialists, the military, humanitarian intelligentsia. More than 50% are employed in the private sector;

b) middle layer are specialists and skilled workers, managers of enterprises. Almost 50% are employed in the private sector, many young people (under 25);

v) bottom layer- "white" and "blue" collars, employed in the public sector.

A high professional and qualification potential, a favorable employment structure, a relatively tolerant material situation, a relative large number and a tendency for further expansion allow us to consider the middle proto-layer as a potential driving force of the transformation process. It is the formation of a full-fledged middle stratum that serves at the same time as an indicator of the stability and progressive development of society, since it concentrates in itself qualified personnel with high professionalism and civic engagement.

3. base layer... This most massive element of the social structure is represented by the average ordinary Russians. The overwhelming majority of them are workers of average and low qualifications, engaged in performing labor for hire. Three quarters of them work in the public sector and only 9% in the private sector. These are the proletarianized intelligentsia, semi-intelligentsia (technical employees), workers, peasants, grassroots workers in trade and services; 55% of the base stratum are women more often of middle and older age, with education within a school or technical school. Most of its representatives live in medium and small provincial towns, villages and hamlets.

4. bottom layer... The lower stratum of society in our calculations is represented by workers who do not have professions and perform the simplest work. This is the least educated, the poorest, least initiative and socially helpless stratum. The share of elderly people here is 1.6 times higher than the average, women are 1.5 times more than men.

5. underclass.

The main characteristics of the strata of Russian society are presented in Appendix No. 1,2.

The nature of social stratification, the methods of its determination and reproduction in their unity form what sociologists call stratification system. Historically, there are four main types of stratification systems: slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies, and the fourth type is an open society. In this context, a society is considered to be closed, where social movements from one stratum to another are either completely prohibited or significantly limited. An open society is a society where transitions from lower strata to higher strata are not officially limited in any way (6 . 7).

• 1. Slavery - the form of the most rigid fixation of people in the lower strata. This is the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the property of another, deprived of all rights and freedoms.
• 2. Caste system - a stratification system that presupposes a person's lifelong attachment to a certain stratum on an ethnic, religious or economic basis. The caste is a closed group, which was assigned to the system a certain place in the social hierarchy. This place was determined by the special function of each caste in the system of division of labor. In India, where the caste system was most widespread, there was a detailed regulation of activities for each caste. Since belonging to the caste system was inherited, the possibilities for social mobility were limited here.
• 3. Estates system - a stratification system that implies the legal assignment of a person to a particular stratum. The rights and obligations of each class were determined by law and sanctified by religion. Belonging to the estate was mainly inherited, but in the saw of an exception it could be acquired for money or granted by the authorities. In general, the estate system was characterized by a ramified hierarchy, which was expressed in inequality in social status and the presence of numerous privileges.

The estate organization of the European feudal society provided for the division into two upper classes (nobility and clergy) and an unprivileged third estate (merchants, artisans, peasants). Since the inter-class barriers were quite tough, social mobility existed mainly within the estates, which included many ranks, ranks, professions, strata, etc. However, in contrast to the caste system, inter-class marriages and individual transitions from one stratum to another were sometimes allowed.

4. Class system - stratification system open type, which does not imply a legal or any other way of securing an individual for a certain stratum. Unlike previous closed stratification systems, class membership is not regulated by the authorities, is not established by law, and is not inherited. It is determined, first of all, by the place in the system social production, property ownership; and income levels.

The class system is characteristic of the modern industrial society, where I exist! opportunities for free transition from one stratum to another. Thus, the accumulation of property and wealth, successful entrepreneurial activity allow you to automatically take a higher social position.

The allocation of slave, caste, estate and class stratification systems is generally recognized, but not the only classification. It is supplemented by a description of such types of stratification systems, a combination of which is found in any society. Among them are the following:

• physical and genetic stratification system, which is based on the ranking of people by natural characteristics: gender, age, the presence of certain physical qualities - strength, dexterity, beauty, etc .;
• etacratic stratification system, in which differentiation between groups is carried out according to their position in the power-state hierarchies (political, military, administrative and economic), according to the possibilities for mobilizing and distributing resources, as well as according to the privileges that these groups have depending on their rank in the structures of power;
• social and professional stratification system, according to which the groups are divided according to the content and working conditions; ranking here is carried out with the help of certificates (diplomas, grades, licenses, patents, etc.), fixing the level of qualifications and the ability to perform certain types of activities (grade grid in the public sector of industry, the system of certificates and diplomas of education received, the system of awarding scientific degrees and titles, etc.);
• cultural and symbolic stratification system, arising from differences in access to socially significant information.

unequal opportunities to select, save and interpret this information (theocratic manipulation of information is typical for pre-industrial societies, partocratic for industrial societies, technocratic for post-industrial societies);

• cultural and normative stratification system, in which differentiation is based on differences in respect and prestige arising from the comparison of existing norms and lifestyles inherent in certain social groups (attitudes towards physical and mental work, consumer standards, tastes, methods of communication, professional terminology, local dialect, - all this can serve as a basis for ranking social groups);
• socio-territorial stratification system, formed due to unequal distribution of resources between regions, differences in access to jobs, housing, quality goods and services, educational and cultural institutions, etc.

In reality, all these stratification systems are closely intertwined, complement each other. So, the socio-professional hierarchy in the form of an officially enshrined division of labor not only performs important independent functions to support the life of society, but also has a significant impact on the structure of any stratification system. Therefore, the study of the stratification of modern society cannot be reduced only to the analysis of any one type of stratification system.

Currently, there are a large number of class structure models.

Among the models of stratification adopted in Western sociology, the most famous is 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.

In carrying out 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. The upper-upper class consists of 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, falling securities prices and other socio-economic changes in society.

2. The lower-upper class are bankers, prominent politicians,
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.

3. The upper-middle class includes successful businessmen, hired company 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.

4. The lower-middle class is wage-earners- engineers, middle and small officials, teachers, scientists, heads of departments at enterprises, highly qualified workers, etc. Currently, this class is the most numerous in the developed Western countries. His main aspirations are to improve his status within this class, success and career.

5. The upper-lower class consists mainly of hired workers,
which 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.

6. The bottom-bottom class consists of the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, foreign workers and other members of the marginalized groups of the population.

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, the social structure of our society in the studies of N.M. Rimashevskaya looks like this:

1. "All-Russian elite groups", combining the possession of property in a size comparable to the largest Western states, and the means of power influence at the all-Russian level.

2. "Regional and corporate elites", possessing 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 possesses property and incomes that ensure Western consumption standards, claims to improve its social status and is guided by the established practice and ethical norms of economic relations.

4.Russian "dynamic middle class" with incomes that satisfy the average Russian and more high standards consumption, relatively high potential adaptability, significant social claims and motivations, social activity and focus on legal ways of its manifestation.

5. “Outsiders” characterized by low adaptation and social activity, low incomes and an orientation towards legal methods 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 at 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 ".

As a conclusion, we can say the following: 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.

Questions for self-test:

1. K. Marx and F. Engels wrote: "The history of all societies existing up to now was the history of the struggle of classes." In turn, M. Gandhi noted: “In the West, an eternal conflict arose between capitalists and workers. Each side views the other as a natural enemy. If both sides realized that they are dependent on each other, they would have little reason to quarrel. " Compare these two statements, these two positions. What is your point of view? Give reasons for your answer.

2. From the dictionary of sociology, write down the meanings of the basic concepts: inequality, social equality, stratification, social structure, socio-demographic structure, social-class structure, social-professional structure, socio-territorial structure, class, working class, bourgeoisie, capitalism, middle class, social mobility, vertical mobility, horizontal mobility, marginality.

3. Make sure that you have mastered the basic concepts of the topic, indicating the correspondence between the concepts and their definitions:

Concepts:

a) upward mobility, g) prestige,

b) group mobility, h) vertical mobility,

c) social structure, i) social mobility,

d) status group, j) social marginality,

e) horizontal mobility, l) downward mobility,

f) social stratification, m) class.

Definitions:

1. a change in social position, accompanied by the preservation of social status;

2. specially organized inequality between different social strata and communities;

3. displacement associated with a change in social status;

4. an intermediate position in the social structure, which is characterized not only by the absence of a clearly defined position, but also by the loss of certain social norms, rules and patterns of behavior;

5. mobility associated with downgrading;

6. mobility associated with a change in the status of entire social groups;

7. the degree of respect for a certain status;

8. a set of individuals holding similar positions on three grounds: wealth, prestige, power;

9. changing the position of an individual or group in social space, i.e. transition from one social position to another;

10. a set of status groups holding similar market positions and having similar life chances (M. Weber);

11. a certain order of relationships between elements social system;

12. social displacement associated with an increase in social status.

4. Comment on the class definitions below. What theoretical approaches to the analysis of stratification do they reflect? What are the differences between them? Which of the approaches to class definition seems to you the most correct and theoretically promising?

A class is a set of status groups that occupy similar market positions and have similar life chances (M. Weber).

Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relation (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in the methods of obtaining and in size. the share of social wealth that they can have. In an antagonistic society, one of these groups appropriates the labor of the other (V.I.Lenin).

A class is a collection of agents with a similar position in social space (P. Bourdieu).

“The class is determined ... by its place in the social division of labor as a whole. Which also includes political and ideological relations ... ”(N. Pulantsas).

“Class - denotes conflict groups that arise as a result of the differentiated distribution of authority in imperatively coordinated associations” (R. Dahrendorf).

“Speaking of class, we mean a not too strictly defined group of people who share common interests, social experience, traditions and value systems, people who are predisposed to behave like a class, to define themselves in their actions and in their consciousness as a class in relation to other groups of people ”(E. Thompson).

“The defining feature of the class is the way of collective action” (F. Parkin).

“The basis for distinguishing a class can be the criterion of the presence or absence of economic power, the features of which are: the possibility of control (disposal of economic resources), the size of property (legal ownership of resources), market positions (abilities and qualifications)” (W. Runciman).

5. In specialized publications, find data from sociological research to characterize the social differentiation of modern Russian society (for example, in a workshop on sociology Kazarinova N.V., Filatova O.G., Khrenova A.E. -M., 2000. S. 135- 136). What do these facts testify to? What is the reason for the high level of income differentiation of the population?

6. According to the sociologist T.I. Zaslavskaya, the share of people belonging to the middle class of Russian society is approximately 11% of the economically active population (in Hungary - 18.5%, in the Czech Republic - 16.9%). What social, economic, political consequences can the small size and underdevelopment of the middle class in Russia lead to? Indicate what measures could intensify the process of forming a middle class in our country?

7. Prepare for a group discussion on the topic: “Problems of the origin of inequality”. Is it possible in modern society to achieve social equality and justice? Or is it just a dream, a myth, a utopia?

8. Compare the stratification systems of the Russian Empire, Soviet society and modern Russia. What processes and relationships were the source of these changes?

Main literature:

1. Kazarinova N.V., Filatova O.G., Khrenov A.E. Workshop on Sociology. M., 2000.

2. Kazarinova N.V., Filatova O.G., Khrenov A.E. Sociology: Textbook for universities. M., 1999.

1. Kravchenko A.I. General Sociology: Tutorial for universities.-M., 2001.

4. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology. Yekaterinburg, 2000.

1. Kulikov L.M. Fundamentals of Sociology and Political Science: Textbook.-M., 1999.
2. Lawson T., Garrod D. Sociology. A-Z: Dictionary-reference.-M .: Fair-Press, 2000.
3. Massionis J. Sociology. -SPb., 2004.
4. Radaev V.V., Shkaratan O.I. Social stratification: Textbook for universities.-M., 1996.
5. The middle class in modern Russian society. / Russian Independent Institute for Social and National Problems.-M., 1999.

10. Tadevosyan E.V. Dictionary-reference book on sociology and political science.-M., 1996.

11. Frolov S.S. Sociology: Textbook.-M .: Gardariki, 2000.

Additional literature:

1. Avraamova E. On the problem of the formation of the middle class in Russia // Issues of Economics. 1998. No. 7.

2. Anurin V.F. Economic stratification: attitudes and stereotypes of consciousness // Sociological research. 1995. No. 1.

3. Harutyunyan Yu.V. On the transformation of the social structure of post-Soviet nations // Sociological studies. 1998. No. 4.

4. Weber M. Basic concepts of stratification // Sociological studies. 1994. No. 5.

5. Voronkova V.M., Fomin E.A. Typological Criteria for Poverty // Sociological Research. 1995. No. 2.

6. Giddens E. Stratification and class structure // Sociological research. 1992. No. 11.

7. Golenkova Z.T., Igitkhanyan E.D., Kazarinova I.V. The marginal layer: the phenomenon of social self-identification // Sociological research. 1996. No. 8.

8. Golenkova Z.T. British sociologists about the modern middle class // Sociological studies. 1996. No. 10.

9. Golovachev B.V., Kosova L.B. High-status groups: touches to a social portrait // Socio-political journal. 1996. No. 1.

10. Zaslavskaya T.I. Social structure of modern Russian society // Social sciences and modernity. 1997. No. 2.

11. Mosca G. The ruling class // Sociological studies. 1994. No. 10.

12. Social mobility // Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: Reader. Yekaterinburg, 1998.

It is necessary to make a reservation that from this provision there are a lot of exceptions. For example, in some societies, nominal parameters can turn into rank parameters: gender is a rank parameter in most countries of the East; In the United States until the 1960s, and in South Africa before the fall of the apartheid system, race was one hundred percent of the rank parameter and still remains largely so; in the former Soviet Baltic republics, ignorance of the national language became the reason for massive discrimination of the Russian and Russian-speaking population; in modern Germany, immigrants from the GDR receive lower salary than the natives of the Federal Republic of Germany, etc.

Social structure(from lat. structure- structure, location, order) of society - the structure of society as a whole, a set of interrelated and interacting social groups, as well as the relationship between them.

The social structure is based on social division labor, the presence of specific needs and interests, values, norms and roles, lifestyle and other signs of various social groups.

The role of social structure:

1) organizes the society into a single whole;

2) contributes to the preservation of the integrity and stability of society.

Social relationships - these are certain stable ties between people as representatives of social groups.

Two characters of social relations

Social rivalry often leads to social conflicts.

Depending on the composition of the participants, social relations are divided into the following types:

1) Social group - relations between classes, social strata, etc.

2) Socio-demographic - relations between men, women, children, youth, pensioners, etc.

3) Socio-ethnic - relations between nations, peoples, national and ethnographic groups, etc.

4) Social and professional - relations between labor collectives, professional associations.

5) Interpersonal - a person's relationship with the people around him.

Social stratification (from lat. stratum- layer, flooring and facere- make) - it is a system that includes many social entities, representatives of which differ from each other in an unequal amount of power and material wealth, rights and obligations, privileges and prestige.

Strata - it is a real, empirically fixed community, a social stratum, a group of people united by some common social attribute (property, professional, educational level, power, prestige, etc.).

Social differentiation (from lat differentia- difference) - it is the division of society into various social groups that occupy different positions in it.

According to the theory of stratification, modern society is layered, multi-level, outwardly resembling geological layers.

Stratification has two essential characteristics:

1) the upper layers are in a more privileged position (in relation to the possession of resources or opportunities for receiving rewards) in relation to the lower layers;

2) the upper strata are much smaller than the lower ones in terms of the number of members of society included in them.

Different social groups have different positions in society, which are determined by unequal rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, property and income, attitudes towards power and influence among members of their community.

Historical types of stratification systems

Historical types of stratification

The most common approaches to the analysis of the social structure of society - stratification and class, which are based on the concepts of "stratum" and "class".

The main difference between the stratification and class approaches: within the framework of the latter, economic factors are of paramount importance, all other criteria are their derivatives. The stratification approach proceeds from taking into account not only economic, but also political, proper social, as well as socio-psychological factors. This implies that a tight connection does not always arise between them: a high position in one position can be combined with a low position in another.

Social stratification:

1) is a method of identifying the social strata of a given society;

2) forms an idea of ​​the social portrait of this society.

Expand

Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin (1889−1968) - Russian-American sociologist and culturologist, one of the founders of the theories of social stratification and social mobility.

Member of the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) (1906), was engaged in the propaganda of revolutionary ideas. Editor of the newspaper "Narodnaya Mysl" (1915), assistant professor (1916). He condemned the October Revolution, in 1918 he renounced political activity and membership in the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, was engaged in scientific and teaching activities... Exiled abroad (1922, "Philosophical Steamship"). Acquired American citizenship (1930), founded and directed the Department of Sociology at Harvard University (1931), President of the American Sociological Association (1965).

Supported the ideas of the psychological school of law. For example, he qualified a criminal act on the basis of the experiences of the individual who committed it, that is, his awareness of his own act as criminal. He was engaged in the study of patterns of behavior adopted in society, the sanctions applied to those who violate the rules and regulations.

Defined law as generally binding rules of conduct, introduced and controlled by the state, in which the freedom of one person is consistent with the freedom of others in order to delimit and protect human interests. He considered law as a constituent principle of any social group.

He noted the underdevelopment and unstructuredness of sociological knowledge, believed that sociology should become a metatheory that summarizes all humanitarian knowledge in unified system... He considered society as a sociocultural system.

The basis of his sociological analysis is the theory of social stratification. He studied social groups, classified them. He identified two types of social mobility (horizontal and vertical).

We still know so little about the "mysterious" world of social events that any real approximate knowledge is of great value. Theories of progress, with their assessments of good and bad, progressive and regressive, can only express the subjective tastes of their authors, and nothing else. If sociology wants to be an exact science, it must free itself from such value judgments.

Any long and brutal war, like any revolution, degrades people in moral and legal terms.

Even at the dawn of history, people discovered that the separation of functions and labor increases the efficiency of society, therefore, in all societies, there is a division of statuses and roles. At the same time, all members of society are distributed within the social structure in such a way that various statuses are filled and the roles corresponding to them are performed.

Therefore, the basis for the division of people into groups was the division of labor, which was initially influenced only by such characteristics as age, gender, health status, and later - social origin, life experience, education, etc.

Various groups acquired characteristics that distinguish them from other groups of people in a given society, primarily the level of well-being and the size of powers.

Therefore, any society is more or less complexly structured, it consists of various groups (castes, classes, strata, etc.).

Social stratification is the identification of social groups, strata based on certain criteria, such as

1) the nature of the property,

2) the amount of income,

3) the amount of power,

4) prestige.

Social stratification of society is a system of inequality, social differentiation based on differences in the position occupied and the functions performed.

This theory describes the existing system of inequality in terms of status, role, prestige, rank, i.e. gives functional description social structure.

All of the above factors determined relevance our research.

Purpose of the study- consider the features of social stratification and its historical types.

In accordance with the goals set, the following were solved main tasks :

To reveal the prerequisites for the stratification of society;

Study the approaches of Marx and Weber to the phenomenon of social stratification;

Determine the main types of stratification;

Consider the role of the middle class in modern society;

Study the causes of poverty;

Analyze the features of social stratification in modern Russia.

Research methods:

Processing, analysis of scientific sources;

Analysis of scientific literature, textbooks and manuals on the problem under study.

Object of study - social stratification of society

Subject of study- features and historical types of social stratification.

1. Prerequisites for the stratification of society

Social stratification - hierarchically organized structures of social inequality (ranks, status groups, etc.) that exist in any society.

This term makes it possible to distinguish between the forms of social ranking and inequality that characterize society or exist within one of them.

Most societies are organized in such a way that their institutions unequally distribute benefits and responsibilities among different categories of people and social groups. Sociologists call social stratification the arrangement of individuals and groups from top to bottom along horizontal layers, or strata, based on inequality in income, level of education, amount of power, and professional prestige. From this point of view social order is not neutral, but serves to achieve the goals and interests of some people and social groups more than others.

The question "who gets what and why?" always interested in humanity. The earliest Jewish prophets in 800 BC, in particular Amos, Micah, and Isaiah, invariably condemned the wealthy and powerful members of society. Micah, for example, blamed them for taking over the fields and houses of their neighbors; were "violent," demanded bribes and performed dishonest and treacherous acts. Ancient Greek philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, discussed at length the institution of private property and slavery. In his dialogue "The State" in 370 BC. Plato wrote: "Any city, no matter how small it may be, is actually divided into two halves: one for the poor, the other for the rich, and they are at war with each other." In the Indian Laws of Manu, compiled around 200 BC, a description of the creation of the world is given in which social inequality is considered to be sent by the gods for the common good.

Thus, polar opposite views of social stratification are known: some, like Micah and Plato, criticized the existing system of distribution, others, like the Brahmins, supported it.

In a historical and comparative perspective, for example, between the slave, caste, class and modern "class open" society, as well as between social characteristics differentiating inequality. Gender, ethnicity and age were also different, but important in the relationship of domination and subordination, regardless of historical periods and cultures, as well as access to or use of special social resources in creating and maintaining inequality. Examples of this are literacy (Ancient China), religion (Mesopotamia or the Incas and Aztecs before Columbus), military resources (in the territories of empires throughout history). In addition, bureaucratic elites are extremely important, particularly in Eastern Europe and many Third World countries. Gender divisions form the basis of social differentiation in all societies and are no less concerned with the relations of domination and subordination, like an ethnic group that creates inequality.

Since there are many foundations for understanding inequality among people and exercising exploitation, it is important to recognize that these variables are not mutually exclusive. Thus, in the pre-industrial world, the strata of the clergy and the military often coexisted with those based on gender and ethnicity.

Like the various foundations of social stratification, there can be various forms or structural profiles of various systems - the graded hierarchy, the number of steps in it.

2. Approaches of Marx and Weber to the phenomenon of social stratification

Social stratification is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes and groups in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among the members of a society. The specific forms of social stratification are varied and numerous. If the economic status of the members of a certain society is not the same, if there are both haves and have-nots among them, then such a society is characterized by the presence of economic stratification, regardless of the principles on which it is organized, on capitalist or communist, it is constitutionally defined as a "society of equals" or no. No amount of labels, signs, or oral statements can change or obscure the reality of the fact of economic inequality, which is expressed in the difference in income, living standards, in the existence of the rich and the poor.

The theory of social stratification is one of the most advanced parts of sociological theory.

Summarizing the diverse aspects of the theory of stratification, one can single out its main principles:

1) study all social strata of society without exception, regardless of whether they are large or small, stable or unstable, playing main or secondary roles in the social process;

2) measure and compare groups using the same criteria. If one or the other is taken, then it applies to all groups without exception;

3) these criteria should be no less than required for a sufficiently complete description of each layer.

The social structure of a real society always acts as a certain stratification system due to the difference in social roles and positions that objectively arise in the course of evolution. This system is determined by the division of labor and the system of values ​​and cultural standards existing in a given society.

Karl Marx and Max Weber were the first to try to explain the nature of social stratification. Marx believed that in capitalist societies, the cause of social stratification is the division into those who own and control the most important means of production - the oppressor capitalist class, or the bourgeoisie, and those who can only sell their labor - the oppressed working class, or the proletariat. According to Marx, these two groups and their diverging interests serve as the basis for the stratification. Thus, for Marx, social stratification existed in only one dimension.

Believing that Marx oversimplified the picture of stratification, Weber argued that there are other division lines in society that do not depend on class affiliation or economic status, and proposed a multidimensional approach to stratification, highlighting three dimensions: class (economic position), status ( prestige) and the party (power). Each of these dimensions is a separate aspect of social gradation. For the most part, however, these three dimensions are interrelated; they feed and support each other, but still may not be the same. Thus, individual prostitutes and criminals have great economic opportunities, but they do not have prestige and power. University faculty and clergy enjoy high prestige, but they are usually rated relatively low in wealth and power. Some officials may have considerable power and still receive little wages and have no prestige.

Economic situation... The economic dimension of stratification is determined by wealth and income. Wealth is what people own. Income is understood simply as the amount of money people receive. For example, a person may own huge property and receive little profit from it; such people include those who collect rare coins, precious stones, works of art, etc. Another person may receive high wages, live luxuriously, but be poor.

Prestige... - authority, influence, respect in society, the degree of which corresponds to a certain social status. Prestige is an intangible phenomenon, something implied. However, in everyday life, a person usually seeks to give a sense of prestige - assigns titles, observes rituals of respect, issues honorary degrees, demonstrates his "ability to live". These actions and objects serve as symbols of prestige to which we assign social significance.

Power determines which people or groups will be able to translate their preferences into the reality of social life. Power is the ability of individuals and social groups to impose their will on others and to mobilize available resources to achieve a goal.

Social status- this is that relative rank, with all the rights, duties and life styles that follow from it, which the individual occupies in the social hierarchy. Status can be assigned to individuals at birth, regardless of the qualities of the individual, as well as on the basis of gender, age, family relationships, origin, or it can be achieved in a competitive struggle, which requires special personal qualities and personal efforts.

3. The main types of stratification

Causes of slavery.

An inherent feature of slavery is the possession of some people by others. Both the ancient Romans and the ancient Africans had slaves. V Ancient Greece slaves were engaged in manual labor, which gave free citizens the opportunity to express themselves in politics and the arts. Slavery was the least typical for nomadic peoples, especially hunters and gatherers, and it was most widespread in agrarian societies.

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

Thus, slavery was the result of a military defeat, a crime or an unpaid debt, and not a sign of some natural quality inherent in some people.

General characteristics 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).

Castes

In the caste system, status is determined by birth and is lifelong; to use sociological terms: the basis of the caste system is the prescribed status. 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.

Clans

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.

The clan of the Emir of Kuwait is made up of approximately 150 people, occupying a dozen neighboring houses in Kuwait. During the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq in 1989-1990. clan members have concentrated all the means at their disposal for survival. Thus, members of the clan, who were involved in the sale of household appliances, bribed Iraqi officials loading them with food processors, microwave ovens, TVs; those who worked in hotel business, hid huge amounts of hotel food, which they then shared with other members of their clan. Together they planned and carried out the release from prison of one of the clan members and managed to smuggle him into Saudi Arabia.

Classes

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, 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 almost impossible for him to “slide down” the class ladder.

4. The role of the middle class in modern society

The middle class is a set of social strata that occupy an intermediate position between the main classes in the system of social stratification. This class is characterized by a heterogeneous position, contradictory interests, consciousness and political behavior, as a result of which many authors speak of it as "middle classes", "middle strata". Distinguish between the old middle class and the new middle class.

The old middle class includes small entrepreneurs, tradesmen, artisans, representatives of the liberal professions, small and medium-sized farming, and owners of small manufacturing firms. The rapid development of technology and science, a surge in the formation of the service sector, as well as the all-encompassing activity of the modern state contributed to the emergence of an army of employees, engineers, etc., who do not own the means of production and live off the sale of their labor. They became members of the new middle class.

In almost all developed countries the share of the middle class is 55-60%.

The growth of the middle class expresses a tendency towards a decrease in the contradictions between the content of labor of various professions, urban and rural way life. The middle class is the bearer of the values ​​of the traditional family, which, however, is combined with an orientation towards equality of opportunities for men and women in educational, professional and cultural terms. This class is a stronghold of modern society, its traditions, norms and knowledge. The middle strata are characterized by a slight scatter around the center of the political spectrum, which makes them here, too, a stronghold of stability, a guarantee of the evolutionary nature of social development, the formation and functioning of civil society.

In modern Russia, the middle class is undergoing its formation. Social polarization continues to develop - stratification into rich and poor. Those who see the emergence of a bipolar income distribution and a small middle class are concerned about the fate of Russian democracy. The popular opinion of sociologists is that a healthy democracy requires a healthy middle class. In a society of rich and poor, there is no political and economic link. The result of the socio-economic polarization of society can be a revolution. It was thanks to the emergence and strengthening of the middle class that Marx's forecast about the inevitability of the historical death of capitalism as a result of the proletarian revolution did not come true. The small size of the Russian middle class at the present time can contribute to the polarization of society, which leads to disappointment and anger of the masses. Therefore, it is advisable to separately consider the issue of poverty in Russia.

5. Causes of poverty and its subculture

The phenomenon of poverty became the subject of research in contemporary Russian sociology in the early 1990s. During the Soviet period, the concept of poverty in relation to Soviet people was not used in domestic science. In the socio-economic literature, the category of poverty received official recognition, which was revealed in the framework of the theory of welfare and socialist distribution.

Poverty is a condition in which a person's basic needs exceed his ability to satisfy them.

The most important reason that can bring people to the social bottom is job loss, which means social tragedy. This position also determines openly accusatory assessments of activities.

In the mass consciousness, economic reforms are associated with social degradation, with mass impoverishment, with life deprivations, the influence of the criminal world, the war in Chechnya and forced resettlement (refugees) that give birth to refugees are perceived as less significant.

According to experts, among the risk groups of getting to the social bottom are: lonely elderly people (the chances of getting to the bottom are 72%), pensioners (61%), disabled people (63%), large families (54%), unemployed (53%) , single mothers (49%), refugees (44%), displaced persons (31%). On the contrary, they have no chance of moving up the social shoots. Only those who have already taken certain social positions in society have such chances.

At first glance, we all live within a common culture. But the reality is that modern welfare states do not include poverty in their culture, leaving it in a special enclosed space. Material insecurity and special conditions not only interfere with full-blooded participation in the generally accepted culture, but also lead to the conservation and reproduction of a special way of life, and sometimes the factors that give rise to them. Overcoming poverty has become a stumbling block for politicians and academics alike. She did not succumb to either economic or political methods of reform, remaining one of the most tenacious phenomena from time immemorial to the present day. The theory of the “culture of poverty” (in its modern modification - “the subculture of poverty”) offers its clue to the reasons for the persistence of poverty.

The terminological confusion of the concepts of "poverty subculture" and "poverty culture" (they are often used as synonyms) is associated not only with the comparative novelty of the problem, but also with the lack of a common point of view about how far a person has gone along the path of alienation from generally accepted norms and values. , as well as with various methodological principles for analyzing the relationship between the culture of society and the subculture of a social group.

Supporters of a radical methodological position sought to oppose the generally accepted culture and the culture of the poor. Professor of the University of Illinois O. Lewis believed that the latter is a lifestyle that is passed down from generation to generation, from parents to children, the reaction of the poor to their marginal position in a class-stratified, individualist capitalist society. The poor, alienated from the rest of society, develop their own culture, the anthropologist argued. (Later he will use the term subculture.) Its reproduction is explained not by the preservation of the material and social conditions in which it was formed, but by the process of socialization. Overcoming physical poverty, O. Lewis concludes, cannot be sufficient to overcome the culture of poverty. In other words, it becomes an independent force that exists independently of the conditions that gave rise to it.

V. Miller adheres to similar views. He describes the subculture of poverty as a culture of the lower class, an independent tradition, whose age is several centuries. It is formed in conflict with the generally accepted culture and is focused on the destruction of the norms of the middle class.

In general, it can be stated; theorists who, when analyzing the problem, try to deduce the interdependence between the culture of the poor and their position in the system of social and power stratification, consider the subcultural characteristics and lifestyle of the poor as special, transmitted from generation to generation, contrary to generally accepted laws and rules, norms and values.

This point of view is largely due to the vagueness of the category of "poor" and the exaggeration of the confrontation between them and the rest of society. This position, which significantly narrows the essence of the phenomenon, in our opinion, merges with the Marxist interpretation of conflict and class consciousness.

The broad interpretation of the subculture of the poor as part of a single socio-cultural space develops the tradition of the analysis of delinquent cultures associated with R. Merton's theory of anomie. Supporters of this theory - G. Hans, L. Rainwater and others, recognizing the existence of a special subculture of the poor, do not oppose it to the general culture and believe that it is determined by social conditions. According to Rainwater, some groups develop their own normative systems because they cannot succeed by following generally accepted norms. However, they continue to be influenced by the latter. A situation arises similar to the one when the players agree among themselves that the game they are playing would be morally justified, but their actual behavior refutes this agreement.

Attribution to culture or subculture becomes more understandable when it comes to the content side of the matter. Lewis names about 70 interrelated social, economic and psychological features of the "culture of poverty" and identifies four blocks:

1) absence or low level of participation in the main institutions of society (trade unions, public organizations, political parties, etc.); critical attitudes towards the main institutions of the ruling classes (ministries, departments, police, etc.), towards the official norms of marriage; and cynicism towards the church. The poor do not share social values ​​and even if they are aware of them, they do not act in accordance with them;

2) the minimum level of organization outside the family;

3) different from generally accepted gender relations - absence of childhood, early sexual contacts, free marriages, high frequency abortion, etc .;

4) the predominance of such attitudes as helplessness, dependence, humiliated position, which is associated with low motivation for work and achievements; orientation to the present, inability to plan. These attitudes and behaviors make poverty inevitable.

6. Features of social stratification in modern Russia

The upper stratum includes, first of all, the real ruling stratum, which acts as the main subject of reforms. It includes elite and sub-elite groups that occupy the most important positions in the public administration system, in economic and security structures. They are united by the fact that they are in power and the ability to directly influence the reform processes.

The middle layer is the embryo of the middle layer in the Western sense of the term. True, the majority of its representatives have neither the capital that ensures personal independence, nor the level of professionalism that meets the requirements of a post-industrial society, nor high social prestige. In addition, while this stratum is too small and cannot serve as a guarantor of social stability. In the future, a full-fledged middle stratum in Russia will be formed on the basis of social groups that today form the corresponding proto-stratum. These are small entrepreneurs, managers of medium and small businesses, the middle echelon of the bureaucracy, senior officers, the most qualified and capable specialists and workers.

The basic social stratum covers more than 2/3 of Russian society. Its representatives have an average professional and qualification potential and a relatively limited labor potential.

The base layer includes the bulk of the intelligentsia (specialists), semi-intelligentsia (assistants to specialists), technical staff, workers in the mass professions of trade and service, most of the peasantry. Although the social status, mentality, interests and behavior of these groups are different, their role in the transition process is quite similar - it is, first of all, adaptation to changing conditions in order to survive and, if possible, maintain the achieved status.

The lower stratum encloses the main, socialized part of society, its structure and functions seem to be the least clear. Distinctive features its representatives are low activity potential and inability to adapt to the harsh socio-economic conditions of the transition period. Basically, this stratum consists of elderly, poorly educated, not too healthy and strong people, those who do not have professions, and often have no permanent occupation, place of residence, unemployed, refugees and forced migrants from areas of interethnic conflicts. Representatives of this stratum are characterized by very low personal and family income, a low level of education, engaging in unskilled labor or lack of permanent work.

The social bottom is characterized mainly by isolation from the social institutions of a large society, compensated by its inclusion in specific criminal and semi-criminal institutions. Hence follows the closed nature of social ties, mainly within the framework of the stratum itself, desocialization, the loss of the skills of a legitimate public life... Representatives of the social bottom are criminals and semi-criminal elements - thieves, bandits, drug dealers, brothel keepers, small and large swindlers, hired killers, as well as degraded people - alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, vagabonds, homeless people, etc.

CONCLUSION

Thus, as a result of the study, the following conclusions can be drawn. Social stratification - hierarchically organized structures of social inequality (ranks, status groups, etc.) that exist in any society.

Social stratification is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes and groups in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and essence is in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among the members of a society.

Karl Marx and Max Weber were the first to try to explain the nature of social stratification.

M. Weber laid the foundations of the modern theory of social stratification, which is an attempt to overcome the limitations of the Marxist concept of economic stratification. He believed that not only the economic factor in the form of property, but also the political factor (power) and status (prestige) can be considered as criteria of social stratification, as a result of which it becomes multidimensional.

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.

The middle class is a set of social strata that occupy an intermediate position between the main classes in the system of social stratification. This class is characterized by a heterogeneous position, contradictory interests, consciousness and political behavior, as a result of which many authors speak of it as "middle classes", "middle strata". Distinguish between the old middle class and the new middle class.

Poverty is a characteristic of the economic situation of an individual or a group, in which they cannot pay the cost of necessary goods themselves.

Poverty is the inability to maintain a certain acceptable standard of living.

Modern studies of factors, criteria and patterns of stratification of Russian society make it possible to distinguish strata and groups that differ as social status and a place in the process of reforming Russian society

In Russian society, four social strata can be distinguished: upper, middle, basic and lower, as well as a desocialized "social bottom"

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

1. Belyaeva L.A. Social stratification and the middle class. M. Academy,
2001.

2. Belyaeva L.A. Social strata in Russia: the experience of cluster analysis. // Socis. - 2005. No. 12. - With. 57-64.

3. Weber M. Basic concepts of stratification // Sociological
research, 1994, no. 5

4. Volkov Yu.G., Dobrenkov V.I., Nechipurenko V.N., Popov A.V. Sociology. M .: Garadriki, 2003

5. Giddens E. Stratification and class structure // Sociological
research, 1992, no. 9-10.

6. Zaslavskaya T.I. Contemporary Russian Society: Problems and Prospects. // Social sciences and modernity. - 2004. No. 5.6. - With. 5-19.

7. Ilyin V.I. Social stratification. Syktyvkar, 1991.

8. Radaev V.V., Shkaratan O.I. Social stratification. M., Aspect
Press, 1996.

9. Ritzer J. Modern sociological theories. - SPb .: Peter, 2002 .-- p. 688.

10. Sorokin P. Social stratification and mobility // Man, civilization, society. M., 1992.

11. Social structure and stratification in conditions of formation
civil society in Russia. Book. 1-2, M. Institute of Sociology RAS, 1995.

12. Sociology / Ed. A.I. Kravchenko, V.M. Anurina. - SPb .: Peter, 2003 .-- p. 432.

13. Sociology. / Ed. Volkova Yu.G. - M .: Gardariki, 2005 .-- p. 512.

14. The middle class in modern Russian society. / Ed. M.K. Gorshkova, N.E. Tikhonova and others - M .: ROSSPEN, RNISiNP, 2000 .-- p. 44.

15. Transformation of social structure and stratification of Russian
society. M., Science, 1998.

16. Lewis O. A study of slum culture. New York: Random House, 1968. P. 4.

17. Lewis O. La Vida. New York: Random House, 1966. P. 49-53.

18. Miller W. Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang deliquency // Journal of social issues. 1958. V. 14. P. 5-19.

19. Rainwater L. The problems of lower class culture // Journal of social issues. V. 26. No. 2. 1970. P. 142.

Rainwater L. The problems of lower class culture // Journal of social issues. V. 26. No. 2. 1970. P. 142.

Lewis O. La Vida. New York: Random House, 1966. P. 49-53.

Zaslavskaya T.I. Contemporary Russian Society: Problems and Prospects. // Social sciences and modernity. - 2004. No. 5.6. - With. 5-19.