Various criteria for social stratification. Social stratification: concept, criteria and types

1. INTRODUCTION

Social stratification is a central theme of sociology. She explains the social stratification of the poor, the well-to-do and the rich.

In examining the subject of sociology, we found a close connection between the three fundamental concepts of sociology - social structure, social composition, and social stratification. We expressed the structure through a set of statuses and likened it to empty cells of a honeycomb. It is located, as it were, in a horizontal plane, but is created by the social division of labor. In a primitive society, there are few statuses and a low level of division of labor, in modern society there are many statuses and a high level of organization of the division of labor.

But no matter how many statuses there are, in the social structure they are equal and functionally linked to each other. But now we filled the empty cells with people, each status turned into a large social group. The set of statuses gave us a new concept - the social composition of the population. And here the groups are equal to each other, they are also located horizontally. Indeed, in terms of social composition, all Russians, women, engineers, non-partisans and housewives are equal.

However, we know that in real life, human inequality plays a huge role. Inequality is the yardstick by which we can place some groups above or below others. Social composition turns into social stratification - a set of vertically arranged social strata, in particular, the poor, the well-to-do, the rich. To use a physical analogy, the social composition is a jumbled collection of iron filings. But then they put down the magnet, and they all lined up in a clear order. Stratification is a "oriented" composition of the population in a certain way.

What is it that "orientates" large social groups? It turns out that society's unequal assessment of the meaning and role of each status or group. A plumber or janitor is ranked less than a lawyer or a minister. Consequently, high statuses and the people who occupy them are better rewarded, have a greater amount of power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should also be higher. So we got the four main dimensions of stratification are income, power, education, prestige. And that's all, there are no others. Why? And because they exhaust the range of social benefits that people strive for. More precisely, not the goods themselves (there may just be a lot of them), but access channels to them. Home abroad, luxury car, yacht, holidays in the Canary Islands, etc. - social benefits, which are always in short supply (that is, highly respected and inaccessible to the majority) and are acquired through access to money and power, which in turn are achieved through high education and personal qualities.

In this way, 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.

And it is always unequal. This is how social strata are positioned according to the criterion of unequal access to power, wealth, education and prestige.

2. MEASUREMENT OF STRATIFICATION

Imagine a social space in which the vertical and horizontal distances are not equal. So or approximately so thought social stratification P. Sorokin - the man who was the first in the world to give a complete theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, and who confirmed his theory with the help of a huge, extending to the whole human history, empirical material.

The points in space are social statuses. The distance between the turner and the milling machine is one, it is horizontal, and the distance between the worker and the foreman is different, it is vertical. The master is the boss, the worker is the subordinate. They have different social ranks. Although the case can be presented in such a way that the foreman and the worker will be located at an equal distance from each other. This will happen if we consider the one and the other not as a boss and a subordinate, but only as workers performing different labor functions. But then we will move from the vertical to the horizontal plane.

Curious fact

Among the Alans, the deformation of the skull served as a true indicator of the social differentiation of society: among the leaders of the tribes, the elders of clans and the priesthood, it was elongated.

Inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. She has four measuring rulers, or axes coordinates. All of them arranged vertically and next to each other:

income,

power,

education,

prestige.

Income is measured in rubles or dollars, which the individual receives (individual income) or family (family income) over a period of time, say one month or a year.

On the coordinate axis, we plot equal intervals, for example, up to $ 5,000, from $ 5001 to $ 10,000, from $ 10001 to $ 15,000, etc. up to $ 75,000 and above.

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, full secondary - 11, college - 4 years, university - 5 years, graduate school - 3 years, doctorate - 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 affected by the decision you make (power- opportunity

Rice. Four dimensions of social stratification. People occupying the same positions in all dimensions constitute one stratum (the figure shows an example of one of the strata).

impose their will or decisions on other people regardless of their desire).

The decisions of the President of Russia apply to 150 million people (whether they are being implemented is another question, although it also concerns the issue of power), and the decisions of the brigadier - to 7-10 people. 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 for status that has developed in public opinion.

Since 1947 National Research Center public opinion The United States periodically conducts a survey of ordinary Americans, selected in a nationwide sample, in order to determine the social prestige of various professions. Respondents are asked to rate each of 90 professions (occupations) on a 5-point scale: excellent (best),

Note: the scale ranges from 100 (highest) to 1 (lowest) points. The second column "scores" shows the average grade received by the given activity in the sample.

good, average, slightly worse than average, worst job. List II included almost all classes from the chief judge, minister and doctor to plumber and janitor. Having calculated the average for each occupation, sociologists received a public assessment of the prestige of each type of work in points. By arranging them in a hierarchical order from the most respected to the least prestigious, they received a rating, or scale of professional prestige. Unfortunately, in our country, periodic representative polls of the population about professional prestige have never been carried out. Therefore, you will have to use American data (see table).

Comparison of data for different years (1949, 1964, 1972, 1982) shows the stability of the scale of prestige. The highest, middle and lowest prestige during these years was enjoyed by the same types of occupation. A lawyer, doctor, teacher, scientist, banker, pilot, engineer received invariably high marks. Their position on the scale changed insignificantly: a doctor in 1964 was in second place, and in 1982 - in first, the minister took 10th and 11th places, respectively.

If the upper part of the scale is occupied by representatives of creative, intellectual labor, then the lower part is occupied by representatives of the predominantly physical unskilled: driver, welder, carpenter, plumber, janitor. They have the least status respect. People who occupy the same positions in the four dimensions of stratification constitute one stratum.

For each status or individual, you can find a place on any scale.

A classic example is the comparison between a police officer and a college professor. On the scales of education and prestige, the professor is higher than the policeman, and on the scales of income and power, the policeman is higher than the professor. Indeed, the professor has less power, his income is somewhat lower than that of a policeman, but the professor has more prestige and years of study. Marking one and the other with dots on each scale and connecting their lines, we get a stratification profile.

Each scale can be considered separately and designated as an independent concept.

Sociology distinguishes three basic types of stratification:

economic (income),

political (power),

professional (prestige)

and many non-basic, for example, cultural speech and age.

Rice. Stratification profile of college professor and police officer.

3. BELONGING TO A STRATEGY

Affiliation measured by subjective and objective indicators:

subjective indicator - feeling of belonging to this group, identification with it;

objective indicators - income, power, education, prestige.

So, big fortune, high education, great power and high professional prestige are the necessary conditions for you to be attributed to the highest stratum of society.

A stratum is a social stratum of people who have similar objective indicators on four scales of stratification.

Concept stratification (stratum - layer, facio- I do) came to sociology from geology, where it denotes the vertical arrangement of layers of various rocks. If you make a cut of the earth's crust at a certain distance, you will find that under the layer of chernozem there is a layer of clay, then sand, etc. Each layer consists of homogeneous elements. So is the stratum - it includes people with the same income, education, power and prestige. There is no stratum that includes highly educated people in positions of power and powerless poor people engaged in low-profile jobs. The rich belong to the same stratum with the rich, and the middle - with the middle.

In a civilized country, a large mafioso cannot belong to the highest stratum. Although he has very high incomes, possibly a high education and strong power, his occupation does not enjoy high prestige among citizens. It is condemned. Subjectively, he can consider himself a member of the upper class and even come up on objective indicators. However, he lacks the main thing - the recognition of "significant others."

The "significant others" are two large social groups: members of the upper class and the entire population. The highest stratum will never recognize him as "theirs" because he compromises the entire group as a whole. The population never recognizes mafia activities as a socially approved occupation, since it contradicts the mores, traditions and ideals of the given society.

Let's conclude: belonging to a stratum has two components - subjective (psychological identification with a certain stratum) and objective (social entry into a certain stratum).

Social entry has undergone a certain historical evolution. In primitive society, inequality was negligible, so there was almost no stratification. With the emergence of slavery, it suddenly intensified. slavery- the form of the most rigid fixation of people in unprivileged strata. Castes- the life-long attachment of the individual to his (but not necessarily unprivileged) stratum. In medieval Europe, lifelong affiliation is weakened. Estates imply legal attachment to a stratum. The wealthy merchants bought titles of nobility and thus passed on to a higher class. The estates were replaced by classes - open to all strata, not presupposing any legitimate (legal) way of securing one stratum.

4. HISTORICAL TYPES OF STRATIFICATION

Sociology knows the four main types of stratification are slavery, caste, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies, and the last type is open.

Closed is a society where social transfers from lower strata to higher strata are either completely prohibited, either substantially limited.

Open called a society where movement from one stratum to another is not officially limited in any way.

Slavery- economic, social and legal form enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality.

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

At patriarchal slavery (primitive form), 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, inherited the owner's property. It was forbidden to kill him.

At classic slavery (mature form) the slave was finally enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and did not have a family. He was allowed to be killed. He did not own property, but he himself was considered the property of the owner ("talking tool").

Ancient slavery in Ancient Greece and plantation slavery in the United States until 1865 is closer to the second form, and slavery on Geese in the X-XII centuries is closer to the first. The sources of slavery differ: the antique was replenished mainly through conquests, and servitude was debt, or bonded slavery. The third source is criminals. In medieval China and in the Soviet GULAG (extra-legal slavery), criminals were in the position of slaves.

At a mature stage slavery turns into slavery. When they talk about slavery as a historical type of stratification, they mean its highest stage. Slavery - 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. This is not the case in castes and estates, not to mention classes.

Caste system 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 in the first centuries of the new era.

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

He cannot pass from his caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. The caste position 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 India 4 main castes: brahmanas (priests), kshatriyas (warriors), vaisheis (merchants), sudras (workers and peasants) and about 5 thousand non-mainstream castes and a podcast. The untouchables 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, which is home to 7/10 of the population, remains caste.

Estates predate classes and characterize the feudal societies that existed in Europe from the 4th to the 14th century.

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 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 upper class(nobility and clergy) and unprivileged third estate(artisans, merchants, peasants). 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, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistine (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 the estate was determined inheritance. Social barriers between estates were quite tough, therefore social mobility existed not so much between as within the estates. Each estate included many layers, ranks, levels, professions, ranks. So, public service only nobles could do it. The aristocracy was considered a military class (chivalry).

The higher the class was in the social hierarchy, the higher was its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were perfectly tolerated. Individual mobility was sometimes allowed. An ordinary person could become a knight by purchasing a special permit from the ruler. As a relic, this practice has survived in modern England.

5. Social stratification and perspectives civil society in Russia

In its history, Russia has experienced more than one wave of restructuring of social space, when the previous social structure collapsed, the world of values ​​changed, landmarks, patterns and norms of behavior were formed, entire layers perished, and new communities were born. On the threshold of the XXI century. Russia is once again going through a complex and contradictory process of renewal.

In order to understand the ongoing changes, it is first necessary to consider the foundations on which the social structure of Soviet society was built before the reforms of the second half of the 1980s.

The nature of the social structure of Soviet Russia can be revealed by analyzing Russian society as a combination of different stratification systems.

In the stratification of Soviet society, permeated by administrative and political control, the statocratic system played a key role. Place social groups in the party-state hierarchy predetermined the scope of distribution rights, the level of decision-making and the scale of opportunities in all areas. Stability political system ensured by the stability of the position of the ruling elite ("nomenklatura"), in which the key positions were occupied by the political and military elites, and the subordinate place - by the economic and cultural ones.

A statocratic society is characterized by the fusion of power and property; predominance of state ownership; state-monopoly mode of production; dominance of centralized distribution; militarization of the economy; class-layer stratification of the hierarchical type, in which the positions of individuals and social groups are determined by their place in the structure state power covering the overwhelming majority of material, labor, information resources; social mobility in the form of a top-down selection of the most obedient and loyal people to the system.

A distinctive characteristic of the social structure of a Soviet-type society was that it was not class, although in terms of the parameters of the professional structure and economic differentiation it remained outwardly similar to the stratification of Western societies. As a result of the elimination of the basis of the class division — private ownership of the means of production — the classes were gradually destructed.

The monopoly of state property, in principle, cannot give a class society, since all citizens are hired workers of the state, differing only in the amount of powers delegated to them. Distinctive features social groups in the USSR were special functions, formalized as legal inequality of these groups. This inequality led to the isolation of these groups, the destruction of "social elevators" that serve for upward social mobility. Accordingly, the everyday life and consumption of elite groups acquired an increasingly symbolic character, recalling the phenomenon called "prestigious consumption." All these features make up the picture of class society.

Estates stratification is inherent in a society in which economic relations are rudimentary and do not play a differentiating role, and the main mechanism of social regulation is the state, dividing people into unequal legally estates.

From the first years of Soviet power, for example, the peasantry was formed into a special class: its political rights were limited until 1936. The inequality of the rights of workers and peasants manifested itself for many years (attachment to collective farms through the system of a passport-free regime, privileges for workers in obtaining education and promotion, registration system, etc.). In fact, the workers of the party-state apparatus have turned into a special class with a whole range of special rights and privileges. In the legal and administrative order, the social status of the mass and heterogeneous class of prisoners was fixed.

In the 60s and 70s. in the conditions of a chronic shortage and limited purchasing power of money, the process of leveling wages intensifies, with a parallel splitting of the consumer market into closed “special sectors” and an increase in the role of privileges. The material and social situation of the groups involved in distribution processes in the sphere of trade, supply, and transport has improved. The social influence of these groups increased with the aggravation of the shortage of goods and services. During this period, shadow socio-economic ties and associations arise and develop. A more open type of social relations is being formed: in the economy, the bureaucracy acquires the ability to achieve the most favorable results for itself; the spirit of entrepreneurship also embraces the lower social strata - numerous groups of private traders, manufacturers of "leftist" products, builders - "shabashniks" are being formed. Thus, there is a doubling of the social structure when fundamentally different social groups coexist within its framework.

Important social changes that took place in the Soviet Union in 1965-1985 are associated with the development of the scientific and technological revolution, urbanization and, accordingly, an increase in the general level of education.

From the early 60s to the mid 80s. more than 35 million inhabitants migrated to the city. However, urbanization in our country was clearly deformed: the massive movement of rural migrants to the city was not accompanied by a corresponding deployment of social infrastructure. A huge mass appeared extra people, social outsiders. Having lost touch with the rural subculture and unable to join the urban subculture, migrants created a typically marginal subculture.

The figure of a migrant from village to city is the classic model of the marginal: no longer a peasant, not yet a worker; the norms of the rural subculture have been undermined, the urban subculture has not yet been assimilated. The main sign of marginalization is the rupture of social, economic, and spiritual ties.

The economic reasons for marginalization were the extensive development of the Soviet economy, the dominance of outdated technologies and primitive forms of labor, the inadequacy of the education system to the real needs of production, etc. This is closely related to the social causes of marginalization - the hypertrophy of the accumulation fund to the detriment of the consumption fund, which gave rise to an extremely low level life and commodity shortages. Among the political and legal reasons for the marginalization of society, the main one is that during the Soviet period in the country there was a destruction of any kind of social ties "horizontally". The state strove for global domination over all spheres of public life, deforming civil society, minimizing the autonomy and independence of individuals and social groups.

In the 60-80s. an increase in the general level of education, the development of an urban subculture gave rise to a more complex and differentiated social structure... In the early 80s. specialists with higher or specialized secondary education accounted for 40% of the urban population.

By the beginning of the 90s. in terms of educational level and professional positions, the Soviet middle stratum was not inferior to the Western “new middle class”. In this regard, the English political scientist R. Sakwa noted: "The communist regime gave rise to a kind of paradox: millions of people were bourgeois in their culture and aspirations, but were included in the socio-economic system that denied these aspirations."

Under the influence of socio-economic and political reforms in the second half of the 80s. great changes have taken place in Russia. Compared to Soviet times, the structure of Russian society has undergone significant changes, although it retains many of the former features. The transformation of the institutions of Russian society has seriously affected its social structure: the relations of property and power have changed and continue to change, new social groups appear, the level and quality of life of each social group is changing, and the mechanism of social stratification is being rebuilt.

As an initial model for multivariate stratification modern Russia let's take four main parameters: power, prestige of professions, income level and educational level.

Power is the most important dimension of social stratification. Power is necessary for the stable existence of any socio-political system; the most important public interests are intertwined in it. The system of power bodies in post-Soviet Russia has been substantially rebuilt - some of them have been liquidated, others have just been organized, some have changed their functions, and their personal composition has been renewed. The previously closed upper stratum of society opened up slightly to people from other groups.

The place of the monolith of the nomenklatura pyramid was taken by numerous elite groups that are in a competitive relationship with each other. The elite have lost much of the leverage inherent in the old ruling class. This led to a gradual transition from political and ideological methods of management to economic ones. Instead of a stable ruling class with strong vertical ties between its floors, many elite groups have been created, between which horizontal ties have strengthened.

Sphere management activities, where the role of political power has increased, is the redistribution of accumulated wealth. Direct or indirect involvement in the redistribution of state property is in modern Russia the most important factor determining the social status of management groups.

The social structure of modern Russia retains the features of the former statocratic society built on power hierarchies. However, at the same time, a revival of economic classes begins on the basis of privatized state property. There is a transition from stratification on the basis of power (appropriation through privileges, distribution in accordance with the place of the individual in the party-state hierarchy) to the stratification of a proprietary type (appropriation by profit and market-valued labor). Alongside the hierarchies of power, an “entrepreneurial structure” appears, which includes the following main groups: 1) large and medium-sized entrepreneurs; 2) small entrepreneurs (owners and managers of firms with minimal use of hired labor); 3) independent workers; 4) employees.

There is a tendency towards the formation of new social groups claiming high places in the hierarchy of social prestige.

The prestige of the professions is the second important dimension of social stratification. We can talk about a number of fundamentally new trends in the professional structure associated with the emergence of new prestigious social roles. The set of professions becomes more complicated, their comparative attractiveness changes in favor of those that provide more solid and faster material rewards. In this regard, assessments of the social prestige of different types of activity change, when physically or ethically “dirty” work is still considered attractive in terms of monetary reward.

The newly emerging and therefore “scarce” in terms of personnel, the financial sector, business, commerce are filled with a large number of semi- and non-professionals. Whole professional strata have sunk to the bottom of social rating scales - their special training has turned out to be unclaimed and the income from it is negligible.

The role of the intelligentsia in society has changed. As a result of the reduction state support science, education, culture and art, there was a decline in the prestige and social status of knowledge workers.

V modern conditions In Russia, a tendency has emerged to form a number of social strata belonging to the middle class - these are entrepreneurs, managers, certain categories of the intelligentsia, and highly qualified workers. But this trend is contradictory, since the common interests of various social strata, potentially forming the middle class, are not supported by the processes of their convergence according to such important criteria as the prestige of the profession and the level of income.

The income level of various groups is the third essential parameter of social stratification. Economic status is the most important indicator of social stratification, because the level of income influences such aspects of social status as the type of consumption and way of life, the ability to do business, promotion, give children a good education, etc.

In 1997, the income received by the 10% of the richest Russians was almost 27 times higher than the income of the poorest 10%. The 20% of the wealthiest strata accounted for 47.5% of the total cash income, while the 20% of the poorest got only 5.4%. 4% of Russians are super-wealthy - their incomes are about 300 times higher than the incomes of the bulk of the population.

At present, the most acute problem in the social sphere is the problem of mass poverty - the miserable existence of almost 1/3 of the country's population is being preserved. Particularly alarming is the change in the composition of the poor: today they include not only the traditionally low-income (disabled, pensioners, families with many children), but the ranks of the poor have been joined by the unemployed and employed, whose wages (and this is a quarter of all employed in enterprises) are below the subsistence level. Almost 64% of the population have incomes below the average level (average income is considered to be 8-10 times the minimum wage per person) (see: Zaslavskaya T.I. Social structure of a modern and a certain society // Social sciences and modernity. 1997 No. 2. P. 17).

One of the manifestations of the declining standard of living for a significant part of the population is the growing need for secondary employment. However, it is not possible to determine the real scale of secondary employment and additional earnings (bringing in even higher income than the main job). The criteria used today in Russia give only a conditional characteristic of the structure of the population's income, the data obtained are often limited and incomplete. Nevertheless, social stratification on an economic basis testifies to the ongoing process of restructuring of Russian society with great intensity. It was artificially limited during the Soviet era and is openly developing

The deepening of the processes of social differentiation of groups by income level begins to have a noticeable impact on the education system.

The level of education is another important criterion of stratification; education is one of the main channels of vertical mobility. During the Soviet period, obtaining higher education was accessible to many segments of the population, and secondary education was compulsory. However, such an education system was ineffective, graduate School trained specialists without taking into account the real needs of society.

In modern Russia, the breadth of educational offerings is becoming a new differentiating factor.

In the new high-status groups, obtaining a scarce and high-quality education is considered not only prestigious, but also functionally important.

Newly emerging professions require more qualifications and better training, and are better paid. As a consequence, education becomes an increasingly important factor at the entrance to the professional hierarchy. As a result, social mobility increases. It is less and less dependent on social characteristics family and is more determined personal qualities and the education of the individual.

An analysis of the changes taking place in the system of social stratification according to four main parameters, speaks of the depth, contradictory nature of the transformation process that Russia is experiencing and allows us to conclude that today it continues to retain the old pyramidal shape (characteristic of pre-industrial society), although the content characteristics of its constituent layers have changed significantly.

Six strata can be distinguished in the social structure of modern Russia: 1) the top - the economic, political and power elite; 2) upper middle - medium and large entrepreneurs; 3) medium - small entrepreneurs, managers of the production sphere, the highest intelligentsia, the working elite, professional military personnel; 4) basic - the mass intelligentsia, the bulk of the working class, peasants, trade and service workers; 5) bottom - unskilled workers, long-term unemployed, lonely pensioners; 6) "social bottom" - homeless, released from prison, etc.

At the same time, a number of significant clarifications should be made related to the processes of changing the stratification system in the process of reforms:

The majority of social formations are of a mutually transitional nature, have fuzzy, vague boundaries;

There is no inner unity of the newly emerging social groups;

There is a total marginalization of practically all social groups;

The new Russian state does not provide security for citizens and does not alleviate their economic situation. In turn, these dysfunctions of the state deform the social structure of society, give it a criminal character;

The criminal nature of class formation gives rise to the growing property polarization of society;

The current level of income cannot stimulate labor and business activity of the bulk of the economically active population;

In Russia, a segment of the population remains that can be called a potential resource of the middle class. Today, about 15% of those employed in the national economy can be attributed to this stratum, but its maturation to the "critical mass" will take a lot of time. So far in Russia, the socio-economic priorities characteristic of the "classical" middle class can be observed only in the upper layers of the social hierarchy.

A significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, which requires the transformation of the institutions of property and power, is a long-term process. Meanwhile, the stratification of society will continue to lose its rigidity and uniqueness, acquiring the form of a blurred system in which layer and class structures are intertwined.

Of course, the formation of a civil society should become the guarantor of the process of Russia's renewal.

The problem of civil society in our country is of particular theoretical and practical interest. By the nature of the dominant role of the state, Russia was initially closer to the eastern type of society, but in our country this role was expressed even more clearly. According to A. Gramsci, "in Russia the state represents everything, and civil society is primitive and vague."

In contrast to the West, a different type of social system has developed in Russia, which is based on the effectiveness of power, not the effectiveness of property. It should also take into account the fact that for a long time in Russia there were practically no public organizations and remained undeveloped values ​​such as the inviolability of the individual and private property, legal thinking, which constitute the context of civil society in the West, the social initiative belonged not to associations of individuals, but to the bureaucratic apparatus.

From the second half of the XIX century. the problem of civil society began to be developed in the Russian social and scientific thought (B.N. Chicherin, E.N. Trubetskoy, S.L., Frank, etc.). The formation of civil society in Russia begins during the reign of Alexander I. It was at this time that certain spheres of civil life appeared that were not associated with military and court officials - salons, clubs, etc. As a result of the reforms of Alexander II, zemstvos, various unions of entrepreneurs, institutions of charity, and cultural societies appeared. However, the process of the formation of civil society was interrupted by the revolution of 1917. Totalitarianism blocked the very possibility of the emergence and development of civil society.

The era of totalitarianism led to a grandiose leveling of all members of society in front of an all-powerful state, washing out of any groups pursuing private interests. The totalitarian state significantly narrowed the autonomy of sociality and civil society, ensuring itself control over all spheres of public life.

The peculiarity of the current situation in Russia is that the elements of civil society have to be created anew in many respects. Let's highlight the most fundamental directions of the formation of civil society in modern Russia:

Formation and development of new economic relations, including the pluralism of forms of ownership and the market, as well as the resulting open social structure of society;

The emergence of a system of real interests adequate to this structure, uniting individuals, social groups and strata into a single community;

The emergence of various forms of labor associations, social and cultural associations, social and political movements that make up the main institutions of civil society;

Renewal of relationships between social groups and communities (national, professional, regional, gender and age, etc.);

Creation of economic, social and spiritual prerequisites for the creative self-realization of the individual;

Formation and deployment of mechanisms of social self-regulation and self-government at all levels of the social organism.

The ideas of civil society found themselves in post-communist Russia in that peculiar context that distinguishes our country both from Western states (with their strongest mechanisms of rational legal relations) and from the countries of the East (with their specificity of traditional primary groups). Unlike Western countries, the modern Russian state does not deal with a structured society, but, on the one hand, with rapidly emerging elite groups, and on the other, with an amorphous, atomized society in which individual consumer interests prevail. Today, civil society in Russia is not developed, many of its elements are ousted or "blocked", although over the years of reform there have been significant changes in the direction of its formation.

Modern Russian society is quasi-civil, its structures and institutions have many formal features of the formations of a civil society. There are up to 50 thousand voluntary associations in the country - consumer associations, trade unions, environmental groups, political clubs etc. However, many of them, having survived at the turn of the 80-90s. short period of rapid rise, in last years bureaucratic, weakened, lost activity. An ordinary Russian underestimates group self-organization, and the most common social type became an individual, closed in his aspirations for himself and his family. Overcoming this state, conditioned by the transformation process, is the specificity of modern stage development.

1. Social stratification - a system of social inequality, consisting of a set of interrelated and hierarchically organized social strata (strata). The stratification system is formed on the basis of such characteristics as the prestige of professions, the amount of power, the level of income and the level of education.

2. The theory of stratification makes it possible to model the political pyramid of society, to identify and take into account the interests of individual social groups, to determine the level of their political activity, the degree of influence on political decision-making.

3. The main purpose of civil society is to achieve consensus between different social groups and interests. Civil society is a set of social formations, united specifically) by economic, ethnic, cultural, etc. interests realized outside the sphere of state activity.

4. The formation of civil society in Russia is associated with significant changes in the social structure. The new social hierarchy differs in many respects from the one that existed during the Soviet era and is characterized by extreme instability. The mechanisms of stratification are being rebuilt, social mobility is increasing, and many marginal groups with an undefined status are emerging. Objective opportunities for the formation of a middle class are beginning to take shape. For a significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, it is necessary to transform the institutions of property and power, accompanied by a blurring of boundaries between groups, a change in group interests and social interactions.

Literature

1. Sorokin P.A. Man, civilization, society. - M., 1992.

2. Zharova L.N., Mishina I.A. The history of homeland. - M., 1992.

3. HessV., Markgon E., Stein P. Sociology. V.4., 1991.

4. Vselensky M.S. Nomenclature. - M., 1991.

5. Ilyin V.I. The main contours of the system of social stratification of society // Rubezh. 1991. No. 1. P.96-108.

6. Smelzer N. Sociology. - M., 1994.

7. Komarov M.S. Social stratification and social structure // Sotsiol. issled. 1992. No. 7.

8. Giddens A. Stratification and class structure // Sotsiol. issled. 1992. No. 11.

9. Political Science, ed. Prof. M.A. Vasilika M., 1999

9. A.I. Kravchenko Sociology - Yekaterinburg, 2000.

Various sociologists explain differently the reasons for social inequality and, consequently, social stratification.

In the Marxist school of sociology, inequality is based on: property relations, the nature, degree and form of ownership of the means of production.

According to functionalists (K. Davis, W. Moore), the distribution of individuals by social strata depends: on the importance of their professional activities and the contribution that they make with their work to the achievement of the goals of society. Supporters of the exchange theory (J. Homans) believe that inequality in society arises due to the unequal exchange of the results of human activity.

A number of classics of sociology considered the problem of stratification more broadly. For example, M. Weber, in addition to economic (attitude to property and income level), proposed in addition such criteria as social prestige (inherited and acquired status) and belonging to certain political circles, hence - power, authority and influence.

One of the founders of the theory of stratification P. Sorokin identified three types of stratification structures:

§ economic(according to the criteria of income and wealth);

§ political(according to the criteria of influence and power);

§ professional(according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).

The founder of structural functionalism T. Parsons proposed three groups of differentiating features:

§ qualitative characteristics of people that they possess from birth (ethnicity, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities and abilities);

§ role characteristics, determined by the set of roles performed by an individual in society (education, position, different kinds professional and labor activity);

§ characteristics due to the possession of material and spiritual values ​​(wealth, property, privileges, the ability to influence and control other people, etc.).

V modern sociology it is customary to distinguish the following main criteria of social stratification:

§ income - the amount of cash receipts for a certain period (month, year);

§ wealth - accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or materialized money (in the second case, they act in the form of movable or immovable property);

§ power - the ability and ability to exercise one's will, to exert a decisive influence on the activities of other people using various means (authority, law, violence, etc.). Power is measured by the number of people it extends to;

§ education - a set of knowledge, abilities and skills acquired in the learning process. Education level is measured by the number of years of study;

§ prestige- public assessment of the attractiveness, significance of a particular profession, position, a certain occupation.

Despite the variety of different models of social stratification that currently exist in sociology, most scientists distinguish three main classes: upper, middle and lower.

In some cases, sociologists carry out a certain division within each class. Thus, the American sociologist W.L. Warner (1898-1970), in his famous study of Yankee City, identified six classes:

§ upper-upper class (representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties with significant resources of power, wealth and prestige);

§ lower-upper class ("new rich" - bankers, politicians who do not have a noble birth and did not manage to create powerful role-playing clans);

§ upper-middle class (successful businessmen, lawyers, entrepreneurs, scientists, managers, doctors, engineers, journalists, cultural and art workers);

§ lower-middle class (employees - engineers, clerks, secretaries, office workers and other categories, which are usually called "white collars");

§ upper-lower class (workers employed predominantly physical labor);

§ lower-lower class (beggars, unemployed, homeless, foreign workers, declassed elements).

There are also other schemes of social stratification. But they all boil down to the following: minority classes arise due to the addition of strata and strata that are within one of the main classes - the rich, the wealthy and the poor.

Thus, social stratification is based on natural and social inequality between people, which manifests itself in their social life and has a hierarchical character. It is steadily supported and regulated by various social institutions, is constantly reproduced and modified, which is an important condition for the functioning and development of any society.

34.​ Social mobility... Types of social mobility.

The term "social mobility" was introduced by P. Sorokin. He called the transition of an individual between different levels of the social hierarchy, defined in terms of broad professional or social-class categories, as social mobility. That is, mobility is a transition from one social position to another in a social space.

There are two main types of social mobility - intergenerational and intragenerational, and two main types - vertical and horizontal.

Intergenerational mobility implies that children reach a higher social position or descend to a lower step than their parents.

Intra-generational mobility means that one and the same individual, beyond comparison with his parents, changes social positions several times throughout his life.

Vertical mobility implies movement from one stratum to another, i.e. displacement leading to an increase or decrease in social status.

Depending on the direction of movement, vertical mobility is upward and downward.

Horizontal mobility implies the movement of an individual from one social group to another without raising or lowering social status.

Geographic mobility is a type of horizontal mobility.

Distinguish between individual mobility - movements down, up or horizontally occur for each person independently of the others, and group mobility - movements occur collectively.

The types of social mobility can be distinguished according to other criteria:

1. by range;

2.by quantitative indicator;

3. according to the degree of organization:

The study of social mobility is carried out using two systems of indicators. In the first, the individual acts as the unit of account. The main indicators are the volume of mobility (absolute and relative, aggregate and differentiated) and the degree of mobility. The volume of mobility shows the number of individuals who have moved up the social ladder in the vertical direction over a certain period of time. The degree of mobility is determined by two factors: the range of mobility (the number of statuses in a given society) and the conditions that allow people to move. So the maximum mobility is always observed in society during the period of any social and economic transformations. The degree of mobility also depends on the historical type of stratification.

The second unit of reference is status. In this case, the volume of mobility (the number of people who changed their status) describes its direction. The measure of mobility is the mobility step (distance), which shows the number of steps the individual has moved in the vertical direction. It can be intergenerational and intragenerational, interclass and intraclass.

P.A. Sorokin developed the theory of vertical mobility channels. Social institutions act as such channels: family, school, army, church, property. Moreover, the family and school are one of the most important mechanisms of social selection, determination and inheritance of status.

35. Marginality as a social phenomenon

Marginalization is a characteristic of the phenomena that arise as a result of the interaction of different cultures, social communities, structures, as a result of which some of the social subjects are outside them.

Introduced into science by R. Park, this concept served to study the situation of migrants, mulattoes and other "cultural hybrids", their non-adaptation in the conditions of various conflicting cultures.

R. Merton defined marginality as a specific case of the theory of a reference (reference) group: marginality characterizes the moment when an individual seeks membership in a reference group that is positive for him, which is not inclined to accept him. This ratio implies double identification, incomplete socialization and lack of social belonging.

T. Shibutani examines marginality in the context of personality socialization in a changing society. The central point in the understanding of marginality here is the dominance of social changes, the transformation of social structure, leading to the temporary destruction of consent. As a result, a person finds himself in the face of several reference (reference) groups with different, often conflicting requirements, which cannot be satisfied at the same time. This is in contrast to the situation in a stable society, when the reference groups in the life of an individual reinforce each other.

It also approves the direction of research into marginality as a state of social exclusion (or incomplete inclusion), a position in a social structure characterized by a high distance in relation to the dominant culture of the "main society" ("on the edge" of society).

The following types of marginality are called:
- cultural marginality (cross-cultural contacts and assimilation);
- marginality of the social role (contradictions of attribution to a positive reference group, etc.);
- structural marginality (vulnerable, disenfranchised position in the political, social and economic relation of a group in society).

There are two main approaches to the consideration of marginality. Marginality as a contradiction, an indefinite state in the process of mobility of a group or an individual (change of status); marginality as a characteristic of the special marginal (marginal, intermediate, isolated) position of groups and individuals in the social structure.

The originality of approaches to the definition of marginality and understanding of its essence is largely determined by the specifics of a specific social reality and the forms that this phenomenon takes in it.

Conceptual development of the concept of "marginality" led to the emergence of a complex of related concepts.

The marginal zone is those sections of social reality where the most intense and significant changes in the structure of relations, positions, and lifestyle take place.

A marginal situation is a complex and structure of factors that generate and consolidate the state of marginality of an individual or group.

Marginal status is a position of intermediateness, uncertainty into which an individual or a group falls under the influence of a marginal situation.

A marginal is a person who is on the border of various social groups, communities, cultures that come into conflict with them, being not accepted by any of them as a full member.

A marginal personality is a complex of psychological traits that characterize a person in a situation of uncertainty associated with the transition from one group to another and aggravated by the contradictions of social - role conflict.

A marginal group is a group in a society united by common criteria characterizing its marginal or transitional position (ethnic, territorial, professional, racial, etc.)

Among the marginalized there may be ethnomarginal people: national minorities; bio-marginalized, whose health is no longer a matter of concern for society; socio-marginal people, such as groups in the process of unfinished social displacement; age marginals, which are formed when the ties between generations are severed; political marginals: they are not satisfied with legal opportunities and legitimate rules of social and political struggle; economic marginals of the traditional type (unemployed) and the so-called “new poor”; religious marginals - standing outside the confessions or not daring to make a choice between them; and, finally, criminal marginals; and perhaps also simply those whose status in the social structure is not defined.

The emergence of new marginal groups is associated with structural changes in postindustrial societies and the massive downward social. mobility of heterogeneous groups of specialists losing their jobs, professional positions, status, living conditions.

36. Social stratification and mobility

Social (stratification) structure refers to the stratification and hierarchical organization of various strata of society, as well as the totality of institutions and the relationship between them. The term “stratification” derives from the Latin word stratum - layers, layer. Strata represent large groups of people differing in their position in the social structure of society.

All scientists agree that the basis of the stratification structure of society is the natural and social inequality of people. However, on the question of what exactly is the criterion of this inequality, their opinions differ. Studying the process of stratification in society, K. Marx called the fact of a person's possession of property and the level of his income as such a criterion. M. Weber added to them the social prestige and belonging of the subject to political parties, to power. Pitirim Sorokin believed that the reason for the stratification was the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties in society. He also argued that the social space also has many other criteria for differentiation: it can be carried out according to citizenship, occupation, nationality, religious affiliation, etc. certain social strata in society.

Historically, stratification, that is, inequality in income, power, prestige, etc., arises with the emergence of human society. With the emergence of the first states, it becomes tougher, and then, in the process of development of society (primarily European), it gradually softens.

There are four main types of social stratification in sociology - slavery, caste, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies, and the last type - open ones.

The first system of social stratification is slavery, which arose in antiquity and in some backward regions is still preserved. There are two forms of slavery: patriarchal, in which the slave has all the rights of a younger member of the family, and classical, in which the slave has no rights and is considered the property of the owner (a talking tool of labor). Slavery was based on direct violence, and social groups in the era of slavery were distinguished by the presence or absence of civil rights.

The second system of social stratification should be recognized as caste build. A caste is a social group (stratum) whose membership is passed on to a person only at birth. The transition of a person from one caste to another during life is impossible - for this he needs to be born again. India is a classic example of a caste society. There are four main castes in India, which, according to legend, originated from different parts of the god Brahma:

a) brahmanas - priests;

b) kshatriyas - warriors;

c) vaisyas - merchants;

d) sudras - peasants, artisans, workers.

A special position is occupied by the so-called untouchables, who do not belong to any caste and occupy a lower position.

The next form of stratification is the estates. An estate is a group of people that has rights and obligations enshrined in law or custom, inherited.

Finally, class is another stratification system. Most full definition classes in scientific literature was given by V. I. Lenin: “Classes are called 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 public organization labor, and, consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. " The class approach is often opposed to the stratification approach, although in reality class division is only a special case of social stratification.

Depending on the historical period in society, the following classes are distinguished as the main ones:

a) slaves and slave owners;

b) feudal lords and feudal-dependent peasants;

c) the bourgeoisie and the proletariat;

d) the so-called middle class.

Since any social structure is a collection of all functioning social communities taken in their interaction, the following elements can be distinguished in it:

a) ethnic structure (clan, tribe, nationality, nation);

b) demographic structure (groups are distinguished by age and gender);

c) settlement structure (urban dwellers, rural dwellers, etc.);

d) class structure (bourgeoisie, proletariat, peasants, etc.);

e) vocational and educational structure.

In its most general form, three stratification levels can be distinguished in modern society: the highest, middle and lowest. In economically developed countries, the second level is predominant, giving society a certain stability. In turn, within each level there is also a hierarchically ordered set of various social strata. A person who occupies a certain place in this structure has the ability to move from one level to another, raising or lowering his social status, or from one group located at a certain level to another, located at the same level. This transition is called social mobility.

Social mobility sometimes leads to the fact that some people find themselves, as it were, at the junction of certain social groups, while experiencing serious psychological difficulties. Their intermediate position is largely determined by the inability or unwillingness, for whatever reason, to adapt to one of the interacting social groups. This phenomenon of finding a person, as it were, between two cultures, associated with his movement in social space, is called marginality. A marginal is an individual who has lost a swap of his former social status, deprived of the opportunity to do his usual business and, in addition, found himself unable to adapt to the new socio-cultural environment of the stratum within which he formally exists. The individual value system of such people is so stable that it does not lend itself to being replaced by new norms, principles, and rules. Their behavior is extreme: they are either overly passive or very aggressive, easily overstep moral norms and are capable of unpredictable actions. Among the marginals there may be ethnomarginal people - people who have found themselves in a foreign environment as a result of migration; political marginals are people who are not satisfied with legal opportunities and legitimate rules of social and political struggle: religious marginals are people who stand outside the confession or do not dare to make a choice between them, etc.

The currently emerging social hierarchy is characterized by inconsistency, instability and a tendency to significant changes. The highest stratum (elite) today can include representatives of the state apparatus, as well as the owners of big capital, including their top - the financial oligarchs. The middle class in modern Russia includes representatives of the class of entrepreneurs, as well as knowledge workers, highly qualified managers (managers). Finally, the lowest stratum is made up of workers of various professions, employed in labor of medium and low qualifications, as well as clerical employees and public sector workers (teachers and doctors in state and municipal institutions).

In the process of changing the social structure of modern Russian society, the following trends can be distinguished:

1) social polarization, i.e. stratification into rich and poor, deepening social and property differentiation;

2) massive downward social mobility;

3) mass change of place of residence by knowledge workers (the so-called "brain drain").

In general, we can say that the main criteria that determine the social position of a person in modern Russia and his belonging to one or another stratification level are either the size of his wealth or belonging to power structures.

37. The concept of a social institution. The reasons for their occurrence and functioning in society. Classification social institutions.

The life of individuals in society is organized through social institutions. The term "institution" means "device, establishment". In sociology, an institution is defined as a stable set of norms, rules and symbols that regulate any aspect of human life and organize them into a system of roles and statuses. A.R. By institution, Radicliffe-Brown understands the standardized ways of behavior by which the social structure is a network social relations- maintains its existence in time. Social institutions can be characterized in terms of both their external, formal (material) structure, and internal activities... Outwardly, a social institution looks like a collection of persons, institutions, equipped with certain material resources and carrying out specific social function... From the content point of view, it is a given set of purposefully oriented standards of behavior of certain persons in specific situations. A social institution, in addition, is a certain organization of social activity and social relations, carried out by means of standards of behavior, the emergence and grouping of which into a system is determined by the content of a certain task solved by this institution.

So, a social institution is

· Role-playing system, which includes certain norms, statuses and roles;

· A set of customs, traditions and rules of behavior of people;

· An organized system of formal and informal structures;

· A set of norms and institutions that regulate a particular area of ​​social relations;

· A stable complex of social actions.

Each social institution is characterized by the presence of a goal of activity, specific functions that ensure its achievement, a set of social positions and roles typical for this institution, as well as a system of sanctions that ensure the encouragement of the desired and suppression of deviant behavior.

In every society, according to sociologists, there are necessarily at least five groups of social institutions:

1. Economic institutions that regulate the production and distribution of goods and services;

2. Political institutions that regulate the exercise of power and relations around power;

3. Institutions of stratification that regulate the distribution of status positions and incomes in society;

4. Institutions of kinship, organizing relations between relatives, spouses, parents and children, ensuring the reproduction of the population and the transmission of traditions;

5. Institutes of culture, which include religious, educational and cultural institutions proper. They are responsible for the socialization of new generations, the preservation and transmission of social values.

In order to create a system of social regulation of a particular sphere of public life, i.e. this or that social institution, the necessary conditions must exist. Firstly, a social need for this institution must exist in society and be recognized by the majority of individuals. Secondly, society must have the necessary means to satisfy this need - resources (material, labor, organizational), a system of functions, actions, individual goal-setting, symbols and norms that form a cultural environment on the basis of which a new institution will be formed.

All social institutions arose in ancient times. Production in the human community is 2 million years old, if we take the first tools of labor created by man as a starting point. The age of the family, according to anthropologists, is 500 thousand years. The state is about the same age as education, namely 5-6 thousand years. Religion in its primitive forms appeared about 30-40 thousand years ago.

The system of social institutions is constantly evolving. The sphere of production, political institutions, institutions of religion and education are undergoing evolution. Significant changes are taking place in the institution of the family. If we compare it with the 19th century, then over the past half century, the average age marriage, family size, time of beginning of working life, distribution of marital responsibilities, leadership style in the family, sexual behavior of men and women.

The evolution of social institutions leads to the fact that modern society is characterized by a variety and complication of the system of institutions. On the one hand, the same basic need gives rise to the emergence and existence of several specialized institutions, on the other hand, each institutional phenomenon, say family, state, church, implements a whole series of fundamental needs, including communication, production of services, and in the distribution of benefits, in ensuring the safety of citizens, in their individual and collective protection, in maintaining order and control, in the development of the spiritual sphere of society.

38. Social institutions in the economic sphere.

The group of fundamental economic social institutions includes: property, market, money, exchange, banks, finance, various types of business associations, which together form a complex system of production relations, connecting economic life with other spheres of social life.

Thanks to the development of social institutions, the entire system of economic relations and society as a whole functions, the individual is socialized in the social and labor sphere, and the norms of economic behavior and moral values ​​are transferred.

Let's single out four features common to all social institutions in the field of economics and finance:

· Interaction between participants in social ties and relationships;

· Availability of trained professional personnel to support the activities of the institutes;

· Determination of the rights, duties and functions of each participant in social interaction in economic life;

· Regulation and control of the efficiency of the interaction process in the economy.

The development of the economy as a social institution is subject not only to economic laws, but also to sociological ones. The functioning of this institution, its integrity as a system is ensured by various social institutions and social organizations that monitor the work of social institutions in the field of economics and finance, and control the behavior of their members.

The basic institutions with which the economy interacts are politics, education, family, law, etc.

The main functions of the economy as a social institution are:

· Coordination of social interests of business entities, producers and consumers;

· Meeting the needs of the individual, social groups, strata and organizations;

Strengthening social ties within economic system as well as with external social organizations and institutions;

maintaining order and preventing uncontrolled competition between business entities in the process of meeting needs.

The concept " stratification» ( stratification) translated from Latin means "layer" or "layer". Thus, stratification should clarify the vertical sequence of the position of social strata, as well as strata in society. Sociologists agree that the basis of stratification is the social inequality of people. However, the very way inequality is organized can be different. Currently, sociologists are making repeated attempts to expand the number of criteria. For example, by including the level of education. So, society reproduces and also organizes inequality, given several reasons:

1. Income and wealth levels.
2. The level of possession of political power.
3. The level of social prestige and so on.

These types of hierarchy are important to society because they are capable of regulating social ties as well as directing personal aspirations. Consider a vertical slice of the bases of stratification. Researchers face a problem - division on the scale of social hierarchy. In other words, how many social strata should be allocated. Of course, a huge number of population strata with different levels of well-being can be distinguished. Stratification structure became similar to a social and professional structure. It was divided into:

1. Administrators are the highest class of professionals.
2. Intermediate level specialists.
3. Commercial grade.
4. The petty bourgeoisie.
5. Skilled and unskilled workers.

And this is not the whole list of social strata of society. When developing a general idea of ​​the social hierarchy of society, it is enough to single out three levels - the highest, middle, and also the lowest. The entire population can be distributed according to these stratifications, taking into account values ​​and norms. For example, in Western society, the degree of freedom is determined not only by legal and political acts, but also by the size of the budget, which should ensure broad access to education. Therefore, in order to find yourself in a prestigious status group, you need to take into account the criteria that ensure high income and material independence. To reach the top of the social hierarchy in the totalitarian society of the Soviet period, it was only necessary to participate in political decisions, as well as to get closer to the power structures.

How can you determine specific gravity each stratum? First of all, the measurement technique depends on statistical methods, which allow you to determine the hierarchy of incomes of the population. It cannot be measured mathematically. After all, here you need to study all the norms that have developed in a given society. You can use other methods for determining the social section of society. It is necessary to emphasize the main thing - it is impossible to say with certainty what social stratification is, if only statistical data are taken into account or based only on the data of a sociological survey. Need to use A complex approach... First of all, social inequality is the first reason for hierarchical structure. Every society must strive for inequality. Initially, society had its own laws in order to maintain the social hierarchy. Thus, a child in a family of a slave must be a slave, in a family of a serf - a serf, and in a family of a nobleman - a representative of the upper class.

The system of social institutions consisted of the army, court, church. They constantly monitored the observance of the rules of the hierarchical structure of society. For example, in India, the hierarchical system was created in the form of castes. Such a hierarchical system was supported only by force: either with the help of weapons or with the help of religion. In modern society, the hierarchical system is devoid of such cruelty. After all, all citizens have the same rights. Moreover, they are able to occupy different positions in the social space.

Thus, the profile of the vertical slice of society has never been constant. Karl Marx assumed that the configuration of the vertical section of society will change due to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. But Sorokin rejected Marx's thesis and believed that the top of the social pyramid rises above the rest. The stability of society is associated with the profile of social stratification. The main thing is that the process of stratification is carried out not at the expense of natural disasters, but through state policy. In the social hierarchy, stability is maintained at the expense of a powerful middle class. Although recently the number of the poorest strata has been growing. But even this does not hinder the development of the middle class. So, for example, E. Giddens described the middle class of Great Britain. He noted not only its multiplicity, but also its heterogeneity. Giddens singled out the “old middle class,” which includes small business owners as well as small business owners. In addition to this class, he singled out the "lower middle class", which includes teachers, employees and doctors. The middle class demonstrates the way of life to the lower stratum with some effort. Thus, the discontent of the lower strata is neutralized when they understand that it is possible to achieve a better position in society. During economic crises, the erosion of the middle class leads to serious shocks. For example, in Russia, the bulk of the people in the conditions of price liberalization became impoverished. And this led to the destruction of social equilibrium in society.

At the end of the article, you can summarize - the vertical slice of society is mobile... After all, its main layers can not only decrease, but also increase. First of all, this is due to the structural restructuring of the economy, with the decline in production and with the nature of the political regime. Note that the stratification profile can never stretch infinitely. After all, a special mechanism for the redistribution of the national wealth of the authorities is triggered, which is presented in the form of spontaneous actions of the masses. To avoid this, you need to regulate this process. The main thing is to take care of the middle class of society. In this case, the stability of society will be ensured!

At different times, there were different approaches to determining the causes of social inequality and social stratification.

The Marxist school of sociology indicates that social inequality is based on property relations, degree, form, and the nature of ownership of the means of production.

Functionalists (W. Moore, K. Davis) believe that the distribution of people by strata depends on the contribution made by their work to the achievement of the goals of society and the significance of their professional activities.

Representatives of the exchange theory (J. Homans) showed that the emergence of social inequality in society is influenced by the unequal exchange of the results of human activity.

M. Weber proposed to single out the following criteria of social stratification: economic (level of income, attitude to property), social prestige (acquired or inherited status), belonging to certain political circles.

P. Sorokin singled out political (according to the criteria of power and influence), economic (according to the criteria of income and wealth) and professional (according to the criteria of professional skills, skill, successful performance of social roles) stratification structures.

T. Parsons, the founder of structural functionalism, proposed a group of differentiating features: qualitative characteristics attributed to people from birth (gender and age characteristics, family ties, ethnicity, personal abilities); role characteristics (education, professional work, position); characteristics showing the possession of material and spiritual values ​​(property, wealth, privileges, etc.)

The main criteria for social stratification

In modern sociology, the following criteria of social stratification are distinguished, in relation to which there is a division into strata of the population:

1. Power - the ability to dictate your decisions and will to other people, regardless of their wishes; measured by the number of people to whom it applies.
2. Education - a set of skills, knowledge, skills acquired during training; measured by the number of years of study in public or private schools / universities.
3. Income - depends on the amount of money received by an individual or family over a certain period of time, for example, one year or a month.
4. Wealth is accumulated income (cash or materialized money).
5. Prestige - respect, public assessment of the importance of a position, profession, status, which has developed in public perception.

Remark 1

The above criteria of social stratification are the most universal for all modern societies.

Additional criteria for social stratification

There are certain, specific criteria that influence the position of an individual in society, determine, first of all, his "starting capabilities". Additional criteria for social stratification include:

1. Social background. It is the family that introduces the individual into the system of society, while determining in many respects his income, profession and education. Unsuccessful parents recreate the likely poor children, which is conditioned by their education, health, acquired qualifications. Children from poor families are three times more likely to die from neglect, illness, violence and accidents than children from wealthy families.
2. Gender. Today, an intensified process of the feminization of poverty can be traced in the Russian Federation. Regardless of the fact that women and men live in families that belong to different social levels, the condition, income of women and the prestige of their professions are often less than that of men.
3. Ethnicity and Race. For example, in the United States of America, white-skinned people receive better education and higher professional status than African Americans. Ethnicity also has an impact on social status.
4. Religion. For example, in American society, members of the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches and Jews occupy the highest social positions. Baptists and Lutherans at a lower level.

Social space

P. Sorokin made a significant contribution to the study of status inequality. To determine the sum of all public statuses he introduced such a concept as social space.

Remark 2

In his work "Social Mobility" (1927) P. Sorokin pointed out the impossibility of mixing or comparing such theses as "social space" and "geometric space". A person of the lower class can come into contact with a wealthy person on physical level, but this circumstance will not in any way lower the prestigious, economic or power differences that exist between them, that is, it will not in any way reduce the existing social distance. Consequently, two people, between whom there are tangible official, family, property or other social differences, do not have the opportunity to stay in the same social space.

Sorokin's social space has a three-dimensional model. It is characterized by three axes of coordinates - political status, professional status, economic status. The social position (general or integral status) of any individual who is an integral part of this social space is represented using three coordinates (x, y, z).

Status incompatibility is a situation in which an individual, having a high status along one of the coordinate axes, at the same moment has a low status level along the other axis.

Individuals with a high level of education, providing a high social status in relation to the professional dimension of stratification, may occupy a poorly paid position, and, as a result, will have a lower economic status.

The existence of status incompatibility favors the growth of discontent among people, as a result of which they will contribute to radical social changes aimed at changing stratification.

1. Social stratification modern Russian societies

   Abstract >> Sociology

   In Russia; - find out the features social stratification modern Russian societies, the comparative significance of it criteria, directions taking place in this area ...

2. Social structure Russian societies (2)

   Report >> Sociology

   Formerly the main differentiator criterion was a place in ... V.V. Real Russia: Social stratification modern Russian societies... M., 2006. 3. Golenkova Z. T. Social stratification Russian societies M., 2003. 4. Marginalization as ...

3. Social stratification (10)

   Coursework >> Sociology

   ... social stratification and also outlines criteria appraisals modern Russian societies and its inherent stratification... The purpose of the work is to determine the essence stratification ...

4. Social stratification (7)

   Coursework >> Sociology

   ... modern Russian society criteria... legal regulations societies... Concepts cited social stratification modern Russian societies do not exhaust ...

5. Social stratification (8)

   Examination >> Sociology

   ... modern Russian society the formulation of the stratification system occurs on an economic basis, when the main criteria... legal regulations societies... Concepts cited social stratification modern Russian societies do not exhaust ...