Marxist and Functionalist Theories in the Study of Stratification: Common Elements that Lead to a Test

Abstract

Because they mainly address different questions, functionalist and Marxist theories are often assumed to be incommensurable explanations of the distribution of rewards in society and, therefore, the theories cannot be competitively tested. But close examination of the two viewpoints suggests that despite many differences, the theories share two analytical elements in common. These are social power and evaluation of contribution as determinants of the concrete distribution of rewards. While the theories diverge widely in the emphasis they give these two elements in their explanations, the presence of common analytical elements makes possible a competitive test of the ability of each theory to explain variance in concrete systems of differentiated reward. Four questions encompassing such a test are posed. A classic issue of social concern as well as sociological analysis is the distribution of rewards in society: the problem of social stratification. ' One of the central questions here is whether the system of unequal rewards is a necessary feature of social organization as Davis and Moore and Parsons (a, b) claim; or results from particular social arrangements that enable some groups in society to exploit others, as Marx (c) said. Ideological and methodological pitfalls abound in this controversy and it is hard to take a forward step without running afoul of contrary evidence or strong convictions. While, ordinarily, competing theories are judged by their ability to comprehend the data, one of the additional problems of the debate on inequality is that partisans of each viewpoint claim that the other side is addressing a different-perhaps even the wrong-question. Thus, Davis in part rejected Tumin's (a) famous critique of the functional theory of stratification by pointing out that Davis and Moore were explaining why different positions were differentially rewarded, not why different individuals were-a question Tumin addressed. So, also, Stolzman and Gamberg proposed that it is erroneous to apply Marx to stratification analysis, since Marx wrote about social classes and the nature and basis of class conflict, rather than differential reward and its intergenerational transmission. To a large extent these claims are true; Marx and the functionalists do address different questions. But this does not mean that there is no overlap in their theories and their concerns. Were this not true, the theories would be totally incommensurable and mutually exclusive. Indeed, in such a case they could, logically, both be valid.