Talcott Parsons emphasized the inevitability of stratification in society, and Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore expanded on this notion by examining how stratification functions effectively within any given society. They built upon Parsons’ arguments, raising fundamental questions about the differentiation of positions in society and the processes through which individuals attain these positions. 

The Four Aspects of Functional Prerequisites

• Role Filling: One critical aspect is that all roles within society must be filled. Different occupations are essential for a society’s functioning, and ensuring that these roles are occupied is vital. Failure to do so can lead to instability, especially if significant positions remain vacant or are occupied by individuals lacking the requisite skills.
• Competence: Filling roles is not enough; competence is key. The most competent individuals must fill positions, particularly crucial ones. Imagine the consequences if, for instance, a renowned novelist were to lead a power generation company with no expertise in power generation. This mismatch would not only affect the company but also the stability of the electricity supply.
• Training: To ensure that the best individuals are selected, training plays a pivotal role. Adequate training helps identify the most qualified candidates for specific positions. In the case of the novelist-turned-power executive, proper training might have made him suitable for the role.
• Conscientious Performance: Lastly, roles must be performed conscientiously. Dedication to one’s work is crucial for effective performance. Even the most trained and competent individuals can disrupt the system if they fail to carry out their duties diligently.

Basic Premises of Davis and Moore

To elucidate the role of social stratification as a functional necessity in modern societies, Davis and Moore presented a set of common propositions:

• Hierarchy of Importance: In every society, some positions are functionally more significant than others. These positions carry greater rewards and higher prestige. For instance, in India, a position in the Indian Administrative Service is esteemed more than other jobs.
• Limited Merit: Only a limited number of people possess the necessary merit or talents to excel in these crucial roles. This can be observed in competitive exams like the Indian Administrative Service, where only a small fraction of candidates succeed.
• Intensive Training: Many of these positions require lengthy and intensive training periods, often involving sacrifices on the part of the individuals who aspire to attain them. Professions like medicine, engineering, and chartered accountancy demand extensive and costly training spanning several years. According to Davis and Moore, these sacrifices merit higher financial rewards and greater prestige in society.

These propositions are rooted in the shift from ascriptive criteria to achievement values in modern societies. In such societies, an individual’s merit surpasses their birth in determining their status. Occupations are hierarchically arranged, with those at the top receiving greater rewards and prestige. This system, combined with the competition for rewards, motivates individuals to strive for excellence.

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore argued that stratification, based on unequal rewards and prestige, is essential for maintaining order and progress in society. This system motivates individuals to pursue important positions, invest in training, and perform their duties diligently. Whether in modern, competitive societies or traditional, ascriptive ones, stratification serves as a mechanism that aligns with societal values and functional prerequisites.  

Criticisms

The Davis-Moore approach to social stratification has long been considered a rational and realistic explanation for the inequalities that exist in modern societies with social and occupational mobility. However, this theory has not been without its critics. In this article, we will explore the criticisms of Davis and Moore’s functional theory of social stratification, with a particular focus on the arguments put forth by Melvin Tumin. 

• The Question of Functional Importance - One of the central tenets of the Davis-Moore theory is that functionally important positions in society are highly rewarded. However, Tumin challenges this assertion by raising the question of how functional importance can be accurately measured. He argues that while some positions may appear more important due to higher rewards, it is not necessarily the case that these positions are functionally more crucial to society. Tumin suggests that the importance of a position may be a matter of opinion and not an objective criteria, making it difficult to justify unequal rewards based on functional importance. 
• The Role of Power - Tumin contends that unequal rewards in society may not solely stem from the functional importance of positions. He emphasizes the role of power in determining the importance of positions and, consequently, appropriating higher rewards. Tumin uses the example of organized and unorganized sector workers in India to illustrate his point. While the type of work may be similar in both sectors, organized sector workers receive higher pay and better social security benefits due to their unionization and greater bargaining power. This demonstrates how power dynamics play a significant role in determining rewards, regardless of functional importance. 
• Training and Sacrifice - Another aspect of Davis and Moore’s theory is the justification of higher rewards for positions that require greater training and sacrifice. Tumin challenges this argument by suggesting that training does not necessarily equate to sacrifice, as individuals also gain new skills and knowledge through training, ultimately benefiting themselves. Additionally, Tumin points out that the rewards for such positions are often disproportionate to the sacrifices made during training, casting doubt on the theory’s validity. 
• Motivation and Barriers - One of the key claims of the functional theory is that unequal rewards serve as motivation for individuals to improve their work. Tumin disputes this assertion by highlighting the presence of barriers that limit access to better opportunities. He argues that social discrimination is a pervasive issue in every society, making it difficult for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to compete for better positions. In India, for instance, social inequalities hinder access to quality education for the children of poor families, limiting their ability to improve their positions. Similarly, in the United States, racial and economic disparities create barriers that prevent certain groups, such as Afro-Americans, from competing for better positions. 
• Reproduction of Inequality - Tumin raises a critical point regarding the perpetuation of inequality within a stratified society. He suggests that those who already receive higher rewards are likely to ensure that their children also benefit from the same rewards. This perpetuates a cycle of inequality, as individuals in privileged positions not only strive to secure their children’s access but also create barriers to prevent others from entering the same positions. Tumin cites the example of civil servants in developed countries like Britain and France, where an overwhelming majority of civil servants are the children of civil servants, illustrating the reproduction of privilege. 
• The Lack of Equal Opportunity - Tumin’s overarching argument is that the functional theory of social stratification is unrealistic because it assumes equal access to recruitment and training for all potentially talented individuals. He contends that in most societies, such equal access is rarely achieved, rendering the justification of differential rewards based on functional importance untenable. Tumin concludes that stratification systems inherently hinder the development of full equality of opportunity, further undermining the functional theory’s validity.

          While the Davis-Moore approach has provided valuable insights into the topic of social stratification, it is essential to consider these criticisms when evaluating its applicability in the complex and diverse societies of today.