Functionalists see the relationship between different social groups as one of cooperation, because no one group is self sufficient. Therefore each group must exchange goods and services with other groups. This relationship also extends to the stratification system. Each class needs to cooperate with the other because any large- scale task needs both organisation and execution. To present a simplified example, it can be argued that in western society the middle classes organise and coordinate the activities of the working classes. This is because of the way we divide labour, some people will specialise in planning, and others will follow their directions. Organisation of this sort must involve differentiation in authority and so the leaders must have a more important status to those who are carrying out the task (Haralambos 1985).
Overall Parsons sees stratification as both necessary and functional for society. It integrates various groups in society and power and prestige differentials are essential for the division of labour.
Marxian perspectives offer a radical alternative to functionalists’ views. They regard stratification as a structure that divides social groups, rather than integrate them. According to Marx’s views, there are two major social groups: a ruling class and a subject class. The power of the ruling class comes from there ownership and control of the forces of production. The ruling classes exploit and oppress the subject class and as a result there is a conflict of interest between the two classes.
The various institutions of society such as the legal and political systems are simply instruments of the ruling classes and serve only to further its interests. Only when the forces of production are owned by all will class disappear.
From a Marxian view, systems of stratification come from the relationships of social groups to the forces of production. Marx used the word class to describe a social group whose members all share the same relationship to the forces of production. For example, during the Feudal period, the two main classes were distinguished by their relationship to the land, the major force of production. There were those who owned the land and those who worked the land. Similarly in the capitalist era, there are two main classes, the bourgeoisie or capital class who own the forces of production and the proletariat or working class whose members own only their labour which they hire to the bourgeoisie in return for wages (Haralambos 1985).
The work of German sociologist Max Weber represents some of the most important developments in stratification theory since Marx. Although he agrees with Marx that class is one possible basis for group formation, Weber argues that there are other reasons for it. In particular, groups form because their members share a similar ‘status situation’. Whereas class refers to the unequal distribution of wealth, status refers to the unequal distribution of ‘social honour’. Occupations, ethnic groups and most importantly styles of life are given different degrees of prestige by members of society. A status group is made up of individuals who share the same amount of social honour. Members of status groups are almost always aware of their common status situation. They share a similar lifestyle, identify with their peers and often place restrictions on how people from outside their group may interact with them.
Weber points out that people who share the same class will not always belong to the same status group. For example the nouveaux riches are sometimes excluded from the status groups of the privileged because their tastes, manners and dress are defined as vulgar. Status groups are also found within classes. In a study of Banbury in the 1950’s, Margaret Stacey found that members of the manual working class distinguished themselves into three categories: the ‘respectable working class’, the ‘ordinary working class’ and the ‘rough working class’. Economic factors did influence the formation as the ‘roughs’ were often in the lowest income brackets, but they did not determine their status as many of the ‘roughs’ income was similar to that of members of other status groups (Haralambos 1985).
Weber’s analysis of class and status groups suggests that no single theory or explanation can explain their relationship. The interplay of class and status is complex and variable and must be examined in different societies at different times. Marx attempted to reduce all forms of inequality to class and argued that classes were the only thing that formed significant social groups. Weber argues that evidence shows that this is not the case and social stratification is much more complex and diversified.
After looking at that different types of stratification we must now see what effects, if any, social class has on the educational achievement of children. The most obvious point to make about the relationship between class and education is that it is expensive to send children into post statutory education and so some of the working class cannot afford too.
Also we must look at what children are taught in school. Aside from the visible, ‘formal’ curriculum i.e. history, maths, technology ect, what else is being taught? While job skill training is limited, schools are in a better position to encourage positive attitudes and motivations towards employment and sometimes (mostly in the case of women) unpaid work like mothering too. Such teaching is part of what has become know as the hidden curriculum. The hidden curriculum teaches many things- from obedience to gender identity and political awareness, which contribute to producing a labour force (Abercrombie et al 2000).
Bowles and Gintis (1976) argued that schools are vital in the teaching of regularity and obedience but this is differentiated by social class. For the working class merely attending school, following its rules and routines and experiencing its hierarchy, instils into pupils attitudes required later on in life in the workplace. For those entering more middle class jobs this is less important and more initiative and ability to work unsupervised are required. In summary, the main purpose of schooling is that it prepares students from different social classes to be workers at different levels of organisations.
Peter Saunders (1996) argues that class plays a less important role in achievement and believes that the differences in ability and motivation are what generate unequal outcomes. He used evidence from the National Child Development Survey (NCDS) to develop his argument. The NCDS is a study of all children born between 3rd and 9th March 1958, 17,414 of them who have been interviewed on five occasions, with their parents and later partners where appropriate, the last being in 1991 when all were 33 years old, at which point contact was made with 11,397 of them. This is a big study with opportunity to analyse the meritocracy thesis, because it contains information about many of the things that might affect success: education test scores at 5, 11 and 16; parental class and background; aspirations of both parents and children; questions about motivation at various stages; as well as type of school attended and qualifications obtained. Therefore it provides some measures of variables that Saunders says were previously ignored by other sociologists, in particular motivation and measured ability. It also makes it possible to see how much they affect the labour market.
Saunders argued that the evidence suggests that the differential chances of working class and service class children are significantly less than reported by other researchers. Saunders analysis indicated that ability tests scores and motivation (measured by attitude scales administered during school holidays, absenteeism, and ‘job commitment’ at age 33) explained far more the variation in occupational achievement by age 33 than did social class of parents, parents’ educational achievement, gender, measures of social deprivation like over crowding, or type of school attended. While all these social variables were significant, they had less effect than ability and motivation (Abercrombie et al 2000).
Overall Saunders does not deny that rewards from the labour market are unequal, but maintains that because ability and effort determine who fills the privileged positions then existing distribution can be said to be fair, the outcome of meritocratic competition.
The acceptability of Saunders work depends partly on the definition of the word ‘meritocratic’. Critics of Saunders (Marshall, Swift and Roberts 1997) work say that much depends on contested concepts of fairness and social justice. Marshall et al agree that social mobility studies have probably paid too little attention too issues of ability and motivation. However, whereas Saunders believed these attributes to be natural to individual children, Marshall et al point out that ability is nurtured, ambition instilled and work motivation imbued. Parents of different classes do this to different degrees. Therefore, high achievers cannot easily be said to deserve success; rather they had the good luck, rather than being personally responsible, to have been born into a higher social class, where parents encouraged and developed talents which gave them advantages in the competition over children from other classes.
The injustice of current arrangements is highlighted more by the evidence of class-based inequalities of access to privileged labour-market positions. Savage and Egerton (1997), re-examined the same evidence from the NCDS, their results revealed that that low ability service class sons obtained service class positions in more or less the same proportions as high ability working class boys. The fact that households containing service class fathers have the capacity to stop their low ability sons from slipping down the social hierarchy is a shun on the idea of meritocracy. Also the fact that high ability service class children do a lot better than high ability working class children is another (Abercrombie et al 2000).
In conclusion the idea of meritocracy seems very fair, those who are most intelligent and highly motivated will ultimately receive the highest rewards in the labour market, but in reality this can never really happen. It seems that social class and status grouping are paramount in terms of educational success. Firstly, from a functionalist’s point of view, if in fact we do share the same values and ideas as those in our class why would we ever seek to move out of our class and alienate ourselves? We wouldn’t, we would all live in the same type of area, send our children to the same type of school and all work in similar jobs. This is not meritocracy, as even if a person were highly intelligent and motivated they would only achieve what would be ‘expected’ of a person in their class.
Also it is impossible for our society to have an ‘equal playing field’ as some have a head start. It would seem that children from middle class backgrounds are given an unfair advantage in that they have been more prepared for higher prestige jobs.
Overall it would seem that the expectations, social class and status of the people around the child have a great deal to do with their achievement, but if this in fact is the case would it not be fair too say that perhaps it isn’t always the most deserving person who succeeds in our society.
