Davis-Moore Thesis

More than a half a century after American sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore offered their controversial theory, the concepts they identified are still an important topic of discussion and debate in academia and in practical circles. This paper explores the Davis-Moore thesis in greater detail and casts a light on the debate it has fostered. By understanding the forces behind its development, the reader gains a better grasp of many of the intricacies of the class systems that continue today in modern, industrialized societies.

Keywords Functional importance; Social Darwinism; Social inequality; Stratification; Structural functionalism

The Davis-Moore Thesis

Overview

In 1895, a publication known as Girl's Home Companion published an article in which it offered its view of how social and economic classes interact with one another. "Each class of society has its own requirements; but it may be said that every class teaches the one immediately below it," the article suggested. "[If] the highest class be ignorant, uneducated, loving display, luxuriousness and idle," it added, "the same spirit will prevail in humbler life" (Columbia World, 1996).

Throughout history, countless societies have been established to give greater and equitable power to the citizens, only to have the various social and economic subgroups of those systems experience a less egalitarian shift. Social, economic and political classes have formed in hierarchical fashion. Although such stratified systems do often allow for upward, downward or lateral mobility, the former of these forms of movement, upward mobility, is often sporadic and unpredictable. In stable systems, classes usually retain their composition until dramatic change occurs.

Then again, there is a school of thought that suggests that stratified systems and classes are in many ways useful and necessary to a society. In 1945, sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore argued that classes and stratified societies create important social roles for the members of each class. Their hypothesis, known as the Davis-Moore thesis, fostered a major debate among sociologists, economists and policymakers alike.

More than a half a century after Davis and Moore offered their controversial theory, the concepts they identified are still an important topic of discussion and debate in academia and in practical circles. This paper explores this thesis in greater detail and casts a light on the debate it has fostered. By understanding the forces behind the theory's development, the reader will gain a better grasp of many of the intricacies of the class systems that continue today in modern, industrialized societies.

History of Stratification

It is difficult to gauge when human societies first demonstrated segregated, class-based organization and, therefore, when social philosophers and leaders offered their thoughts on the subject. Several centuries before the birth of Christ, the early Hebrew prophets lambasted the wealthiest members of society and how they obtained their wealth. Interestingly, Indian religious scholars of the second century BCE also offered comments about stratified society, saying that classes and social inequality were created by divine intervention — it was the will of the Supreme Being that the upper classes use their intelligence and wealth to help society, the middle classes protect the people, and the lower classes perform the manual labor.

After the French Revolution, which was launched against legally sanctioned social and political inequality, attention turned to economic inequity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with the ideals of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and, on the anti-socialistic front, Adam Smith and the "social Darwinists." In the mid-twentieth century, Davis best summarized the long history of class and social inequity when he said, "Social inequality is thus an unconsciously evolved device by which societies ensure that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons" (Lenski, 1984).

Whether it is the product of imperial domination, divine providence or simply a natural evolutionary process, there is little argument that stratification occurs in almost every industrialized society. It remains important to understand why the populaces of nation-states so commonly fall into classes. Without such an analysis, any attempt to change such systems faces a terrible risk of failure.

Indeed, there is a clear imperative to relate stratification to the social system in which it takes place. While it has fostered considerable controversy among scholars since its introduction, Davis and Moore's "functional theory of stratification" has, at the same time, generated considerable discussion as well. It is on this theory that this paper will focus attention.

The Functional Theory of Stratification

If one were to divide the attitudes of scholars regarding social inequity, the two schools of thought might be those who believe stratification to be a natural process of human social organization, and those who believe that social inequity is an abhorrent trend that must be corrected. For Davis and Moore, the former of these perspectives appears to be the case. In their view, stratification is requisite to the functioning of any society, as long as the agents of that change (the classes themselves) demonstrate a willingness to adapt to the changes at hand (Sieradzki, 1956).

Not unlike the Hindu ideal described earlier, Davis and Moore believed that everyone must work in order to contribute to a society. Then again, not all jobs are as labor-intensive as others — some require a great deal more training and education than others. Doctors, for example, undergo much more training than do custodians. Similarly, engineers and lawyers attend college and graduate school for several years, earning little money while they receive their training, whereas farmers and gas station attendants receive far less training and, usually, little more than a high school diploma.

Training & Stratification

According to the Davis-Moore thesis, the amount of training an individual receives for his or her job is an important point. Medical students, law school students, engineers and others must undergo training for years, and even when they graduate, they must work long hours for little to no salary. However, Davis and Moore assert, their jobs are clearly invaluable to society. Without doctors, for example, farmers, custodians and others would be unable to treat themselves. An absence of custodians, however, would not leave a dearth of individuals who could fill an absent janitor's shoes.

Under Davis and Moore's functional theory of stratification, the fact that a long-term lack of pay while training occurs could be a deterrent for people to enter medicine, law or engineering necessitates a powerful incentive. The motivating factor for people to obtain these higher-echelon positions, therefore, is money and prestige. Therefore, stratification is a natural, as well as necessary, element of a society, for it ensures that people will be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to fill the most important jobs (Brim & Lie, 2004).

The Work of Talcott Parsons

Davis and Moore's ideal was very much the product of their sociological training. While attending Harvard University in the 1930s, both worked closely with noted sociologist Talcott Parsons. Parsons is renowned for his groundbreaking work on developing analytical frameworks for the study of social order, integration and equilibrium. His analytical style was that of a structural-functional nature — connected and interacting units forming the structures of a given social system lend to the development and maintenance of that system. Parsons's concepts are indicative of a movement away from a normative view of sociology and toward an empirical perspective that many of the institutions established by a given society are natural results of sociological trends and behaviors. As academic colleagues of Parsons, Davis and Moore also began to explore the functional side of sociological theory, giving greater light to the forces that foster stratification in industrialized societies.

As the connection between Davis, Moore and Parsons suggests, the Davis-Moore thesis is not known as a "groundbreaking" work in and of itself. However, its impact is nonetheless significant, particularly in light of the fact that it turned sociology's attention away from the negative views of stratification and class of Marx and Engels, offering a more positive, functionalist view of the subject. They operate from the view that societies demonstrate both competitive and achievement-based characteristics, and at the same time, manifest socially integrative qualities that tend to foster solidarity. Societies, as a result, must demonstrate an ordering of institutions and systems, including roles for each group within the society to perform.

Furthermore, in light of this desire for social order and distribution of tasks, Davis and Moore propose that no society is "classless." There exists, in the views of Davis and Moore, a "universal necessity which calls forth stratification in any social system." Addressing this need is the distribution and motivation of relevant individuals among the pool of tasks that need attendance. In other words, stratification is society's way of creating order among its citizens (Hauhart, 2003).

One might expect that the Davis-Moore thesis would at the very least generate discussion and debate among sociological circles. In truth, it did foster conversations as well as strong criticisms from those who see socioeconomic classes and social stratification in a negative light.

Building a Sociological Lightning Rod

The Davis-Moore thesis, while one of the most widely referenced sociological theories until the 1970s, was the target of great criticism. The backlash against the functional theory of stratification has ranged from simple critiques of the methodologies employed to pure outrage. One scholar encapsulated the criticism in a simple comment, calling the thesis "a theory that has produced little more than polemic and attempts at ideological aggrandizement" (Jenkins, 1981).

In the eyes of many critics of the thesis, Davis and Moore were pursuing a conceptual framework that simply fell short of full verification. One study applied the theory to an economic model of wage determination. The thesis cites talent and training as primary "supply"-side factors, while on the demand side are the individual's functional contributions to the society. Fault was found in the assumption that both supply and demand would remain static in a perfectly competitive market. However, applying the economic principle of elasticity (and therefore practical variances), the study observed, the individual's talents and training show a greater influence on rewards like salary than does the individual's functional importance. In this case, the study concludes, the functional importance of a job is not as significant a determinant in the establishment of pay and benefits as Davis and Moore asserted in their theory, leading one author of this analysis to conclude that their reliance on functional importance "remains methodologically, empirically and theoretically questionable" (Grandjean, 1975).

Arguably, some of the sharpest criticisms came only eight years after Davis and Moore first introduced their thesis. Princeton University's Melvin Tumin, in 1953, took to task the Davis-Moore theory's precepts that individuals obtaining the most important jobs are doing so as part of a natural progression. In addition, substantiating the above-referenced study about functional importance, he cited the notion that in any stratified system, people have an interest in helping their loved ones take advantage of the opportunities that will help them assume such posts, while at the same time hindering others' access to such resources. He also quickly dismissed the notion of holders of "important" jobs experiencing a great "sacrifice" (in the form of unpaid training and education) — he saw the claim about such "sacrifices" both as an apology for apparent social inequalities and as an inadequately validated contributory factor to a social system's survival (Best, 2005).

Arguments against Functional Importance

One of the central arguments critics and skeptics offer focuses on Davis and Moore's use of "functional importance", or the value of a given professional position in relation to the society. Indeed, there are many questions that arise when discerning socially "important" jobs from ostensibly less significant ones. Davis and Moore wisely shy away from specifically identifying the "important" from the "unimportant" posts. Still, they do suggest that the important jobs are those that pay higher salaries and benefits. Such a qualification might be acceptable among sociologists if the status of those career positions was universally accepted. However, there is no such uniformity in this arena.

Because of this nebulousness, the definition of "important" versus "unimportant" becomes arbitrary. Adding to the contentiousness of this issue is the fact that although a society could at some point in its future establish such universal acceptance of functional importance, another factor becomes evident: individual perception. In fact, Davis and Moore make no reference to how vital individuals perceive their respective jobs to be. As one report correctly concludes, individual perception may in fact provide clarity in an area in which society has difficulty. "[It] can be argued that individuals' perceptions provide an indicator of objective importance which may well be no worse than others available for measuring this elusive concept" (Grandjean & Bean, 1975).

Unequal Access to "Important" Jobs

Another oft-echoed critique is one that even Davis and Moore acknowledged was something of a fallacy. An assumption of the functional theory of stratification is that the laws of a competitive economy would drive individuals to pursue the more important, socially-redeeming positions if those positions are accompanied by high pay and benefits. In other words, individuals would be willing to undergo intensive training and education, receiving little to no pay, if upon completion of that process, they would enter into those positions with high salary packages. However, not every individual has the same degree of access to the training and educational resources necessary to pursue such professional careers — some have greater financial capabilities or family connections that can help them enter expensive and competitive colleges, graduate schools and other training programs. Therefore, the pool from which individuals are recruited to pursue these "important" positions is much smaller than the much larger collection of potential talent that spans economic and social strata.

Importance of the Davis-Moore Theory in Sociological Discussions

The important point to be made here, at least according to the critics of Davis-Moore in its entirety, is that the thesis relies heavily on the fundamental underpinnings of social order. There are, in fact, a wide range of intricacies and mitigating factors that can either create exceptions to the rules set forth by the functional theory or cloud the relationships on which the theory is based and thus render empirical verification virtually impossible. As one scholar noted, "the Davis-Moore theory can only operate within, or on a base of, the more fundamental facts of stratification as found in actual societies" (Buckley, 1963).

Interestingly, despite the often contentious criticism of Davis-Moore, the thesis has consistently arisen in sociological discussions. Perhaps one of the reasons for its continued persistence is that many scholars, while either stating their disagreement with the thesis's fundamental theme (that social inequity is a natural and even necessary element of society) or the methodology by which its conclusions are based, see the functional theory of stratification as a concept that warrants further exploration before it can be completely disregarded.

Indeed, as theorists continue to attempt to discount the Davis-Moore thesis, others have surfaced who have sought to prove its veracity. Until recent years, the theory has continuously been cited in various studies, if only for its status as a classic theory of sociology. In the last few decades, attention has been paid to understanding the common string among supporters of the thesis. In fact, the myriad of theories on this topic suggests the presence of a heretofore unapproached set of universal characteristics. To obtain that collection, comparative analysis helps the individual understand the viability of certain elements of functional stratification and disregard the elements that muddle greater understanding (Milner, 1987).

Conclusion

When one thinks of the individuals who first questioned the stratification of industrial society, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels come immediately to mind. For Marx, it was not easy to follow his intellectual pursuits, as he was consistently in and out of financial debt. Then again, he was able to frame his iconic theories on economics and sociology with the help of his colleague, Friedrich Engels. Engels, with whom Marx collaborated on The Communist Manifesto (which railed against the capitalist system and the stratified society it fostered), was far more financially stable — his father, ironically, was a prosperous textile manufacturer.

Certainly, throughout human history, political systems have sought to create egalitarian societies, only to have that ideal repeatedly fall into stratified societies. As long as these societies have created such class strata, social scholars and political leaders have railed against the inequities of such systems. For most pre-twentieth century thinkers, such stratified systems have negative implications, as the lower classes tend to be perceived as less able to gain access to benefits and programs that would facilitate upward mobility.

In the early twentieth century, Talcott Parsons took a decidedly different perspective on class, positing that better attention should be paid to the connection between stratification and the social forces that create it. His colleagues, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, took his foundation a step further in the functional theory of stratification, also known as the Davis-Moore thesis. Their theory, which suggests that social stratification is both a natural occurrence and necessary for the betterment of society, at the very least introduced a functional element to the study of class and stratification.

The Davis-Moore thesis caused a backlash from both social justice advocates and scholars. Among the latter of these two, scholars have found difficulty in tracing the empirical evidence that might support the Davis-Moore theory. As this paper has demonstrated, there do appear to be a number of holes in the model; shortcomings that simply were not explored by the authors. Perhaps the greatest flaw in the thesis is a series of assumptions that could in fact be validated in an entirely controlled environment; however, in a complex social system, the intricacies of social behavior and order render these concepts woefully inadequate.

In the first two decades after Davis-Moore was introduced, the ideas it proffered unleashed a torrent of counter-theories and critiques. While it has been largely disproven, the theory still remains an important example of one strain of thought on the importance of individual contributions to society. The theory, which was one of the most cited concepts in social stratification for at least two decades following its introduction, now rests in the annals of sociological study awaiting the evidence it so heavily lacked in 1945.

Terms & Concepts

Functional Importance: Value of an occupation as it relates to the betterment of a given society.

Social Darwinism: Nineteenth-century theory that suggests that the most skilled and well-equipped individuals and social groups will advance upward in a society.

Social Inequality: Sociological argument that suggests that social classes do not have the same degree of access to services and opportunities that others enjoy.

Stratification: Division and hierarchical reorganization of social classes within a given system.

Structural Functionalism: Field of sociological study that analyzes patterns of social behavior and how it affects institutional change within a given society.

Bibliography

Best, S. (2005). Understanding social divisions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bowles, D. (2013). Toward an integrated theory of social stratification. American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 72, 32–58. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=84482932

Brym, R. J., & Lie, J. (2004). Sociology: Your compass for a new world. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Buckley, W. (1963). On equitable inequality. American Sociological Review, 28, 799–801. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12785726&site=ehost-live

The Columbia World of Quotations (1996). Columbia University Press.

Grandjean, B. D. (1975). An economic analysis of the Davis-Moore theory of stratification. Social Forces, 53 , 543–552. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5283310&site=ehost-live

Grandjean, B. D., & Bean, F. D. (1975). The Davis-Moore theory and perceptions of stratification. Social Forces, 54, 166–180. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5280829&site=ehost-live

Hauhart, R. C. (2003). The Davis-Moore theory of stratification. American Sociologist, 34, 5–24. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14015831&site=ehost-live

Jenkins, J. C. (1981). On the nonfunctionalist theory of inequality. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 177–179. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15471594&site=ehost-live

Korzeniewicz, R., & Albrecht, S. (2012). Thinking globally about inequality and stratification: Wages across the world, 1982–2009. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 53(5/6), 419–443. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85788218

Lenski, G. E. (1984). Power and privilege. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Retrieved July 27, 2008, from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UySGOjdd-XkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22Lenski%22+%22Power+and+Privilege:+A+Theory+of+Social+Stratification%22+&ots=ap6PwgtGZE&sig=5RoNBeTyAhHobcR8VdlmjMVmXJw#PPA15,M1

Milner, M., Jr. (1987). Theories of inequality. Social Forces, 65, 1053–1090. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5290417&site=ehost-live

Sieradzki, G. F. (1956). The structural-functional theory of social stratification. Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions, 2, 1–13. Retrieved July 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16098411&site=ehost-live

Vryonides, M., & Lamprianou, I. (2013). Education and social stratification across Europe. International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy, 33(1/2), 77–97. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85676159

Suggested Reading

Kaistha, K. C. (1987). Measuring social mobility through occupational prestige. Sociological Bulletin, 36, 81–98. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9894619&site=ehost-live

Kalmijn, M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2007). Social stratification and attitudes. British Journal of Sociology, 58, 547–576. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27743881&site=ehost-live

Motwani, K., and Saksena, R. D. (2000). Encyclopaedia of Sociology of Politics .

Peoples, C. D. (2012). A comparative review of stratification texts and readers. Teaching Sociology, 40, 60–69. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=70250876

Social status and occupational mobility (1989). International Journal of Sociology, 19, 90–96. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10201268&site=ehost-live

Van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2007). Scarcity and abundance. European Sociological Review, 23, 239–261. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=25089719&site=ehost-live