成層の普遍的必然性に関する機能理論の抽象性

K・デーヴィスの成層理論における若干の問題点

抄録

Kingsley Davis has evolved a functional theory of the social stratification or class from the abstract structural point of view. But I would point out some problems in his approach to the social stratification or class phenomena, including his explanation on the universal presence of stratification in human society as fuctional necessity to maintenance of the social system.
(1) According to Davis, social stratification is the system of the institutionalized inequality, and its essence is the differential prestige or rewards attached to the different position. Moreover, he regards the social class as one type of social stratification-based entirely on the equality of opportunity.
But from his standpoint, not in terms of social groups and collectivities, but of individual positions, the positional differentiation and hierarchical organization are approachable, as he says. However, the range and distribution of prestige or reward differentials, especially the class differentials, the shape and span of its hierarchical structure, and the other factors relevant to social class or stratification and their interrelation are difficult to handle. In the case when classes are concerned with from his standpoint, he must inevitably regard them as mere collectivities or abstract categories of persons having the same amount of prestige or rewards, and occupying the same positions.
Thus his conception of social stratification confuses the theory of social stratification or class with the theory of certain aspects of social differentiation and hierarchical organization, and misses the essence of the social class, especially the differential distribution of power between classes and therefore class conflict or structural change of society.
(2) Davis points out a close correlation of superior capacities, functional importance of positions to the society, and high rewards. He, accordingly, assumes social stratification system upon the system of absolute equal opportunity in competition for positions. On the other hand, he conceives of the family with its influence running counter to the competitive principle behind stratification, and with its contribution to all the caste elements preventing the equality of opportunity.
These attempts to characterize social stratification in terms of competitive achievement of positions, spoil the significance of the classification by himself in two ideal type concepts-class and caste-of stratification, and make impossible dealing with wide and complex dynamics interwoven by different factors of stratification. Also, it is difficult to take up the dynamics between classes from his standpoints that ultimately regard stratification as a status continuum which reduce to individual abilities or talents. Last, he succeeds only in justifying the persistence of the evisting class system and social institutionalized inequality from the standpoints of the aristocratic individualism.
(3) Davis' stratification concepts influence the functional analysis on the system of stratification.
He takes up the social stratification as a functional necessity characterizing the social system. As a result, he insists on the universal necessity and indispensability of social stratification and explains the universal presence of it, in terms of positive functionality of contributing to the societal survice.
But his functional analysis is one-sided because of seeing only the positive functionality of social stratification to the maintenance of the society as a whole, therefore his assertion on its positive sunctionality and indispensability is uncertain. In other words, he disregards the dysfunction or nonfunction and functional alternatives of stratification system or regards simply them as a subsidiary one, even if he takes up them. Especially, he ignores its functionality to individual members occupying the particular pesitions and belonging to the particular classes.