The concept and types of social stratification. Types and types of social stratification

Stratification in society is a certain process, as a result of which a phenomenon arises when individuals and families become unequal in relation to each other. At the same time, they are grouped into so-called strata. These are social strata with similar objective indicators. The strata are arranged in a hierarchical order, taking into account the prestige of families and individuals, their property and the presence of power.

Stratification in sociology

This concept came to the science of society from geology. The word "stratification" has English roots. Its translation means the following: stratum - “layer”, as well as facio - “I do”. In geology, this concept is used when talking about vertical arrangement layers of various rocks. If we consider a section of the soil, then a layer of clay is found under the layer of chernozem. Next, sand can go, etc. It is worth noting that each of these layers contains homogeneous elements.

The same can be said about the stratum. It includes people with the same income and education, prestige and power. There is no such stratum that would include both highly educated people in power and the poor who are forced to earn their living by low-skilled work.

Man's place in society

Power, prestige, education and income are the criteria for establishing the socio-economic status of an individual. This determines the place and position of each person in society. Thus, status is a generalizing indicator of stratification. It plays a leading role not only in the structure of society, but also in sociology.

The status attributed to an individual or family characterizes a certain system of stratification. It is also called a closed society. In it, the transition from stratum to stratum is practically impossible. This includes historical types of stratification - slavery, castes, estates.

Status can also be achieved. Such a concept is characteristic of a mobile system of stratification, or of an open society. In this case, people are allowed to move freely up or down the social ladder. By such a system is meant the classes that exist under the capitalist system. These are the historical types of stratification.

Closed and open society

What do these two concepts mean? As for a closed society in the political science sense, it excludes or significantly limits the movement of information or individuals from one country to another. In this case, we are talking about states. In a sociological sense, the concept of a "closed society" carries the same prohibition. Only here the strata are already considered.

In contrast to this, open society does not restrict the movement of information and individuals.

The distinction between the political and social spheres of these two concepts is extremely important. After all, for example, at one time the USSR was both an open and a closed society. In the first case, this referred to the sociological sphere, and in the second, to the political one. Indeed, there was a very active vertical mobility in the country. By this indicator only American society could be compared with Soviet society. However, the USSR surrounded itself with the so-called Iron Curtain, which limited or completely prohibited the penetration of any objective information about life abroad, as well as the departure of people to other countries.

History of stratification

The inequality of people in income, prestige, education and power appeared along with human society. Thus, in its embryonic state, historical types of stratification can be found even in the primitive system.

Together with the emergence of the early state, the so-called oriental despotism appeared. With her, stratification began to tighten. In the future, as the European states developed, there was a liberalization of mores. Historical types of social stratification have become less rigid. In this regard, we can definitely say that the class stratum that arose in the later period of the formation of human society turned out to be much freer than slavery and caste. The class system, which replaced the class system, was even more liberal.

Consider the historical types of stratification - slavery, castes, estates, classes - in more detail. This will provide a clearer understanding of the concept that characterizes the inequality of people in society.

Slavery

So, in certain periods of the development of mankind, various historical types of stratification took shape. Slavery is the very first such system. It appeared in ancient times in China and Babylon, in Egypt, Greece and Rome.

If we study the historical types of social stratification of modern society, we can find the fact that slavery in a number of regions has survived to the present day. A similar system took place in the United States as early as the 19th century.

Slavery is nothing but a legal and social form of human enslavement. At the same time, it borders on complete lack of rights and pronounced inequality. If we consider the historical types of stratification of society in their development, then we can say that slavery has evolved noticeably. It was originally in its most primitive form. It was patriarchal slavery. Further, a more developed form of this system appeared - the classical one.
In the first case, the slave was endowed with all the rights available to the younger members of the family. He lived with the owners in the same house, participated in the life of the country, had the right to marry a free person, and even inherit the property of his owners. Under the patriarchal system, a slave could not be killed.

At a later stage in the development of society, a person in this status was finally enslaved. He was placed in a separate room, banned from participation in society, as well as marriage and inheritance. The slave could be killed. It was considered nothing more than the ordinary property of its owner, which he owned undividedly.

castes

What historical types of stratification took shape after slavery left? Castes replaced the first system of inequality. However, like slavery, the caste system is characterized by a closed society. At the same time, rigid stratification was also preserved.

The difference between the caste system and the slave system is not only its emergence at a later stage in the development of society. It is also characterized by a lower prevalence. Almost every state went through slavery, to a greater or lesser extent. But castes were only in India. They were also in some African countries.

If we consider the historical types of stratification - castes, then in this case, special attention should be paid to India. After all, this country is a classic example of such a society. The caste system arose in India on the ruins of the slave system. It happened in the first centuries of the new era.

The historical type of caste stratification is nothing but a social group (stratum). Membership in a particular social group was given to a person exclusively from birth. During life, people did not have the right to move from one caste to another.

Castes refer to the historical type of stratification enshrined in the Hindu religion. That is why this system is not so common. According to the canons established by the Hindu religion, people have more than one life. And they do not fall into one or another caste by chance. The fate of each person depends on how he behaved in a previous life. If the behavior was bad, then at the next birth such a member of society turned out to be in a lower caste, and vice versa.

What could be the status of man in India? If you study the historical type of stratification, you can see that there were four main castes in the country. Their list included:

• priests, or brahmins;
• warriors, or kshatriyas;
• merchants, or Vaishyas;
• peasants and workers, or sudras.

In addition, there were also 5,000 minor castes and podcasts. The outcasts, or untouchables, were in a special position. These were people who did not belong to any caste and occupied the lowest rung in society.

In the course of industrialization in India, classes replaced castes. And here there was a division. Indian cities became increasingly class-based, while the country's villages, where the majority of the population lived, continued to be caste-based.

Estates

In those countries where there were no historical types of stratification - castes, estates replaced slavery and preceded classes. Such a system was characteristic of the European feudal society that took place in the 4th-14th centuries.

The historical type of stratification - estate - is a social group that has fixed legal laws or customs, inherited rights. Such a system includes several strata.

The classic example of this system is Europe. Here at the turn of the 14th-15th centuries. Society is divided into:

• the upper classes, which included the clergy and nobility;
• an unprivileged estate, consisting of merchants, artisans and peasants.

There was a similar system in Russia. Here from the second half of the 18th century. there were such estates as the clergy and the nobility, the merchants, as well as the peasantry. There was also a philistinism in Russia, which included the middle strata of the urban population.

The gradation of estates was based on land ownership. All their rights and obligations were determined by legal laws and even covered in the form of religious doctrines. As for membership in the estate, it was inherited.

During the existence of this type of historical stratification, very rigid social barriers developed. That is why some mobility took place not between, but within one group of people.

Estate hierarchy

All these groups of people, which belong to the historical type of stratification, included a large number of ranks and layers, levels, ranks and professions. For example, only nobles were hired for public service. The aristocracy was considered a military estate (in some countries - chivalry).

The higher the hierarchical level of the estate, the higher its status was considered. Unlike the caste system, inter-class marriages were allowed here. Not only were they allowed, but also individual mobility. Even to common man the right to become a knight was given by buying a special permit. Merchants often acquired titles of nobles. A similar practice can be observed in modern England. In this country, it has been preserved as a relic of the past.

Estates are characterized by the presence of social signs and symbols. These include titles and uniforms, orders and titles. Unlike estates, historical types of stratification - castes, classes - did not have state distinctive signs. But at the same time, they have always been distinguished by rules and norms of behavior, rituals, treatment and clothing.

In feudal society, the state itself assigned special symbols to the nobility. Titles were one of them. These are verbal designations of the generic and official position of people who were established by law. AT short form titles determined legal status their owner. In Russia in the 19th century there were a state councilor and a general, a chamberlain, a lordship, a count, an excellency and an adjutant wing, as well as a secretary of state. The basis of such a system of titles was the rank. This is the rank that every civil servant (court, civilian or military) had.

Until the reign of Peter I, the concept of "rank" included any position, any honorary title, as well as the social status of a person. However, in 1722 a new system of ranks was established. Peter I approved the "Table of Ranks". It described every clan that was in the public service - military, civilian and court. Moreover, each of these genera was divided into 14 classes. The class was a designation of the rank of a position, each of which had the name of a class rank. Therefore, its owner was an official.

Only the nobility (either service or local) could apply for public service. Moreover, both were hereditary. The title of nobleman was passed on to children and wife. Received it and distant descendants in the male line.

They formalized the noble status in the form of a family coat of arms and genealogy. It was supported by portraits of ancestors, legends, orders and titles. The descendants were proud of their family and sought to preserve its good name. There was also such a thing as "noble honor". Its important component was the trust and respect of society for the spotless name of the genus.

Distinctive feature of the classes

Belonging to a certain social stratum under slavery, castes and estates was fixed by religious and legal norms, that is, it had an official status. But if we consider the historical types of stratification - classes, then everything is different here. The place of the individual in such a society is not regulated by any legal documents. It is possible to change your status. Everything will be in accordance with abilities, education or income.

What are classes?

In sociology, this concept is deciphered in a broader, as well as in a narrower sense. In the first of these, a class is a large group of people who are characterized by a specific way of earning income. An example of this is the social system that took place in ancient Greece or in the Ancient East. There was a gradation into two absolutely opposite classes. One of them is slaves, and the second is slave owners. The feudal and capitalist systems are no exception. They can be divided into classes of exploiters and exploited.

What is the narrower meaning of this concept? It lies in the fact that a class is any social stratum that differs from others in education, income, prestige and power. It follows from this that, in its historical understanding, classes are the youngest and most open type of stratification. At the same time, the assignment of a person to one or another stratum occurs on the basis of public opinion. This is the only controller of the social fixing of a person in a certain group, guided by the standards of behavior and established practice. In this regard, it is very difficult to unambiguously and accurately determine the number of layers, strata or classes existing in each country. So, if we consider the strata of society from top to bottom, then at the very top steps are the strata of the rich. Next comes the wealthy middle class, and then the poor people. Within these classes, smaller gradations are found.

The most privileged positions are occupied by rich people. They have the most prestigious and highly paid professions, which are characterized by mental activity, as well as the performance of management functions. Such an elite of modern society includes kings and leaders, presidents and kings, political leaders and big businessmen, artists and prominent scientists.

The middle prosperous class includes lawyers and doctors, qualified employees and teachers, as well as the petty bourgeoisie.

The lower strata are represented by unemployed and unskilled workers, as well as beggars. As for the working class, it is singled out as an independent group. At the same time, he occupies a certain intermediate position between the lower stratum of society and the middle one.

The main feature of the human community is social inequality arising from social differences, social differentiation.

Social differences are called differences that are generated social factors: division of labor (workers mental and physical labor), way of life (urban and rural population), functions performed, level of prosperity, etc. Social differences are, first of all, status differences. They indicate the dissimilarity of the functions performed by a person in society, the different opportunities and positions of people, the discrepancy between their rights and obligations.

Social differences may or may not be compatible with natural ones. It is known that people differ in gender, age, temperament, height, hair color, intelligence level and many other characteristics. Differences between people, due to their physiological and mental characteristics, are called natural.

The leading trend in the evolution of any society is the multiplication of social differences, i.e. increasing their diversity. The process of growing social differences in society was called by G. Spencer "social differentiation".

This process is based on:

· the emergence of new institutions, organizations that help people jointly solve certain problems and at the same time dramatically complicate the system of social expectations, role interactions, and functional dependencies;

· the complication of cultures, the emergence of new value ideas, the development of subcultures, which leads to the emergence within the same society of social groups that adhere to different religious, ideological views, focusing on different forces.

Many thinkers have long tried to figure out whether a society can exist without social inequality, since too much injustice is due to social inequality: a narrow-minded person can be at the top of the social ladder, hardworking, gifted - all his life he can be content with a minimum of material wealth and constantly experience a dismissive attitude towards himself.

Differentiation is a property of society. Consequently, society reproduces inequality, considering it as a source of development and livelihood. Therefore, differentiation is a necessary condition for the organization of social life and performs a number of very important functions. On the contrary, universal equality deprives people of incentives to advance, the desire to apply their maximum efforts and abilities to fulfill their duties (they will consider that they receive no more for their work than they would receive if they did nothing all day).

What are the reasons that give rise to the differentiation of people in society? In sociology, there is no single explanation for this phenomenon. There are different methodological approaches to solving questions about the nature, origins and prospects of social differentiation.

functional approach (representatives T. Parsons, K. Davis, W. Moore) explain inequality based on the differentiation of social functions performed by different layers, classes, communities. The functioning and development of society is possible only thanks to the division of labor between social groups: one of them is engaged in the production of material goods, the other - in the creation of spiritual values, the third - in management, etc. For the normal functioning of society, an optimal combination of all types of human activity is necessary, but some of them, from the point of view of society, are more important, while others are less important.

On the basis of the hierarchy of significance of social functions, according to the supporters of the functional approach, a corresponding hierarchy of groups, classes, and layers performing these functions is formed. The top of the social ladder is invariably occupied by those who carry out the general leadership and management of the country, because only they can maintain and ensure the unity of the country, create the necessary conditions for the successful performance of other social functions. Top management positions should be filled by the most capable and qualified people.

However, the functional approach cannot explain the dysfunctions when certain roles are rewarded in no way in proportion to their weight and significance for society. For example, remuneration of persons employed in the service of the elite. Critics of functionalism emphasize that the conclusion about the usefulness of hierarchical construction contradicts the historical facts of clashes, conflicts of strata, which led to difficult situations, explosions and sometimes threw society back.

The functional approach also does not allow explaining the recognition of the individual as belonging to the highest stratum in the absence of his direct participation in management. That is why T. Parsons, considering the social hierarchy as a necessary factor, links its configuration with the system of dominant values ​​in society. In his understanding, the location of social strata on the hierarchical ladder is determined by the ideas formed in society about the significance of each of them and, therefore, can change as the value system itself changes.

The functional theory of stratification comes from:

1) the principle of equal opportunities;

2) the principle of survival of the fittest;

3) psychological determinism, according to which individual psychological qualities predetermine success in work - motivation, the need for achievement, intelligence, etc.

4) the principles of work ethics, according to which success in work is a sign of God's grace, failure is the result of only a lack good qualities etc.

As part of conflict approach (represented by K. Marx, M. Weber) inequality is seen as the result of the struggle of classes for the redistribution of material and social resources. Representatives of Marxism, for example, call private property the main source of inequality, which gives rise to the social stratification of society, the emergence of antagonistic classes that have an unequal relationship to the means of production. The exaggeration of the role of private property in the social stratification of society led K. Marx and his orthodox followers to the conclusion that it is possible to eliminate social inequality by establishing public ownership of the means of production.

The theory of social stratification by M. Weber is based on the theory of K. Marx, which he modifies and develops. According to M. Weber, the class approach depends not only on control over the means of production, but also on economic differences that are not directly related to property. These resources include the skills, credentials and qualifications that determine employment opportunities.

M. Weber's theory of stratification is based on three factors, or measurements (three components of social inequality):

1) economic status, or wealth, as the totality of all material values ​​belonging to a person, including his income, land and other types of property;

2) political status, or power as an opportunity to subordinate other people to one's will;

3) prestige - the basis of social status - as recognition and respect for the merits of the subject, a high assessment of his actions, which are a role model.

The differences between the teachings of Marx and Weber lie in the fact that Marx considered ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of labor as the main criteria for the formation of classes, while Weber considered ownership of the means of production and the market. For Marx, classes existed always and everywhere, where and when there was exploitation and private property, i.e. when the state existed, and capitalism only in modern times. Weber associated the concept of class only with capitalist society. Class for Weber is inextricably linked with the exchange of goods and services through money. Where there are none, there are no classes. Market exchange acts as a regulator of relations only under capitalism; therefore, classes exist only under capitalism. That is why traditional society is the arena of action of status groups, and only modern society is of classes. According to Weber, classes cannot appear where there are no market relations.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the tendency to synthesize functional and conflict approaches became widespread. It found its fullest expression in the works of American scientists Gerhard and Zhdin Lenski, who formulated evolutionary approach to the analysis of social differentiation. They showed that stratification was not always necessary and useful. In the early stages of development, there was practically no hierarchy. Later it appeared as a result of natural needs, partly on the basis of the conflict that arises as a result of the distribution of the surplus product. In an industrial society, it is based mainly on the consensus of values ​​of those in power and ordinary members of society. In this regard, rewards are both fair and unfair, and stratification can promote or hinder development, depending on specific historical conditions and situations.

Most modern sociologists emphasize that social differentiation is hierarchical and is a complex, multifaceted social stratification.

social stratification- the division of society into vertically located social groups and strata (strata), the placement of people in the status hierarchy from top to bottom according to four main criteria of inequality: prestige of the profession, unequal income, access to power, level of education.

The term "stratification" comes from the Latin stratum- layer, layer and fatio - I do. Thus, in the etymology of the word, the task is not simply to identify group diversity, but to determine the vertical sequence of the position of social strata, layers in society, their hierarchy. Some authors often replace the concept of "stratum" with other terms: class, caste, estate.

Stratification is a feature of any society. Reflects the presence of upper and lower strata of society. And its basis and essence is the uneven distribution of privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social laws and influence on power.

One of the authors of the theory of social stratification was P. Sorokin. He outlined it in the work "Social Stratification and Mobility". According to P. Sorokin, social stratification - it is the differentiation of the entire set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata, Its basis and essence - in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of society.

Sorokin P. pointed out the impossibility of giving a single criterion for belonging to any stratum and noted the presence in society of three stratification grounds (respectively, three types of criteria, three forms of social stratification): economic, professional and political. They are closely intertwined, but do not merge completely, so Sorokin spoke about economic, political and professional strata and classes. If an individual moved from the lower class to the middle class, increased his income, then he made the transition, moved in the economic space.

If he changed his profession or occupation - in the professional, if the party affiliation - in the political. An owner with a large fortune, significant economic power, could not formally be included in the highest echelons of political power, not be engaged in professionally prestigious activities. And vice versa, a politician who made a dizzying career could not be the owner of capital, which, nevertheless, did not prevent him from moving in the upper strata of society. Professional stratification manifests itself in two main forms: a hierarchy of professional groups (interprofessional stratification) and stratification in the middle of professional groups.

The theory of social stratification was created in the early 40s. 20th century American sociologists Talcott Parsons, Robert-King Merton, K. Davis and other scientists who believed that the vertical classification of people is caused by the distribution of functions in society. In their opinion, social stratification ensures the allocation of social strata according to certain characteristics important for a particular society: the nature of property, income, power, education, prestige, national and other features. The social stratification approach is both a methodology and a theory for considering the social structure of society.

It adheres to the basic principles:

Compulsory research of all strata of society;

The use of a single criterion for their comparison;

Sufficiency of criteria for a complete and in-depth analysis of each of the studied social stratum.

Subsequently, sociologists have made repeated attempts to expand the number of grounds for stratification at the expense of, for example, the level of education. The stratification picture of society is multifaceted, it consists of several layers that do not completely coincide with each other.

Critics of the Marxist concept opposed the absolutization of the criterion of relation to the means of production, property and a simplified idea of ​​the social structure as the interaction of two classes. They referred to the diversity of strata, to the fact that history provides an example not only of the aggravation of relations between strata, but also of convergence, erasure of contradictions.

The Marxist doctrine of classes as the basis of the social structure of society in modern Western sociology is opposed by more productive theories of social stratification. Representatives of these theories argue that the concept of "class" in the modern post-industrial society "does not work", because in modern conditions, on the basis of wide corporatization, as well as the exit of the main owners of shares from the management sphere and replacing them with hired managers, property relations turned out to be blurred, as a result, they have lost their former significance.

Therefore, representatives of the theory of social stratification believe that the concept of "class" in modern society should be replaced by the concept of "stratum" or the concept of "social group", and the theory of the social class structure of society should be replaced by a more flexible theory of social stratification.

It should be noted that almost all modern theories of social stratification are based on the notion that a stratum (social group) is a real, empirically fixed social community that unites people according to some common positions, which leads to the constitution of this community in the social structure of society and opposition others social communities. Thus, the basis of the theory of social stratification is the principle of uniting people into groups and opposing them to other groups according to status signs: power, property, professional, educational.

At the same time, leading Western sociologists offer different criteria for measuring social stratification. The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, when considering this issue, took into account not only economic capital, measured in terms of property and income, but also cultural (education, special knowledge, skills, lifestyle), social (social ties), symbolic (authority, prestige, reputation). The German-English sociologist R. Dahrendorf proposed his own model of social stratification, which was based on such a concept as "authority".

Based on this, he divides the entire modern society into managers and managed. In turn, he divides managers into two subgroups: managing owners and managing non-owners, that is, bureaucratic managers. The controlled group is also divided into two subgroups: the highest - the "working aristocracy" and the lowest - low-skilled workers. Between these two social groups lies an intermediate "new middle class".

American sociologist B. Barber stratifies society according to six indicators:

1) the prestige of the profession, power and might;

2) income or wealth;

3) education or knowledge;

4) religious or ritual purity;

5) the situation of relatives;

6) ethnicity.

The French sociologist A. Touraine believes that in modern society social differentiation is carried out not in relation to property, prestige, power, ethnicity, but in relation to access to information. Dominant position is occupied by people who have access to most information.

In American society, W. Warner singled out three classes (upper, middle and lower), each of which consists of two layers.

Upper upper class. The "pass" to this layer is the inherited wealth and social fame of the family; as a rule, these are old settlers whose fortunes have increased over several generations. They are very rich, but they don't flaunt their wealth. The social position of representatives of this elite stratum is so secure that they can deviate from accepted norms without fear of losing their status.

lower upper class . These are professionals in their field, receiving extremely high income. They earned, not inherited their position. These are active people with a large number of material symbols that emphasize their status: the most big houses in the best areas, the most expensive cars, swimming pools, etc.

upper middle class . These are people for whom the main thing is a career. The basis of a career can be a high professional, scientific training or business management experience. Representatives of this class are very demanding about the education of their children, they are characterized by somewhat exposed consumption. A house in a prestigious area for them is the main sign of their success and their prosperity.

lower middle class . Typical Americans who are an example of respectability, conscientious attitude to work, fidelity to cultural norms and standards. Members of this class also great importance give prestige to their home.

Upper lower class . People leading ordinary lives filled with events that repeat day after day. Representatives of this class live in non-prestigious areas of the city, in small houses or apartments. This class includes builders, auxiliary workers and others whose labor is devoid of creativity. They are only required to have a secondary education and some skills; they usually work by hand.

lower lower class . People who are in extreme distress, having problems with the law. These include, in particular, immigrants of non-European origin. The lower class person rejects the norms of the middle classes and tries to live for today by spending most their income on food and shopping on credit.

The experience of using the Warner stratification model has shown that in the presented form it does not correspond to countries in most cases. of Eastern Europe, Russia and Ukraine, where a different social structure is being formed in the course of historical processes.

The social structure of Ukrainian society, based on sociological research N. Rimashevskaya, in general view can be represented like this.

one." All-Ukrainian elite groups", which unite in their hands the property in the amount equivalent to the largest Western countries, and also own the means of power influence at the national level.

2. " Regional and corporate elites”, which have a significant Ukrainian position and influence at the level of regions and entire industries or sectors of the economy.

3. The Ukrainian "upper middle class", which owns property and incomes that provide Western standards of consumption as well. Representatives of this stratum strive to improve their social status, focus on the established practice and ethical standards of economic relations.

4. The Ukrainian "dynamic middle class", which owns incomes that ensure the satisfaction of average Ukrainian and higher standards of consumption, and is also characterized by a relatively high potential adaptability, significant social aspirations and motivations, and an orientation towards legal ways of its manifestation.

5. "Outsiders", which are characterized by low adaptation and social activity, low incomes and orientation towards legal ways of obtaining it.

6. "Marginals", which are characterized by low adaptation, as well as asocial and antisocial attitudes in their socio-economic activities.

7. "Criminal society", which is characterized by high social activity and adaptability, but at the same time fully consciously and rationally opposes the legal norms of economic activity.

So, social stratification is a reflection of vertical inequality in society. Society organizes and reproduces inequality on several grounds: in terms of wealth, wealth and income, prestige of status groups, political power, education, etc. It can be argued that all types of hierarchy are significant for society, since they allow both to regulate the reproduction of social ties and direct personal aspirations, ambitions of people to acquire significant status for society.

It is necessary to distinguish between two concepts - ranging and stratification . Ranking has two aspects - objective and subjective. When we talk about the objective side of ranking, we mean visible, visible to the eye differences between people. Subjective ranking implies our tendency to compare people, somehow evaluate them. Any action of this kind is related to ranking. Ranking ascribes to phenomena and individuals a certain value, a price, and thanks to this it builds them into a meaningful system.

Ranking reaches its maximum in a society where individuals have to openly compete with each other. For example, the market objectively compares not only goods, but also people, primarily on the basis of their individual abilities.

The result of the ranking is a ranking system. Rank indicates the relative position of an individual or group within a ranking system. Any group - large or small - can be considered as a single ranking system.

The American sociologist E. Braudel proposes to distinguish, using the ranking criterion, individual and group stratification. If individuals are ranked in ranks regardless of their group affiliation, then we get individual stratification. If the set of different groups is ordered in a certain way, then we can get group stratification.

When a scientist takes into account only the objective side of ranking, he uses the concept of stratification. Thus, stratification is an objective aspect or result of ranking. Stratification indicates the order of ranking, the relative position of the ranks, their distribution within the ranking system.

Individual stratification is characterized by the following features:

1. The order of ranks is based on one criterion. For example, a football player should be judged by his game on the field, but not by wealth or religious beliefs, a scientist by the number of publications, a teacher by his success with students.

1. Ranking can also take into account the economic context: an excellent football player and an outstanding scientist should receive high salaries.

2. Unlike group stratification, individual stratification does not exist permanently. It works for a short time.

3. Individual stratification is based on personal achievement. But apart from personal qualities, individuals are ranked and valued according to the reputation of their family or the group to which they belong, say, a wealthy family or scientists.

In group stratification, it is not individual individuals that are evaluated and ranked, but entire groups, for example, a group of slaves is valued low, and the noble class is highly valued.

The English sociologist E. Giddens distinguishes four historical types of stratification: slavery, castes, estates, classes.

In this way, main idea theories of stratification - the eternal inequality of individuals and groups in society, which cannot be overcome, since inequality is an objective feature of society, the source of its development (in contrast to the Marxist approach, which assumed the social homogeneity of society in the future).

Modern theories of social stratification, which put forward certain criteria for the division of society into social strata (groups), serve methodological basis for the formation of the theory of social mobility.

social stratification is the same as social stratification. Science has likened the structure of society to the structure of the Earth and placed social strata(strata) also vertically. The basis for this division is income ladder: the poor are at the bottom, the wealthy are in the middle, and the rich are at the top (Figure 4.1).

Rice. 4.1.

The major social strata are called classes, within which we can find smaller subdivisions, which are actually called layers, or strata(from lat. stratum - layer, layer). The rich class is divided into two layers: the upper (very rich, billionaires) and the lower (just rich, millionaires). The middle class is made up of three strata, and the lower, or poor, class is made up of two. The lowest layer is also called underclass, or "social bottom".

Strata- this is a social stratum of people with similar indicators on four scales of stratification: 1) income; 2) power; 3) education; 4) prestige (Fig. 4.2).

• The first scale income, it can be measured in rubles, dollars or euros - whichever is more convenient for you. Income is the totality of all goods that an individual or family acquires over a certain period of time.
• The second scale education. It is measured by the number of years of study in the state or private school or university. The number of years of study is a universal measure of the level of education, adopted in most countries of the world.

Rice. 4.2.

The social stratification of any society includes four scales: income, education, power, prestige.

Each scale has its own dimension

• Third scale - power. It is measured by the number of people who are affected by the decision you make. The essence of power lies in the ability of an individual to impose his will against the wishes of other people. The decisions of the President of Russia apply to 145 million people (whether they are implemented is another question, although it also concerns the issue of power), and the decisions of the foreman - to 7-10 people.
• Fourth scale - prestige. This is the respect that a particular profession, position, occupation enjoys in public opinion. In the US, prestige is measured through opinion polls, job comparisons, and statistical analysis.

Income, power, prestige and education determine aggregate socioeconomic status, i.e. position and place of a person in society. In this case, the status is generalized indicator of stratification. Each scale can be considered separately and denoted by an independent concept.

In sociology, there are three basic types stratification:

• economic (income);
• political (power);
• professional (prestige)

In addition, there are many nonbasic species stratification, for example, educational, cultural and speech, gender, age.

Stratification, i.e. inequality in income, power, prestige and education, arose along with the birth of human society. In its embryonic form, it was already found in a simple (primitive) society. With the advent of the early state - the eastern despotism - the stratification becomes tougher, and as the European society develops, the liberalization of morals softens. The estate system is freer than the caste system and slavery. The class system that replaced the estate system is even more liberal.

Known in sociology four main types of stratification: slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed, the last type is open societies:

The prescribed status characterizes a rigidly fixed system of stratification, i.e. closed society, in which the transition from one stratum to another is practically prohibited. Such systems include slavery and caste system.

The achieved status characterizes a mobile system of stratification, or open Society, where people are allowed to move freely up and down the social ladder. Such a system includes classes (capitalist society).

Finally, feudal society, with its inherent estate structure, should be reckoned among intermediate type, those. to relatively closed system. Here, crossings are legally prohibited, but in practice they are not excluded.

If we look at the social structure of society as a complex of social groups that are strikingly different from each other, sociologists are obliged to answer the question of how to distinguish these groups from each other. Stratification studies this issue in social science. This is a system of verified features, according to which an individual is assigned to a certain group. It is about this social phenomenon that we will talk today.

Theory of stratification

In order to be able to distinguish between social groups, as well as to study them, the theory of social stratification was developed in the early 40s of the twentieth century. T. Parsons, R. Merton, K. Davis, W. Moore worked on its creation. Sociologists assured that stratification in social science is a process that was provoked by the spread of executable functions necessary for the life of society. According to them, due to social stratification in society, it is possible to distinguish ordered layers that were formed on the basis of important features.

It should also not be forgotten that the approach of social stratification is both a method and methodology for studying the social structure of society. It is based on the principles:

• Mandatory research of all public spending.
• The need to apply the same criteria in a comparative analysis.
• Applying a sufficient number of criteria that will allow for a deep analysis of the social stratum.

About stratification

The concept of "stratification" was taken from geology by Pitirim Sorokin. In social science, stratification is a process of social reproduction, during which all layers, classes, castes and groups are unequal, therefore they are forced to be placed in a hierarchical order. In other words, social stratification is the division of society into different groups people who share the same characteristics. The main criteria for stratification in social science are the level of income, access to power and knowledge, the nature of work, and leisure activities.

Thus, economic, professional and political stratification are distinguished. But that's not all, stratification in social science is a source that allows you to determine the stable elements of the social structure. In the course of historical development, three types of stratification were formed.

castes

One of these types are castes. Literally translated from Portuguese, this word means "origin". That is, castes are understood as closed groups that are connected by origin and status. To become a member of this association, you need to be born in it, moreover, there is no possibility for representatives of different castes to marry. Simply put, the caste system is very limited, this is a place for those who are just lucky.

The most famous caste system is considered to be an example of stratification in India. According to legend, society was originally divided into 4 varnas, which were created from different parts bodies representing humans. So, the “mouths” of the society were brahmins (priests and scholars). The "hands" were kshatriyas (leaders and soldiers). The role of the "torso" was played by vaishyas (merchants and villagers), and the "feet" were considered sudras (dependent persons).

Estates

Another type of stratification in social science is called "estate". This is a special group of people whose rules of conduct, duties and rights are inherited. In contrast to the caste system, it is easier to become part of a certain estate, since this is a conscious choice of a person, and not the result of a fatal combination of circumstances. In the countries of Europe of the 18th-19th centuries, the following system of estates existed:

• Nobility - groups of people with special privileges, they were usually given different titles, such as duke, baron, prince, etc.
• Clergy - if you exclude the priests, then all the rest who served the church were considered clergy. In turn, it was divided into two types: "black" - all the monastic brethren, "white" - non-monastic people who remained faithful to church dogmas.
• Merchants - a cohort of people engaged in trade.
• Peasantry - people whose basis of labor activity was agriculture and agricultural labor.
• Philistinism - groups of people who live in cities, are engaged in crafts, trade or are in the service.

Classes

The definition of stratification in social science is impossible without the concept of "class". By class is meant a group of people that is distinguished by freedom of access to property. For the first time such a concept was introduced into social science by Karl Marx, he said that the position of an individual in society is determined by his access to material goods. This is how class disparities arose. If we look at specific historical examples, then only two classes were defined in the slave-owning community: slaves and their masters. The main strata of feudal society were the feudal lords and the peasants dependent on them.

However, in modern sociological sciences, classes are groups of individuals who are similar according to the criteria of political, economic, and socio-cultural affiliation. Therefore, in every modern society we can distinguish:

• Upper class (elite or rich people).
• Middle class (professionals in their field, employees, workers with qualifications).
• Lower class (unskilled workers, marginalized).
• Underclass (people at the very "bottom" of the system).

strata

Thus, we can say that the units of social stratification are strata - groups of people who are united according to a certain attribute. The concept of "stratum" is the most universal term that can be used to characterize both large classes of people and small groups that are united according to one criterion.

As for examples of stratification in social science, these can be representatives of the elite and the masses. As Pareto said, in every society there are 20% of the elite - people who lead public order and prevent anarchy. And 80% of the so-called mass - ordinary people who do not have access to public authority.

Stratification is the criterion that is an indicator of the inequality that prevails in society. The division into groups shows how different conditions people live in society. They have different potential and access to social benefits. But in spite of everything, it is only through stratification that a detailed characterization of the social structure can be obtained.

Mobility

In social science, social stratification and mobility are inextricably linked concepts. Mobility refers to dynamic change. As Pitirim Sorokin said: “Social mobility is the process of moving an individual or another object (norm, value) to a different social plane.”

For example, a person can change his position in society, and at the same time begin to belong to another class. A good example of quality social mobility would be the banal story of how a poor guy became a millionaire.

Like social stratification, mobility has its varieties. First of all, vertical and horizontal mobility are distinguished.

Vertical mobility

Vertical mobility is a process that is characterized by changes that can be described as " better than that what was" or " worse than that, what happened". For example, a person received a promotion at work, a salary increase, or a higher education. These are positive changes, which are called upward mobility.

An example of downward mobility would be a dismissal, a demotion, or any other situation that changes circumstances for the worse.

Horizontal mobility

In addition to vertical mobility, there is also horizontal dynamics. If in the first case a person had the opportunity to move within his stratum, then in this case he moves exclusively within his own stratum.

For example, a programmer changed his job and moved to another city. He still belongs to the middle class of the population, he just changed his territorial position. Or if a person changes the specifics of work without a significant increase in earnings. For example, he worked as a secretary, and became an assistant accountant. The specifics of the work seem to be different, there are more responsibilities, and the salary has not changed significantly. Therefore, we can say that mobility is considered horizontal if a person changes his social group to one that is located at the same level.

Intergenerational and intragenerational mobility

This concept is more common in the countries of America, in particular in the States, where the public is of the opinion that the next generation should live better than the previous one. And anarchy is understood not as anarchy, which Durkheim spoke of, but as a discrepancy between needs and resources.

Intergenerational mobility is determined by the process in which a child occupies a better or worse position in society than his parents. For example, if the parents were low-skilled workers and their child became a scientist, this is positive intergenerational mobility.

Intragenerational mobility is determined by the change in social status throughout the life span, regardless of the achievements of the parents.

Groups and people

Exploring the concepts of social mobility and stratification, it is difficult not to note such definitions as individual and group dynamics.

Group mobility deserves special attention - a dynamic process in which an entire estate, caste or class changes its position in society. For example, after the collapse of the USSR, when many factories stopped, engineers became unclaimed. A whole class of engineers was forced to change their specialization in a short time. This type of mobility is characteristic feature societies that are in a state of total change.

With individual mobility, each person independently changes his belonging to a particular stratum.

conclusions

In general, studies show that social mobility is influenced by the political regime, the stages of modernization, and the socio-economic situation in the society. As well as the characteristics of the individual himself: his education, character, etc.

But what is stratification in social science? In simple terms, this is the division of society into rich and poor. And only then these rich and poor can be divided into strata with different characteristics. The social structure in any society is the main criterion that helps the society to evolve. Due to which strata prevail in a particular society, it is possible to determine which development strategy suits it best.

1. INTRODUCTION

Social stratification is a central theme in sociology. It explains social stratification into the poor, the wealthy and the rich.

Considering the subject of sociology, we found a close connection between the three fundamental concepts of sociology - social structure, social composition and social stratification. We expressed the structure in terms of a set of statuses and likened it to empty cells of a honeycomb. It is located, as it were, in a horizontal plane, but is created by the social division of labor. In a primitive society there are few statuses and a low level of division of labor, in a modern society there are many statuses and a high level of organization of the division of labor.

But no matter how many statuses there are, in the social structure they are equal and functionally related to each other. But now we have filled the empty cells with people, each status has turned into a large social group. The totality of statuses gave us a new concept - the social composition of the population. And here the groups are equal to each other, they are also located horizontally. Indeed, in terms of social composition, all Russians, women, engineers, non-party people and housewives are equal.

However, we know that in real life human inequality plays a huge role. Inequality is the criterion by which we can place some groups above or below others. Social composition turns into social stratification - a set of vertically arranged social strata, in particular, the poor, the wealthy, the rich. If we resort to a physical analogy, then the social composition is a disorderly collection of iron filings. But then they put a magnet, and they all lined up in a clear order. Stratification is a certain way "oriented" composition of the population.

What "orients" large social groups? It turns out that there is an unequal assessment by society of the meaning and role of each status or group. A plumber or a janitor is valued below a lawyer and a minister. Consequently, high statuses and people occupying them are better rewarded, they have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should also be higher. Here we got four main dimensions of stratification - income, power, education, prestige. And that's it, there are no others. Why? But because they exhaust the range of social benefits that people strive for. More precisely, not the goods themselves (there may just be many of them), but access channels to them. A home abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a vacation in the Canary Islands, etc. - social benefits that are always in short supply (i.e. highly respected and inaccessible to the majority) and are acquired through access to money and power, which in turn are achieved through high education and personal qualities.

In this way, social structure arises from the social division of labor, and social stratification arises from the social distribution of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits.

And it's always uneven. So there is an arrangement of social strata according to the criterion of unequal access to power, wealth, education and prestige.

2. MEASURING STRATIFICATION

Imagine a social space in which vertical and horizontal distances are not equal. P. Sorokin, the man who was the first in the world to give a complete theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, and who confirmed his theory with the help of a huge empirical material stretching throughout human history, thought this way or something like this.

Points in space are social statuses. The distance between the turner and the miller is one, it is horizontal, and the distance between the worker and the master is different, it is vertical. The master is the boss, the worker is the subordinate. They have different social ranks. Although the case can be presented in such a way that the master and worker will be located at an equal distance from each other. This will happen if we consider both of them not as a boss and a subordinate, but only as workers performing different labor functions. But then we will move from the vertical to the horizontal plane.

Curious fact

Among the Alans, the deformation of the skull served as a sure indicator of the social differentiation of society: among the leaders of the tribes, the elders of the clans and the priesthood, it was elongated.

The inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. She has four measuring rulers, or axes coordinates. All of them arranged vertically and next to each other:

income,

power,

education,

prestige.

Income is measured in rubles or dollars that an individual receives (individual income) or family (family income) over a specified period of time, say one month or one year.

On the coordinate axis, we plot equal intervals, for example, up to $5,000, from $5,001 to $10,000, from $10,001 to $15,000, and so on. up to $75,000 and above.

Education is measured by the number of years of study at a public or private school or university.

Let's say elementary school means 4 years, junior high means 9 years, high school means 11, college means 4 years, university means 5 years, graduate school means 3 years, doctoral studies means 3 years. Thus, a professor has more than 20 years of formal education behind him, while a plumber may not have eight.

power is measured by the number of people affected by the decision you make (power- possibility

Rice. Four dimensions of social stratification. People occupying the same positions in all dimensions constitute one stratum (the figure shows an example of one of the strata).

impose their will or decisions on other people, regardless of their desire).

The decisions of the President of Russia apply to 150 million people (whether they are implemented is another question, although it also concerns the issue of power), and the decisions of the brigadier - to 7-10 people. Three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars, years, people. Prestige is outside this range, as it is a subjective indicator.

Prestige - respect for status, prevailing in public opinion.

Since 1947, the US National Public Opinion Research Center has periodically polled ordinary Americans, selected from a national sample, in order to determine the social prestige of various professions. Respondents are asked to rate each of 90 professions (occupations) on a 5-point scale: excellent (best),

Note: the scale has from 100 (the highest score) to 1 (the lowest score) points. The second column "points" shows the average score received by this type of occupation in the sample.

good, average, slightly worse than average, the worst occupation. List II included almost all occupations from the supreme judge, minister and doctor to plumber and janitor. Having calculated the average for each occupation, the sociologists obtained a public assessment of the prestige of each type of work in points. Arranging them in a hierarchical order from the most respected to the most unprestigious, they received a rating, or a scale of professional prestige. Unfortunately, periodic representative surveys of the population about professional prestige have never been conducted in our country. Therefore, we will have to use American data (see table).

Comparison of data for different years(1949, 1964, 1972, 1982) shows the persistence of the prestige scale. The same types of occupations enjoyed the greatest, average and least prestige in these years. Lawyer, doctor, teacher, scientist, banker, pilot, engineer received invariably high marks. Their position on the scale changed slightly: the doctor in 1964 was in second place, and in 1982 - in first place, the minister, respectively, occupied 10th and 11th places.

If a upper part the scales are occupied by representatives of creative, intellectual labor, then the lower one is occupied by representatives of predominantly physical unskilled: a driver, a welder, a carpenter, a plumber, a janitor. They have the least status respect. People occupying the same positions on the four dimensions of stratification constitute one stratum.

For each status or individual, you can find a place on any scale.

A classic example is the comparison between a police officer and a college professor. On the scales of education and prestige, the professor ranks higher than the policeman, and on the scales of income and power, the policeman ranks higher than the professor. Indeed, the professor has less power, the income is somewhat lower than that of a policeman, but the professor has more prestige and years of study. Noting both with points on each scale and connecting them lines, we get a stratification profile.

Each scale can be considered separately and denoted by an independent concept.

In sociology, there are three basic types of stratification:

economic (income),

political (power)

professional (prestige)

and many non-basic, for example, cultural and speech and age.

Rice. Stratified profile of a college professor and police officer.

3. BELONGING TO A STRATE

Affiliation measured by subjective and objective indicators:

subjective indicator - feeling of belonging to this group, identification with it;

objective indicators - income, power, education, prestige.

So, a large fortune, high education, great power and high professional prestige are the necessary conditions for you to be classified as the highest stratum of society.

A stratum is a social stratum of people who have similar objective indicators on four scales of stratification.

concept stratification (stratum- layer, facio- do) came to sociology from geology, where it denotes the vertical arrangement of layers of various rocks. If we make a cut of the earth's crust at a certain distance, it will be found that under the layer of chernozem there is a layer of clay, then sand, etc. Each layer consists of homogeneous elements. So is the stratum - it includes people with the same income, education, power and prestige. There is no stratum that includes highly educated people in power and powerless poor people in low-prestige jobs. The rich are in the same stratum with the rich, and the average with the average.

In a civilized country, a big mafioso cannot belong to the highest stratum. Although he has a very high income, perhaps a high education and strong power, his occupation does not enjoy high prestige among citizens. It is condemned. Subjectively, he may consider himself a member of the upper class and even fit the objective criteria. However, he lacks the main thing - the recognition of "significant others."

Under "significant others" are two large social groups: members of the upper class and the general population. The highest stratum will never recognize him as "their" because he compromises the entire group as a whole. The population will never recognize mafia activity as a socially approved occupation, as it contradicts the mores, traditions and ideals of this society.

Let's conclude: belonging to a stratum has two components - subjective (psychological identification with a certain layer) and objective (social entry into a certain layer).

Social entry has undergone a certain historical evolution. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. With the emergence of slavery, it suddenly intensified. slavery- a form of the most rigid fixing of people in unprivileged strata. castes- lifelong assignment of an individual to his (but not necessarily unprivileged) stratum. In medieval Europe, lifelong ownership is weakening. Estates imply legal attachment to the stratum. Rich merchants bought noble titles and thus moved to a higher class. Estates were replaced by classes - open to all strata, not implying any legitimate (legal) way of securing one stratum.

4. HISTORICAL TYPES OF STRATIFICATION

Known in sociology four main types of stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies and the last type is open.

Closed is a society where social movements from lower to higher strata are either completely prohibited, either significantly limited.

open called a society where movement from one stratum to another is not officially restricted in any way.

Slavery- an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and an extreme degree of inequality.

Slavery has historically evolved. There are two forms of it.

At patriarchal slavery (primitive form) a slave had all the rights of a younger member of the family: he lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married the free, inherited the property of the owner. It was forbidden to kill him.

At classic bondage (mature form) the slave was finally enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and had no family. He was allowed to be killed. He did not own property, but he himself was considered the property of the owner ("talking tool").

Ancient slavery in Ancient Greece and plantation slavery in the USA before 1865 is closer to the second form, and servitude to the Geese of the 10th-12th centuries is closer to the first. The sources of slavery differ: the ancient was replenished mainly through conquests, and servitude was debt, or bonded slavery. The third source is criminals. In medieval China and in the Soviet GULAG (non-legal slavery), criminals were in the position of slaves.

At a mature stage slavery turns into slavery. When talking about slavery historical type stratification, imply its highest stage. Slavery - the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the property of another, and when the lower stratum is deprived of all rights and freedoms. There is no such thing in castes and estates, not to mention classes.

caste system not as ancient as the slave system, and less common. If almost all countries went through slavery, of course, to varying degrees, then castes were found only in India and partly in Africa. India is a classic example of a caste society. It arose on the ruins of the slaveholding in the first centuries of the new era.

Castoycalled a social group (stratum), membership in which a person owes solely to his birth.

He cannot move from his caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. The caste position is fixed by the Hindu religion (now it is clear why castes are not widespread). According to its canons, people live more than one life. Each person falls into the appropriate caste, depending on what his behavior was in a previous life. If bad, then after the next birth he should fall into a lower caste, and vice versa.

In India 4 main castes: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), Shudras (workers and peasants) and about 5 thousand minor castes and podcasts. The untouchables are especially worthy - they are not included in any caste and occupy the lowest position. In the course of industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is becoming more and more class-based, while the village, in which 7/10 of the population lives, remains caste-based.

Estates precede classes and characterize the feudal societies that existed in Europe from the 4th to the 14th centuries.

estate- a social group that has fixed custom or legal law and inherited rights and obligations.

The estate system, which includes several strata, is characterized by a hierarchy, expressed in the inequality of position and privileges. Europe was a classic example of a class organization, where at the turn of the 14th-15th centuries society was divided into upper classes(nobility and clergy) and unprivileged third estate(artisans, merchants, peasants). In the X-XIII centuries there were three main estates: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia, from the second half of the 18th century, a class division into nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistinism (middle urban strata) was established. Estates were based on landed property.

The rights and obligations of each estate were determined by legal law and consecrated by religious doctrine. Membership in the estate was determined inheritance. Social barriers between classes were quite rigid, therefore social mobility existed not so much between as within the estates. Each estate included many layers, ranks, levels, professions, ranks. So, only nobles could engage in public service. The aristocracy was considered a military class (chivalry).

The higher in the social hierarchy an estate stood, the higher was its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were quite allowed. Sometimes individual mobility was allowed. A simple person could become a knight by purchasing a special permit from the ruler. As a relic, this practice has survived in modern England.

5. Social stratification and prospects for civil society in Russia

Russia in its history has experienced more than one wave of restructuring of social space, when the former social structure, the world of values ​​was changing, guidelines, patterns and norms of behavior were formed, entire layers perished, new communities were born. On the threshold of the XXI century. Russia is once again going through a complex and controversial process of renewal.

In order to understand the ongoing changes, it is first necessary to consider the foundations on which the social structure of Soviet society was built before the reforms of the second half of the 1980s.

The nature of the social structure of Soviet Russia can be revealed by analyzing Russian society as a combination of various stratification systems.

In the stratification of Soviet society, permeated with administrative and political control, the etacratic system played a key role. The place of social groups in the party-state hierarchy predetermined the volume of distributive rights, the level of decision-making and the scope of opportunities in all areas. The stability of the political system was ensured by the stability of the position of the ruling elite (“the nomenklatura”), in which the key positions were occupied by the political and military elites, and the economic and cultural elite occupied a subordinate place.

A etacratic society is characterized by a fusion of power and property; the predominance of state property; state-monopoly mode of production; dominance of centralized distribution; militarization of the economy; class-layer stratification of a hierarchical type, in which the positions of individuals and social groups are determined by their place in the structure of state power, which extends to the vast majority of material, labor, and information resources; social mobility in the form of organized from above selection of the most obedient and loyal people to the system.

A distinctive characteristic of the social structure of society Soviet type was that it was not class-based, although in terms of professional structure and economic differentiation it remained outwardly similar to the stratification of Western societies. As a result of the elimination of the basis of class division - private ownership of the means of production - the classes gradually destructured.

The monopoly of state property, in principle, cannot give a class society, since all citizens are employees of the state, differing only in the amount of powers delegated to them. Distinctive features of social groups in the USSR were special functions, formalized as a legal inequality of these groups. Such inequality led to the isolation of these groups, the destruction of "social lifts" that serve for upward social mobility. Accordingly, the life and consumption of elite groups acquired an increasingly significant character, reminiscent of a phenomenon called “prestigious consumption”. All these signs form a picture of a class society.

Class stratification is inherent in a society in which economic relations are rudimentary and do not play a differentiating role, and the state is the main mechanism of social regulation, dividing people into unequal groups. legal relation estates.

From the first years of Soviet power, for example, the peasantry was formed into a special estate: its political rights were limited until 1936. The inequality of the rights of workers and peasants manifested itself for many years (attachment to collective farms through the system of a passportless regime, privileges for workers in obtaining education and promotion, propiska system, etc.). In fact, employees of the party and state apparatus have become a special class with a whole range of special rights and privileges. The social status of the mass and heterogeneous class of prisoners was fixed in the legal and administrative order.

In the 60-70s. in conditions of chronic shortages and limited purchasing power of money, the process of wage leveling is intensifying with parallel splitting consumer market to closed "special sectors" and the increasing role of privileges. The material and social situation of groups involved in distribution processes in the sphere of trade, supply, and transport has improved. social impact of these groups increased as the shortage of goods and services worsened. During this period, shadow socio-economic ties and associations arise and develop. A more open type of social relations is being formed: in the economy, the bureaucracy acquires the ability to achieve the most favorable results for itself; the spirit of entrepreneurship also covers the lower social strata - numerous groups of private traders, manufacturers of "left" products, builders - "shabashniks" are being formed. Thus, there is a doubling of the social structure, when fundamentally different social groups coexist in a bizarre way within its framework.

Important social change that occurred in the Soviet Union in 1965 - 1985 are associated with the development scientific and technological revolution, urbanization and, accordingly, an increase in the general level of education.

From the early 60s to the mid 80s. More than 35 million people migrated to the city. However, urbanization in our country had a clearly deformed character: mass movements of rural migrants to the city were not accompanied by a corresponding deployment of social infrastructure. A huge mass of superfluous people, social outsiders, has appeared. Having lost contact with the rural subculture and unable to join the urban one, the migrants created a typically marginal subculture.

The figure of a migrant from the countryside to the city is a classic model of the marginal: no longer a peasant, not yet a worker; the norms of the rural subculture have been undermined, the urban subculture has not yet been assimilated. The main sign of marginalization is the rupture of social, economic, and spiritual ties.

The economic reasons for marginalization were the extensive development of the Soviet economy, the dominance of outdated technologies and primitive forms of labor, the discrepancy between the education system and the real needs of production, etc. This is closely related to the social causes of marginalization - the hypertrophy of the accumulation fund to the detriment of the consumption fund, which gave rise to an extremely low standard of living and a shortage of goods. Among the political and legal reasons for the marginalization of society, the main one is that during the Soviet period in the country there was a destruction of any kind of social ties “horizontally”. The state strove for global dominance over all spheres of public life, deforming civil society, minimizing the autonomy and independence of individuals and social groups.

In the 60-80s. an increase in the general level of education, the development of an urban subculture gave rise to a more complex and differentiated social structure. In the early 80s. specialists who received higher or secondary specialized education already accounted for 40% of the urban population.

By the beginning of the 90s. in terms of their educational level and professional positions, the Soviet middle stratum was not inferior to the Western “new middle class”. In this regard, the English political scientist R. Sakwa noted: “The communist regime gave rise to a kind of paradox: millions of people were bourgeois in their culture and aspirations, but were included in the socio-economic system that denied these aspirations.”

Under the influence of socio-economic and political reforms in the second half of the 80s. big changes have taken place in Russia. Compared to Soviet times, the structure of Russian society has undergone significant changes, although it retains many of its former features. The transformation of the institutions of Russian society has seriously affected its social structure: property and power relations have changed and continue to change, new social groups are emerging, the level and quality of life of each social group is changing, and the mechanism of social stratification is being rebuilt.

As an initial multivariate stratification model modern Russia Let's take four main parameters: power, prestige of professions, level of income and level of education.

Power is the most important dimension of social stratification. Power is necessary for the sustainable existence of any socio-political system; the most important public interests intersect in it. The system of power bodies of post-Soviet Russia has been substantially restructured - some of them have been liquidated, others have only been organized, some have changed their functions, their personal composition has been updated. The previously closed upper stratum of society opened up to people from other groups.

The place of the monolith of the nomenklatura pyramid was occupied by numerous elite groupings that are in competition with each other. The elite has lost a significant part of the levers of power inherent in the old ruling class. This led to a gradual transition from political and ideological methods of management to economic ones. Instead of stable ruling class with strong vertical ties between its floors, many elite groups have been created, between which horizontal ties have intensified.

The sphere of administrative activity, where the role of political power has increased, is the redistribution of accumulated wealth. Direct or indirect involvement in the redistribution of state property is in modern Russia the most important factor determining the social status of management groups.

In the social structure of modern Russia, the features of the former etacratic society, built on power hierarchies, are preserved. However, at the same time, the revival of economic classes on the basis of privatized state property begins. There is a transition from stratification based on the basis of power (appropriation through privileges, distribution in accordance with the place of the individual in the party-state hierarchy) to stratification of the proprietary type (appropriation by profit and market-valued labor). Next to the power hierarchies, an “entrepreneurial structure” appears, which includes the following main groups: 1) large and medium-sized entrepreneurs; 2) small entrepreneurs (owners and managers of firms with minimal use of hired labor); 3) independent workers; 4) employees.

There is a tendency for the formation of new social groups claiming high places in the hierarchy of social prestige.

The prestige of professions is the second important dimension of social stratification. We can talk about a number of fundamentally new trends in the professional structure associated with the emergence of new prestigious social roles. The set of professions is becoming more complex, their comparative attractiveness is changing in favor of those that provide more substantial and faster material rewards. In this regard, assessments of the social prestige of various types of activity change, when physically or ethically “dirty” work is still considered attractive in terms of monetary reward.

The newly emerged and therefore "deficient" in terms of personnel, the financial sector, business, and commerce are filled with a large number of semi- and non-professionals. Entire professional strata are lowered to the "bottom" of social rating scales - their special training turned out to be unclaimed and the income from it is negligible.

The role of the intelligentsia in society has changed. As a result of the reduction of state support for science, education, culture and art, there was a drop in the prestige and social status of knowledge workers.

In modern conditions in Russia there has been a tendency to form a number of social strata belonging to the middle class - these are entrepreneurs, managers, certain categories of the intelligentsia, highly skilled workers. But this trend is contradictory, since the common interests of various social strata, potentially forming the middle class, are not supported by the processes of their convergence on such important criteria as the prestige of the profession and the level of income.

The level of income of various groups is the third essential parameter of social stratification. Economic status is the most important indicator of social stratification, because the level of income affects such aspects of social status as the type of consumption and lifestyle, the opportunity to do business, advance in the service, give children a good education, etc.

In 1997, the income received by the top 10% of Russians was almost 27 times higher than the income of the bottom 10%. The 20% of the wealthiest strata accounted for 47.5% of total cash income, while the 20% of the poorest received only 5.4%. 4% of Russians are super-wealthy - their income is approximately 300 times higher than the income of the bulk of the population.

The most acute problem in the social sphere today is the problem of mass poverty - the beggarly existence of almost 1/3 of the country's population is being conserved. Of particular concern is the change in the composition of the poor: today they include not only the traditionally low-income (disabled, pensioners, large families), the ranks of the poor have been joined by the unemployed and employed, whose wages (and this is a quarter of all those employed in enterprises) are below the subsistence level. Almost 64% of the population has incomes below the average (average income is considered to be 8-10 times the minimum wage per person) (see: Zaslavskaya T.I. The social structure of modern and certain society // Social sciences and modernity. 1997 No. 2. S. 17).

One of the manifestations of the declining standard of living of a significant part of the population was the growing need for secondary employment. However, it is not possible to determine the real scale of secondary employment and additional earnings (bringing even higher income than the main job). The criteria used today in Russia give only a conditional characterization of the income structure of the population, the data obtained are often limited and incomplete. Nevertheless, social stratification on an economic basis testifies to the ongoing process of restructuring of Russian society with great intensity. He was artificially limited in Soviet time and openly develops

The deepening of the processes of social differentiation of income groups is beginning to have a noticeable impact on the education system.

The level of education is another important criterion for stratification; education is one of the main channels of vertical mobility. During the Soviet period, higher education was accessible to many segments of the population, and secondary education was compulsory. However, such an education system was ineffective; higher education trained specialists without taking into account the real needs of society.

In modern Russia, the breadth of educational offerings is becoming a new differentiating factor.

In the new high-status groups, receiving a scarce and high-quality education is considered not only prestigious, but also functionally important.

Newly emerging professions require more qualifications and better training, and are better paid. As a consequence, education becomes an increasingly important entry factor into the professional hierarchy. The result is increased social mobility. It is less and less dependent on social characteristics family and is largely determined by the personal qualities and education of the individual.

An analysis of the changes taking place in the system of social stratification according to four main parameters speaks of the depth and inconsistency of the transformation process experienced by Russia and allows us to conclude that today it continues to retain the old pyramidal form (characteristic of pre-industrial society), although the content characteristics of its constituent layers have changed significantly.

In the social structure of modern Russia, six layers can be distinguished: 1) the upper one - the economic, political and power elite; 2) upper middle - medium and large entrepreneurs; 3) medium - small entrepreneurs, managers of the production sector, the highest intelligentsia, the working elite, military personnel; 4) basic - the mass intelligentsia, the main part of the working class, peasants, trade and service workers; 5) lower - unskilled workers, long-term unemployed, single pensioners; 6) "social bottom" - the homeless, released from places of detention, etc.

At the same time, a number of significant clarifications should be made related to the processes of changing the stratification system in the process of reforms:

Majority social formations has a mutually transitional character, has fuzzy, vague boundaries;

There is no internal unity of the newly emerging social groups;

There is a total marginalization of almost all social groups;

The new Russian state does not ensure the security of citizens and does not alleviate their economic situation. In turn, these dysfunctions of the state deform the social structure of society, give it a criminal character;

The criminal nature of class formation gives rise to a growing property polarization of society;

The current level of income cannot stimulate the labor and business activity of the bulk of the economically active population;

Russia retains a stratum of the population that can be called a potential resource for the middle class. Today, about 15% of those employed in national economy can be attributed to this layer, but its maturation to the "critical mass" will require a lot of time. So far, in Russia, the socio-economic priorities characteristic of the "classic" middle class can be observed only in upper layers social hierarchy.

A significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, which requires the transformation of the institutions of property and power, is a long process. Meanwhile, the stratification of society will continue to lose rigidity and unambiguity, taking the form of a blurred system in which layer and class structures are intertwined.

Undoubtedly, the formation of a civil society should become the guarantor of the renewal of Russia.

The problem of civil society in our country is of particular theoretical and practical interest. In terms of the nature of the dominant role of the state, Russia was initially closer to the eastern type of societies, but in our country this role was even more pronounced. According to A. Gramsci, "in Russia, the state represents everything, and civil society is primitive and vague."

In contrast to the West, a different type of social system has developed in Russia, based on the efficiency of power, and not the efficiency of property. One should also take into account the fact that for a long time in Russia there were practically no public organizations and such values ​​as the inviolability of the person and private property, legal thinking, which constitute the context of civil society in the West, remained undeveloped, the social initiative belonged not to associations of individuals, but to bureaucratic apparatus.

From the second half of the XIX century. the problem of civil society began to be developed in Russian social and scientific thought (B.N. Chicherin, E.N. Trubetskoy, S.L., Frank, etc.). The formation of civil society in Russia begins during the reign of Alexander I. It was at this time that separate spheres of civil life appeared that were not related to military and court officials - salons, clubs, etc. As a result of the reforms of Alexander II, zemstvos, various unions of entrepreneurs, charity institutions, and cultural societies arose. However, the process of formation of civil society was interrupted by the revolution of 1917. Totalitarianism blocked the very possibility of the emergence and development of civil society.

The era of totalitarianism led to a grandiose leveling of all members of society before the all-powerful state, washing out any groups pursuing private interests. The totalitarian state significantly narrowed the autonomy of sociality and civil society, securing control over all spheres of public life.

The peculiarity of the current situation in Russia is that the elements of civil society will have to be created largely anew. Let us single out the most fundamental directions of the formation of civil society in modern Russia:

Formation and development of new economic relations including pluralism of forms of ownership and the market, as well as the open social structure of society caused by them;

The emergence of a system of real interests adequate to this structure, uniting individuals, social groups and strata into a single community;

The emergence of various forms of labor associations, social and cultural associations, socio-political movements that make up the main institutions of civil society;

Renewal of relationships between social groups and communities (national, professional, regional, gender and age, etc.);

Creation of economic, social and spiritual prerequisites for the creative self-realization of the individual;

Formation and deployment of mechanisms of social self-regulation and self-government at all levels of the social organism.

The ideas of civil society found themselves in post-communist Russia in that peculiar context that distinguishes our country from Western states(with their strongest mechanisms of rational legal relations), and from the countries of the East (with their specifics of traditional primary groups). Unlike Western countries, the modern Russian state does not deal with a structured society, but, on the one hand, with rapidly emerging elite groups, and on the other, with an amorphous, atomized society dominated by individual consumer interests. Today, civil society in Russia is not developed, many of its elements have been forced out or "blocked", although during the years of reform there have been significant changes in the direction of its formation.

Modern Russian society is quasi-civil, its structures and institutions have many formal features of civil society formations. There are up to 50 thousand voluntary associations in the country - consumer associations, trade unions, environmental groups, political clubs, etc. However, many of them, having survived at the turn of the 80-90s. a short period of rapid growth, in recent years they have become bureaucratic, weakened, and lost their activity. An ordinary Russian underestimates group self-organization, and the most common social type has become an individual, closed in his aspirations for himself and his family. In overcoming such a state, due to the process of transformation, is the specificity of the current stage of development.

1. Social stratification - a system of social inequality, consisting of a set of interconnected and hierarchically organized social strata (strata). The stratification system is formed on the basis of such characteristics as the prestige of professions, the amount of power, income level and education level.

2. The theory of stratification makes it possible to model the political pyramid of society, identify and take into account the interests of individual social groups, determine the level of their political activity, the degree of influence on political decision-making.

3. The main purpose of civil society is to reach consensus among various social groups and interests. Civil society is a set of social formations united specifically by economic, ethnic, cultural, etc. interests realized outside the sphere of state activity.

4. The formation of civil society in Russia is associated with significant changes in the social structure. The new social hierarchy differs in many ways from the one that existed in the Soviet era and is characterized by extreme instability. The mechanisms of stratification are being rebuilt, social mobility is increasing, and many marginal groups with an indefinite status are emerging. Objective possibilities for the formation of a middle class are beginning to take shape. For a significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, it is necessary to transform the institutions of property and power, accompanied by a blurring of the boundaries between groups, a change in group interests and social interactions.

Literature

1. Sorokin P. A. Man, civilization, society. - M., 1992.

2. Zharova L. N., Mishina I. A. The history of homeland. - M., 1992.

3. HessAT., Markgon E., Stein P. sociology. V.4., 1991.

4. Vselensky M.S. Nomenclature. - M., 1991.

5. Ilyin V.I. The main contours of the system of social stratification of society / / Frontier. 1991. No. 1. P. 96-108.

6. Smelzer N. Sociology. - M., 1994.

7. Komarov M.S. Social stratification and social structure // Sotsiol. research 1992. No. 7.

8. Giddens E. Stratification and class structure // Sotsiol. research 1992. No. 11.

9. Political science, ed. Prof. M.A. Vasilika M., 1999

9. A.I. Kravchenko Sociology - Yekaterinburg, 2000.