The main signs of social stratification. The concept of “social stratification of society”
Societies; branch of sociology.
Encyclopedic YouTube
-
1 / 5
The division of society into strata is carried out on the basis of the inequality of social distances between them - the main property of stratification. Social strata are built vertically and in strict sequence according to indicators of well-being, power, education, leisure, and consumption.
In social stratification, a certain social distance is established between people (social positions) and a hierarchy of social layers is formed. Thus, unequal access of members of society to certain socially significant scarce resources is recorded by establishing social filters at the boundaries separating social strata.
For example, social strata can be distinguished by levels of income, knowledge, power, consumption, nature of work, and leisure time. The social strata identified in society are assessed according to the criterion of social prestige, which expresses the social attractiveness of certain positions.
The simplest stratification model is dichotomous - dividing society into elites and masses. In the earliest archaic social systems, the structuring of society into clans was carried out simultaneously with the establishment of social inequality between and within them. This is how “initiates” appear, that is, those who are initiated into certain social practices (priests, elders, leaders) and the uninitiated - laymen. Internally, such a society can further, if necessary, stratify as it develops. This is how castes, estates, classes, etc. appear.
Modern ideas about the stratification model that has developed in society are quite complex - multi-layered (polychotomous), multidimensional (carried out along several axes) and variable (allow the coexistence of many stratification models): qualifications, quotas, certification, determination of status, ranks, benefits, privileges, etc. preferences.
The most important dynamic characteristic of society is social mobility. According to the definition of P. A. Sorokin, “social mobility is understood as any transition of an individual, or a social object, or a value created or modified through activity, from one social position to another.” However, social agents do not always move from one position to another; it is possible to move the social positions themselves in the social hierarchy; such movement is called “positional mobility” (vertical mobility) or within the same social stratum (horizontal mobility). Along with social filters that set barriers to social movement, there are also “social elevators” in society that significantly accelerate this process (in a crisis society - revolutions, wars, conquests, etc.; in a normal, stable society - family, marriage, education , property, etc.). The degree of freedom of social movement from one social layer to another largely determines what kind of society it is - closed or open.
Warner's theory of 6 layers in American society.
W. L. Warner put forward a theory about the prestige of various strata of society based on what people say about each other.
According to Warner's theory, the population of modern Western society is divided into six strata:
- Rich aristocrats.
- First generation millionaires.
- Highly educated intellectuals (doctors, lawyers), business people (capital owners).
- Office workers, secretaries, ordinary doctors, school teachers and other white-collar workers.
- Skilled workers (“blue collar”). Electricians, mechanics, welders, turners, drivers, etc.
- Homeless vagabonds, beggars, criminals and the unemployed.
Distinction between historical forms of social stratification
Historical forms of social stratification differ in the degree of severity of the “filters” on the levels of social stratification.
Castes- these are groups of people in a social hierarchy where social elevators are completely turned off, so people have no opportunity to build a career.
Estates- these are groups of people in a social hierarchy, where strict “filters” severely limit social mobility and slow down the movement of “elevators”.
Layers- these are groups of people in a social hierarchy, where the main “filter” for those wishing to make a career is the availability of financial resources.
Slavery- this is a social, economic and legal type of deprivation of a person of any rights, accompanied by an extreme degree of inequality. It arose in ancient times and existed de jure in some countries until the end of the 20th century; de facto it still exists in a number of countries.
Professional stratification- division of society into layers, based on the success of fulfilling roles, the presence of knowledge, skills, education, etc.
Appears in two forms:
- Hierarchy of main professional groups (interprofessional stratification);
- Stratification within each professional group (intraprofessional stratification).
Interprofessional stratification
Indicators of interprofessional stratification are:
- The importance of the profession for the survival and functioning of the group, the social status of the profession;
- The level of intelligence required to successfully perform professional activities.
First of all, professions associated with the organization and control of professional groups themselves are recognized as socially significant. For example, the misconduct of a soldier or the dishonesty of a company employee will not have a significant impact on others, but the overall negative status of the group to which they belong significantly affects the entire army or company.
To successfully perform the function of organization and control, a higher level of intelligence is required than for physical work. This type of work is better paid. In any society, activities related to organization and control and intellectual activity are considered more professional. These groups have a higher rank in interprofessional stratification.
However, there are exceptions:
- The possibility of superimposing higher levels of a lower professional stratum on the lower levels of the next, but higher professional stratum. For example, the leader of construction workers becomes a foreman, and foremen can be superimposed on lower-level engineers.
- A sharp violation of the established ratio of layers. These are periods of revolution; if the layer does not disappear at all, the previous ratio is quickly restored.
Intraprofessional stratification
Representatives of each professional stratum are divided into three groups, in turn, each group is divided into many subgroups:
Intraprofessional strata may have different names, but they exist in all societies.
Annotation: The purpose of the lecture is to reveal the concept of social stratification associated with the concept of social layer (stratum), to describe models and types of stratification, as well as types of stratification systems.
The stratification dimension is the identification of layers (strata) within communities, which allows for a more detailed analysis of the social structure. According to the theory of V.F. Anurin and A.I. Kravchenko, the concepts of classification and stratification should be distinguished. Classification is the division of society into classes, i.e. very large social groups that share some common characteristic. The stratification model represents a deepening and detailing of the class approach.
In sociology, the vertical structure of society is explained using such a concept, passed down from geology, as "strata"(layer). Society is presented as an object that is divided into layers that pile on top of each other. The identification of layers in the hierarchical structure of society is called social stratification.
Here we should dwell on the concept of “stratum of society”. Until now we have used the concept of “social community”. What is the relationship between these two concepts? Firstly, the concept of a social layer is used, as a rule, to characterize only the vertical structure (that is, the layers are layered on top of each other). Secondly, this concept indicates that representatives of very different communities belong to the same status in the social hierarchy. One layer may include representatives of both men and women, generations, and different professional, ethnic, racial, religious, and territorial communities. But these communities are included in the layer not entirely, but partially, since other representatives of communities may be included in other layers. Thus, social strata consist of representatives of various social communities, and social communities are represented in various social strata. We are not talking about equal representation of communities in strata. For example, women are more likely than men to be represented in strata located on the lower rungs of the social ladder. Representatives of professional, ethnic, racial, territorial and other communities of people are also unevenly represented in social communities.
When we talk about the social status of communities of people, we are dealing with averaged ideas, whereas in reality within a social community there is a certain “scatter” of social statuses (for example, women at different levels of the social ladder). When they talk about social strata, they mean representatives of different communities of people who have the same hierarchical status (for example, the same income level).
Models of social stratification
Usually in social stratification there are three largest strata - the lower, middle and upper strata of society. Each of them can also be divided into three more. Based on the number of people belonging to these strata, we can build stratification models that give us a general idea of real society.
Of all the societies known to us, the upper strata have always been a minority. As one ancient Greek philosopher said, the worst are always in the majority. Accordingly, there cannot be more “best” (rich) than middle and lower ones. As for the “sizes” of the middle and lower layers, they can be in different proportions (larger either in the lower or in the middle layers). Based on this, it is possible to construct formal models of the stratification of society, which we will conventionally call “pyramid” and “rhombus”. In the pyramidal model of stratification, the majority of the population belongs to the social bottom, and in the diamond-shaped stratification model - to the middle strata of society, but in both models the top are a minority.
Formal models clearly show the nature of the distribution of the population among various social strata and the features of the hierarchical structure of society.
Types of social stratification
Due to the fact that the resources and power that separate hierarchically located social layers can be economic, political, personal, informational, intellectual and spiritual in nature, stratification characterizes the economic, political, personal, informational, intellectual and spheres of social life. Accordingly, we can distinguish the main types of social stratification - socio-economic, socio-political, socio-personal, socio-informational and socio-spiritual.
Let's look at the varieties socio-economic stratification.
In the public consciousness, stratification is represented primarily in the form of dividing society into “rich” and “poor”. This, apparently, is not accidental, because it is the differences in the level of income and material consumption that “catches” the eye, By income level such strata of society are distinguished as beggars, poor, wealthy, rich and the super rich.
The social “lower classes” on this basis represent beggars and poor. The poor, who represent the “bottom” of society, have the income necessary for the physiological survival of a person (so as not to die from hunger and other factors that threaten human life). As a rule, beggars subsist on alms, social benefits or other sources (collecting bottles, searching for food and clothing among garbage, petty theft). However, some may also be considered beggars. categories workers if the size of their wages allows them to satisfy only physiological needs.
The poor include people who have incomes at the level necessary for a person’s social survival and maintaining their social status. In social statistics, this level of income is called the social subsistence minimum.
The middle strata of society in terms of income are represented by people who can be called “wealthy”, “prosperous”, etc. Income secured p exceed the cost of living. To be wealthy means to have the income necessary not only for social existence (simple reproduction of oneself as a social being), but also for social development (expanded reproduction of oneself as a social being). The possibility of expanded social reproduction of a person implies that he can increase his social status. The middle strata of society, in comparison with the poor, have different clothes, food, housing, their leisure time, social circle, etc. change qualitatively.
The upper strata of society by income level are represented by rich and super rich. There is no clear criterion for distinguishing between the wealthy and the rich, the rich and the super-rich. Economic criterion wealth – liquidity of available assets. Liquidity refers to the ability to be sold at any moment. Consequently, the things that the rich own tend to increase in value: real estate, masterpieces of art, shares of successful businesses, etc. Income at the level of wealth goes beyond even expanded social reproduction and acquires a symbolic, prestigious character, determining a person’s belonging to the upper strata. The social status of the rich and super-rich requires certain symbolic reinforcement (usually luxury goods).
Rich and poor strata (layers) in society can also be distinguished based on ownership of the means of production. To do this, it is necessary to decipher the very concept of “ownership of the means of production” (in the terminology of Western science - “control over economic resources”). Sociologists and economists distinguish three components in property - ownership of the means of production, disposal of them, and their use. Therefore, in this case we can talk about how, to what extent certain layers can own, manage and use the means of production.
The social lower classes of society are represented by strata that are not owners of the means of production (neither the enterprises themselves nor their shares). At the same time, among them we can identify those who cannot and use them as employees or tenants (usually the unemployed), who are at the very bottom. Slightly higher are those who can use the means of production of which they are not the owners.
The middle strata of society include those who are usually called small owners. These are those who own the means of production or other means of generating income (retail outlets, services, etc.), but the level of these incomes does not allow them to expand their business. The middle strata can also include those who manage enterprises that do not belong to them. In most cases, these are managers (with the exception of top managers). It should be emphasized that the middle strata also include people who have nothing to do with property, but receive income through their highly qualified work (doctors, scientists, engineers, etc.).
The social “top” includes those who receive income at the level of wealth and super-wealth thanks to property (living off property). These are either the owners of large enterprises or a network of enterprises (controlling shareholders), or senior managers of large enterprises participating in the profits.
Income depends both on the size of the property and on qualification (complexity) of labor. Income level is the dependent variable of these two main factors. Both property and the complexity of the work performed practically lose their meaning without the income they provide. Therefore, it is not the profession (qualification) itself, but the way it provides a person’s social status (mainly in the form of income) that is a sign of stratification. In the public consciousness this manifests itself as the prestige of professions. The professions themselves can be very complex, requiring high qualifications, or quite simple, requiring low qualifications. At the same time, the complexity of a profession is not always equivalent to its prestige (as is known, representatives of complex professions may receive wages that are inadequate to their qualifications and amount of work). Thus, stratification by property AND professional stratification| make sense only when they are built within stratification by income level. Taken together, they represent the socio-economic stratification of “society”.
Let's move on to the characteristics socio-political stratification of society. The main feature of this stratification is the distribution political power between strata.
Political power is usually understood as the ability of any strata or communities to extend their will in relation to other strata or communities, regardless of the desire of the latter to submit. This will can be spread in a variety of ways - with the help of force, authority or law, legal (legal) or illegal (illegal) methods, openly or covertly (form, etc.). In pre-capitalist societies, different classes had different amounts of rights and responsibilities (the “higher”, the more rights, the “lower”, the more responsibilities). In modern countries, all strata have, from a legal point of view, the same rights and responsibilities. However, equality does not yet mean political equality. Depending on the scale of ownership, level of income, control over the media, position and other resources, different strata have different opportunities to influence the development, adoption and implementation of political decisions.
In sociology and political science, the upper strata of society that have a “controlling stake” in political power are usually called political elite(sometimes the concept of “ruling class” is used). Thanks to financial opportunities, social connections, control over the media and other factors, the elite determines the course of political processes, nominates political leaders from its ranks, and selects from other strata of society those who have shown their special abilities and do not threaten its well-being. At the same time, the elite is distinguished by a high level of organization (at the level of the highest state bureaucracy, the top of political parties, the business elite, informal connections, etc.).
Inheritance within the elite plays an important role in the monopolization of political power. In a traditional society, political inheritance carried out by transferring titles and class affiliation to children. In modern societies, inheritance within the elite occurs in a variety of ways. This includes elite education, elite marriages, protectionism in career advancement, etc.
With triangular stratification, the rest of society consists of the so-called masses - virtually powerless, elite-controlled, politically unorganized strata. With diamond-shaped stratification, the masses form only the lower strata of society. As for the middle strata, most of their representatives are politically organized to one degree or another. These are various political parties, associations representing the interests of professional, territorial, ethnic or other communities, producers and consumers, women, youth, etc. The main function of these organizations is to represent the interests of social strata in the structure of political power by putting pressure on this power. Conventionally, such layers that, without possessing real power, exert pressure in an organized form on the process of preparation, adoption and implementation of political decisions in order to protect their interests can be called interest groups, pressure groups (in the West, lobby groups protecting the interests of certain communities). Thus, three layers can be distinguished in political stratification - “elite”, “interest groups” and “masses”.
Social and personal stratification studied within the framework of sociological socionics. In particular, we can distinguish groups of sociotypes, conventionally called leaders and performers. Leaders and performers, in turn, are divided into formal and informal. Thus, we get 4 groups of sociotypes: formal leaders, informal leaders, formal performers, informal performers. In socionics, the connection between social status and belonging to certain sociotypes is theoretically and empirically substantiated. In other words, innate personal qualities influence position in the system of social stratification. There is individual inequality associated with differences in types of intelligence and energy-information exchange.
Social information stratification reflects the access of various layers to society’s information resources and communication channels. Indeed, access to information goods, compared to access to economic and political goods, was an insignificant factor in the social stratification of traditional and even industrial societies. In the modern world, access to economic and political resources is increasingly beginning to depend on the level and nature of education, on access to economic and political information. Previous societies were characterized by the fact that each layer, distinguished by economic and political characteristics, also differed from others in terms of education and awareness. However, socio-economic and socio-political stratification depended little on the nature of access of a particular layer to the information resources of society.
Quite often, the society that replaces the industrial type is called informational, thus denoting the special importance of information in the functioning and development of the society of the future. At the same time, information becomes so complicated that access to it is associated not only with the economic and political capabilities of certain layers, but this requires an appropriate level of professionalism, qualifications, and education.
Modern economic information can only be accessible to economically educated layers. Political information also requires appropriate political and legal education. Therefore, the degree of accessibility of a particular education for various strata becomes the most important sign of the stratification of a post-industrial society. The nature of the education received is of great importance. In many countries of Western Europe, for example, representatives of the elite receive social and humanitarian education (law, economics, journalism, etc.), which in the future will make it easier for them to maintain their elite affiliation. Most representatives of the middle strata receive engineering and technical education, which, while creating the possibility of a prosperous life, nevertheless does not imply wide access to economic and political information. As for our country, over the last decade the same trends have also begun to emerge.
Today we can talk about what is beginning to take shape socio-spiritual stratification as a relatively independent type of stratification of society. The use of the term “cultural stratification” is not entirely correct, given that culture can be physical, spiritual, political, economic, etc.
The social and spiritual stratification of society is determined not only by inequality in access to spiritual resources, but also inequality of opportunities spiritual influence of certain layers on each other and on society as a whole. We are talking about the possibilities of ideological influence that the “tops,” “middle layers,” and “bottoms” have. Thanks to control over the media, influence on the process of artistic and literary creativity (especially cinema), on the content of education (what subjects and how to teach in the system of general and vocational education), the “tops” can manipulate public consciousness, especially its state, as public opinion. Thus, in modern Russia, in the system of secondary and higher education, hours for teaching natural and social sciences are being reduced, at the same time, religious ideology, theology and other non-scientific subjects are increasingly penetrating into schools and universities, which do not contribute to the adaptation of young people to modern society and economic modernization .
In sociological science there are two methods of studying stratification society - one-dimensional and multidimensional. One-dimensional stratification is based on one characteristic (this can be income, property, profession, power or some other characteristic). Multivariate stratification is based on a combination of various characteristics. Univariate stratification compared to multivariate stratification is a simpler task.
Economic, political, informational and spiritual types of stratification are closely related and intertwined. As a result, social stratification is something unified, a system. However position of the same layer in different types of stratification may not always be the same. For example, the largest entrepreneurs in the political stratification have a lower social status than the highest bureaucracy. Is it then possible to single out one integrated position of various layers, their place in the social stratification of society as a whole, and not in one or another of its types? Statistical approach (method averaging statuses in various types of stratification) is impossible in this case.
In order to build a multidimensional stratification, it is necessary to answer the question on which attribute the position of a particular layer primarily depends, which attribute (property, income, power, information, etc.) is “leading”, and which is “leading”. slave." Thus, in Russia, politics traditionally dominates economics, art, science, the social sphere, and computer science. When studying various historical types of societies, it is discovered that their stratification has its own internal hierarchy, i.e. a certain subordination of its economic, political and spiritual varieties. On this basis, sociology identifies various models of the system of stratification of society.
Types of stratification systems
There are several main types of inequality. In the sociological literature, three systems are usually distinguished: stratification - caste, estate and class. The caste system is the least studied. The reason for this is that such a system existed in the form of remnants until recently in India; as for other countries, the caste system can be judged approximately on the basis of surviving historical documents. In a number of countries there was no caste system at all. What is caste stratification?
In all likelihood, it arose as a result of the conquest of some ethnic groups by others, which formed hierarchically located strata. Caste stratification is supported by religious rituals (castes have different levels of access to religious benefits; in India, for example, the lowest caste of untouchables is not allowed to participate in the purification ritual), the heredity of caste affiliation and almost complete closedness. It was impossible to move from caste to another caste. Depending on the ethno-religious affiliation in caste stratification, the level of access to economic (primarily in the form of division of labor and professional affiliation) and political (by regulating rights and obligations) resources is determined. Consequently, the caste type of stratification is based on the spiritual-ideological (religious) type inequalities
Unlike the caste system, class stratification is based on political and legal inequality, first of all, inequalities. Class stratification is carried out not on the basis of “wealth”, but
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 discovered a close connection between three fundamental concepts of sociology - social structure, social composition and social stratification. We expressed the structure through a set of statuses and likened it to the empty cells of a honeycomb. It is located, as it were, in a horizontal plane, and 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, from the point of view of social composition, all Russians, women, engineers, non-partisans 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 layers, 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 the magnet in, and they all lined up in a clear order. Stratification is a certain “oriented” composition of the population.
What “orients” large social groups? It turns out that society has an unequal assessment of the meaning and role of each status or group. A plumber or a janitor is valued lower than a lawyer and a minister. Consequently, high statuses and the people who occupy them are better rewarded, have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should be higher. That's what 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 benefits themselves (there may just be a lot of them), but access channels to them. A house abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a holiday 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.
Thus, 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 is always unequal. This is how the arrangement of social strata arises according to the criterion of unequal access to power, wealth, education and prestige.
2. MEASURING STRATIFICATION
Let us imagine a social space in which The vertical and horizontal distances are not equal. This or roughly this is how P. Sorokin thought about social stratification - the man who was the first in the world to give a complete theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, and confirmed his theory with the help of a huge empirical material extending over the entire human history.
Points in space are social statuses. The distance between the turner and the milling machine is one, it is horizontal, and the distance between the worker and the foreman is different, it is vertical. The master is the boss, the worker is the subordinate. They have different social ranks. Although the matter can be imagined in such a way that the master and the 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.
Interesting fact
Among the Alans, the deformation of the skull served as a true indicator of the social differentiation of society: among tribal leaders, elders of clans and priesthood, it was elongated.
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 period of time, say one month or 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, etc. up to $75,000 and above.
Education is measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university.
Let's say primary school means 4 years, junior high - 9 years, high school - 11, college - 4 years, university - 5 years, graduate school - 3 years, doctorate - 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 decisions you make (power- opportunity
Rice. Four dimensions of social stratification. People occupying the same positions on all dimensions constitute one stratum (the figure shows an example of one of the strata).
impose your will or decisions on other people regardless of their wishes).
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 foreman - to 7-10 people. Three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars, years, people. Prestige stands outside this series, since it is a subjective indicator.
Prestige is respect for status established in public opinion.
Since 1947, the US National Opinion Research Center has periodically conducted surveys of ordinary Americans selected from a national sample 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 ranges from 100 (highest score) to 1 (lowest score). The second column "scores" shows the average score received by this type of activity in the sample.
good, average, slightly worse than average, worst activity. List II included almost all occupations from the chief judge, minister and doctor to plumber and janitor. By calculating the average for each occupation, sociologists obtained a public assessment of the prestige of each type of work in points. Arranging them in hierarchical order from the most respected to the least prestigious, they received a rating, or scale of professional prestige. Unfortunately, in our country, periodic representative surveys of the population on professional prestige have never been conducted. Therefore, you will have to use American data (see table).
Comparison of data for different years (1949, 1964, 1972, 1982) shows the stability of the prestige scale. The same types of occupations enjoyed the greatest, average, and least prestige during these years. Lawyer, doctor, teacher, scientist, banker, pilot, engineer received consistently high marks. Their position on the scale changed slightly: the doctor was in second place in 1964, and in first in 1982, the minister was in 10th and 11th places, respectively.
If the upper part of the scale is occupied by representatives of creative, intellectual labor, then the lower part is occupied by representatives of predominantly physical unskilled workers: driver, welder, carpenter, plumber, janitor. They have the least status respect. People occupying the same positions along the four dimensions of stratification constitute one stratum.
For each status or individual one can find a place on any scale.
A classic example is the comparison between a police officer and a college professor. On the education and prestige scales, the professor ranks above the policeman, and on the income and power scales, the policeman ranks above the professor. Indeed, the professor has less power, the income is somewhat lower than that of the policeman, but the professor has more prestige and years of training. By marking both with dots on each scale and connecting their lines, we get a stratification profile.
Each scale can be considered separately and designated as 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-speech and age.
Rice. Stratification profile of a college professor and a police officer.
3. BELONGING TO THE STRATE
Affiliation measured by subjective and objective indicators:
subjective indicator - a feeling of belonging to a given group, identification with it;
objective indicators - income, power, education, prestige.
Thus, large fortune, high education, great power and high professional prestige are necessary conditions for you to be classified as one of the highest stratum of society.
Stratum is a social stratum of people who have similar objective indicators on four stratification scales.
Concept stratification (stratum - layer, facio- I do) came to sociology from geology, where it denotes the vertical arrangement of layers of various rocks. If you cut the earth's crust at a certain distance, you will find that under the layer of chernozem there is a layer of clay, then sand, etc. Each layer consists of homogeneous elements. The same goes for a stratum - it includes people who have the same income, education, power and prestige. There is no stratum that includes highly educated people with power and powerless poor people engaged in unprestigious work. The rich are included in the same stratum with the rich, and the middle ones with the average.
In a civilized country, a major mafioso cannot belong to the highest stratum. Although he has very high incomes, perhaps 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 qualify according to objective indicators. However, he lacks the main thing - recognition of "significant others".
“Significant others” refer to two large social groups: members of the upper class and the general population. The higher stratum will never recognize him as “one of their own” because he compromises the entire group as a whole. The population will never recognize mafia activity as a socially approved activity, since it contradicts the morals, traditions and ideals of a given society.
Let's conclude: belonging to a stratum has two components - subjective (psychological identification with a certain stratum) and objective (social entry into a certain stratum).
Social entry has undergone a certain historical evolution. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. With the advent of slavery, it unexpectedly intensified. slavery- a form of the most rigid consolidation of people in unprivileged strata. Castes-lifelong assignment of an individual to his (but not necessarily unprivileged) stratum. In medieval Europe, lifelong affiliation was weakened. Estates imply legal attachment to a stratum. Traders who became rich bought titles of nobility and thereby moved to a higher class. Estates were replaced by classes - open to all strata, not implying any legitimate (legal) way of being assigned to one stratum.
4. HISTORICAL TYPES OF STRATIFICATION
Well 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, or substantially limited.
Open called a society where movement from one stratum to another is not officially limited in any way.
Slavery- an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality.
Slavery has evolved historically. There are two forms of it.
At patriarchal slavery (primitive form) a slave had all the rights of a junior member of the family: he lived in the same house with his owners, participated in public life, married free people, and inherited the owner’s property. It was forbidden to kill him.
At classic slavery (mature form) the slave was completely enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and had no family. It was allowed to kill him. He did not own property, but was himself considered the property of the owner (a “talking instrument”).
Ancient slavery in Ancient Greece and plantation slavery in the USA before 1865 are closer to the second form, and servitude in Gusi of the 10th-12th centuries is closer to the first. The sources of slavery differ: the ancient one was replenished mainly through conquest, and servitude was debt slavery, or indentured servitude. The third source is criminals. In medieval China and the Soviet Gulag (extra-legal slavery), criminals found themselves in the position of slaves.
At the mature stage slavery turns into slavery. When they talk about slavery as a historical type of stratification, they mean 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 layer is deprived of all rights and freedoms. This does not exist in castes and estates, not to mention classes.
Caste system not as ancient as the slave system, and less widespread. While almost all countries went through slavery, of course to varying degrees, 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.
Castecalled 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 enshrined in the Hindu religion (it is now clear why castes are not very common). According to its canons, people live more than one life. Each person falls into the appropriate caste depending on what his behavior was in his previous life. If he is bad, then after his next birth he must 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 sub-castes. The untouchables are special - they do not belong to any caste and occupy the lowest position. During industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is increasingly becoming 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 rights and obligations that are fixed by custom or legal law and are inheritable.
A class system that includes several strata is characterized by hierarchy, expressed in inequality of position and privileges. The classic example of class organization was Europe, 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 classes: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia, from the second half of the 18th century, the class division into nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistines (middle urban strata) was established. Estates were based on land ownership.
The rights and duties of each class were determined by legal law and sanctified by religious doctrine. Membership in the class was determined inheritance. Social barriers between classes were quite strict, so social mobility existed not so much between, but within classes. Each estate included many strata, ranks, levels, professions, and ranks. Thus, only nobles could engage in public service. The aristocracy was considered a military class (knighthood).
The higher a class stood in the social hierarchy, the higher its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were fully tolerated. Individual mobility was sometimes 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
In its history, Russia has experienced more than one wave of restructuring of the social space, when the previous social structure collapsed, the world of values changed, guidelines, patterns and norms of behavior were formed, entire strata perished, and new communities were born. On the threshold of the 21st century. Russia is once again going through a complex and contradictory process of renewal.
In order to understand the changes taking place, 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 80s.
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 ethacratic 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 power elite (“nomenklatura”), the key positions in which were occupied by the political and military elites, and the economic and cultural elites occupied a subordinate place.
An ethacratic society is characterized by a fusion of power and property; predominance of state ownership; state-monopoly mode of production; dominance of centralized distribution; militarization of the economy; class-stratified 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 overwhelming majority of material, labor, and information resources; social mobility in the form of selection, organized from above, of the most obedient and loyal people to the system.
A distinctive characteristic of the social structure of a Soviet-type society was that it was not class-based, although in terms of the parameters of the professional structure and economic differentiation it remained superficially similar to the stratification of Western societies. Due to the elimination of the basis of class division - private ownership of the means of production - classes were gradually destructured.
A monopoly of state property, in principle, cannot produce a class society, since all citizens are hired workers of the state, differing only in the amount of powers delegated to them. The distinctive features of social groups in the USSR were special functions, formalized as the legal inequality of these groups. Such inequality led to the isolation of these groups and the destruction of “social elevators” that served for upward social mobility. Accordingly, the life and consumption of elite groups became increasingly iconic, reminiscent of the phenomenon called “prestigious consumption.” All these features make up 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 main mechanism of social regulation is the state, dividing people into legally unequal classes.
From the first years of Soviet power, for example, the peasantry was formalized into a special class: its political rights were limited until 1936. The inequality of rights of workers and peasants manifested itself for many years (attachment to collective farms through the system of a passport-free regime, privileges for workers in receiving education and promotion, registration 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 massive and heterogeneous class of prisoners was secured in the legal and administrative order.
In the 60-70s. in conditions of chronic shortages and limited purchasing power of money, the process of leveling wages is intensifying, with a parallel fragmentation of the consumer market into closed “special sectors” and an increasing role of privileges. The material and social situation of groups involved in distribution processes in the spheres of trade, supply, and transport has improved. The social influence of these groups increased as shortages 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 opportunity to achieve the most favorable results for itself; The spirit of entrepreneurship also embraces the lower social strata - numerous groups of private traders, manufacturers of “leftist” products, and “shabab” builders are formed. Thus, a doubling of the social structure occurs, when fundamentally different social groups bizarrely coexist within its framework.
Important social changes that occurred in the Soviet Union in 1965 - 1985 are associated with the development of the 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 residents migrated to the city. However, urbanization in our country was clearly deformed: the massive movements of rural migrants to the city were not accompanied by a corresponding development of social infrastructure. A huge mass of extra people, social outsiders, has appeared. Having lost touch with the rural subculture and unable to join the urban one, migrants created a typically marginal subculture.
The figure of a migrant from village to city is a classic model of the marginal: no longer a peasant, not yet a worker; the norms of the village subculture have been undermined, the urban subculture has not yet been assimilated. The main sign of marginalization is the severance 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 inconsistency of the education system with the real needs of production, etc. Closely related to this are the social causes of marginalization - hypertrophy of the accumulation fund to the detriment of the consumption fund, which gave rise to an extremely low standard of living and commodity shortages. 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 social ties “horizontally”. The state sought 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 and 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 its educational level and professional positions, the Soviet middle class 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 peculiar paradox: millions of people were bourgeois in their culture and aspirations, but were included in a socio-economic system that denied these aspirations.”
Under the influence of socio-economic and political reforms in the second half of the 80s. Great changes have taken place in Russia. Compared to Soviet times, the structure of Russian society has undergone significant changes, although it retains many of the same features. The transformation of the institutions of Russian society has seriously affected its social structure: relations of property and power 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 model of multidimensional stratification of modern Russia, we will take four main parameters: power, prestige of professions, income level 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; it combines the most important public interests. The system of government bodies in post-Soviet Russia has been significantly restructured - some of them have been liquidated, others have just been organized, some have changed their functions, and their personnel have 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 taken by numerous elite groups that were in a competitive relationship with each other. The elite has lost much of the leverage of the old ruling class. This led to a gradual transition from political and ideological methods of management to economic ones. Instead of a stable ruling class with strong vertical ties between its levels, many elite groups were created, between which horizontal ties intensified.
An area of management 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 in modern Russia is the most important factor determining the social status of management groups.
The social structure of modern Russia retains the features of the former étacratic society, built on power hierarchies. However, at the same time, the revival of economic classes on the basis of privatized state property begins. There is a transition from stratification according to 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 according to the amount of 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) hired workers.
There is a tendency to form new social groups that claim 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 range of professions is becoming more complex, and their comparative attractiveness is changing in favor of those that provide more substantial and quicker material rewards. In this regard, assessments of the social prestige of different types of activity change, when physically or ethically “dirty” work is still considered attractive from the point of view of monetary reward.
The newly emerged and therefore “scarce” in terms of personnel, the financial sphere, business, and commerce are filled with a large number of semi- and non-professionals. Entire professional strata have been relegated 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 in state support for science, education, culture and art, there was a decline 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, and highly qualified workers. But this trend is contradictory, since the common interests of the various social strata that potentially form the middle class are not supported by the processes of their convergence according to such important criteria as the prestige of the profession and income level.
The income level of various groups is the third significant parameter of social stratification. Economic status is the most important indicator of social stratification, because the level of income influences such aspects of social status as the type of consumption and lifestyle, the opportunity to start a business, advance in career, 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 wealthiest 20% accounted for 47.5% of total cash income, while the poorest 20% 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 at present is the problem of mass poverty - almost 1/3 of the country's population continues to live in poverty. Of particular concern is the change in the composition of the poor: today they include not only the traditionally low-income (disabled people, pensioners, people with many children), the ranks of the poor have been supplemented by the unemployed and the employed, whose wages (and this is a quarter of all employees in enterprises) are below the subsistence level. Almost 64% of the population have incomes below the average level (average income is considered to be 8-10 times the minimum wage per person) (see: Zaslavskaya T.I. Social structure of modern and certain society // Social sciences and modernity. 1997 No. 2. P. 17).
One of the manifestations of the declining standard of living of a significant part of the population is the growing need for secondary employment. However, it is not possible to determine the real scale of secondary employment and additional jobs (bringing even higher income than the main job). The criteria used today in Russia provide only a conditional description of the income structure of the population; the data obtained are often limited and incomplete. Nevertheless, social stratification on an economic basis indicates that the process of restructuring of Russian society continues with great intensity. It was artificially limited in Soviet times and is being developed openly
The deepening processes of social differentiation of groups by income level 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 schools 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 new high-status groups, obtaining 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 is becoming an increasingly important factor at the entrance to the professional hierarchy. As a result, social mobility increases. It depends less and less on the social characteristics of the family and is more 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 shape (characteristic of pre-industrial society), although the substantive 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 security elite; 2) upper middle - medium and large entrepreneurs; 3) middle - small entrepreneurs, managers of the production sector, the highest intelligentsia, the working elite, military personnel; 4) basic - the mass intelligentsia, the bulk of the working class, peasants, trade and service workers; 5) lower - unskilled workers, long-term unemployed, single pensioners; 6) “social bottom” - homeless people released from prison, etc.
At the same time, a number of significant clarifications should be made related to the processes of changing the stratification system during the reform process:
Most social formations are mutually transitional in nature and have fuzzy, vague boundaries;
There is no internal unity of 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 and give it a criminal character;
The criminal nature of class formation gives rise to growing property polarization of society;
The current level of income cannot stimulate labor and business activity of the bulk of the economically active population;
In Russia there remains a layer of the population that can be called a potential resource of the middle class. Today, about 15% of those employed in the national economy can be classified as belonging to this layer, but its maturation to a “critical mass” will take a lot of time. So far in Russia, the socio-economic priorities characteristic of the “classical” middle class can only be observed in the upper layers of the social hierarchy.
A significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, which requires a 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.
Of course, the formation of a civil society should be the guarantor of the process of 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 society, but in our country this role was expressed even more clearly. As A. Gramsci put it, “in Russia the state represents everything, and civil society is primitive and vague.”
Unlike the West, a different type of social system has developed in Russia, which is based on the efficiency of power, rather than 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 individual and private property, legal thinking, which constitute the context of civil society in the West, remained undeveloped; social initiative belonged not to associations of private individuals, but to the bureaucratic apparatus.
From the second half of the 19th 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 emerged that were not associated with military and court officials - salons, clubs, etc. As a result of the reforms of Alexander II, zemstvos, various unions of entrepreneurs, charitable institutions, and cultural societies emerged. 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 the grandiose leveling of all members of society before the all-powerful state, the washing out of 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 highlight the most fundamental directions in 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 determined 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;
Renewing relationships between social groups and communities (national, professional, regional, gender, age, etc.);
Creation of economic, social and spiritual prerequisites for creative self-realization of the individual;
Formation and deployment of mechanisms of social self-regulation and self-government at all levels of the social body.
The ideas of civil society found themselves in post-communist Russia in a unique context that distinguishes our country both from Western states (with their strongest mechanisms of rational legal relations) and from Eastern countries (with their specificity 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 forming elite groups, and on the other, with an amorphous, atomized society in which individual consumer interests predominate. Today in Russia, civil society is not developed, many of its elements are crowded out or “blocked”, although over 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 of the formal characteristics 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 activity. The average Russian underestimates group self-organization, and the most common social type has become the individual, closed in his aspirations to himself and his family. Overcoming this state, caused by the process of transformation, is the specificity of the current stage of development.
1. Social stratification is a system of social inequality, consisting of a set of interconnected and hierarchically organized social layers (strata). The stratification system is formed on the basis of such characteristics as the prestige of professions, the amount of power, income level and level of education.
2. The theory of stratification allows you 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 achieve consensus between various social groups and interests. Civil society is a set of social entities 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 during Soviet times and is characterized by extreme instability. Stratification mechanisms are being restructured, social mobility is increasing, and many marginal groups with an uncertain status are emerging. Objective opportunities for the formation of a middle class are beginning to emerge. For a significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, a transformation of the institutions of property and power is necessary, accompanied by a blurring of boundaries between groups, changes 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. HessIN., 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 // Rubezh. 1991. No. 1. P.96-108.
6. Smelser N. Sociology. - M., 1994.
7. Komarov M. S. Social stratification and social structure // Sociol. research 1992. No. 7.
8. Giddens E. Stratification and class structure // Sociol. research 1992. No. 11.
9. Political Science, ed. Prof. M.A. Vasilika M., 1999
9. A.I. Kravchenko Sociology - Ekaterinburg, 2000.
An important element of social life is social stratification (differentiation), i.e. stratification of society into groups, layers. It is social stratification that shows how unequal the social status of members of society is, their social inequality. Different scientists have different definitions of what causes inequality. M. Weber saw these reasons in economic criteria (income), social prestige (status) and the attitude of a member of society to political circles. Parsons identified such differentiating characteristics as:
1. what a person has from birth (gender, ethnicity);
2. acquired status (work activity);
3. what a person has (property, moral values, rights).
Considering the history of society and those communities that existed previously, we can say that social stratification is a natural inequality between members of society, which has its own internal hierarchy and is regulated by various institutions.
It is important to distinguish between the concepts of “inequality” and “injustice”. “Inequality” is a natural and conditioned process, and “injustice” is a manifestation of selfish interests. Any person should understand that egametarism (the doctrine of the need for equality) is an unreal phenomenon that cannot simply exist. But many used this idea in the struggle for power.
There is stratification:
one-dimensional (a group is distinguished by one characteristic);
multidimensional (31
group having a set of common characteristics).
P. Sorokin tried to create a universal stratification map:
1. one-sided groups (on one basis):
a) biosocial (race, gender, age);
b) sociocultural (gender, linguistic, ethnic groups, professional, religious, political, economic);
2. multilateral (several characteristics): family, tribe, nation, estates, social class.
In general, the manifestation of social stratification must be considered in a specific country and at a specific time. Therefore, those groups that are considered must be in constant movement, they must be in a society that functions fully. Therefore, social stratification is closely related to social mobility.
A change in position in the stratification system may be due to the following factors:
1. vertical and horizontal mobility;
2. change in social structure;
3. the emergence of a new stratification system.
Moreover, the third factor is a very complex process that brings into the life of society many changes in the economic sphere, ideological principles, norms and values.
For a long time, our country has been rejecting such a phenomenon as inequality. It is important to understand that inequality in society is simply necessary. After all, without it, society will cease to function, since the members of this society will no longer have goals and will not strive to achieve them. Why should a schoolchild study well, go to college, study subjects, look for a good job, because everyone will be equal anyway. Social inequality stimulates the activities of members of society.
To describe the system of inequality between groups of people in sociology, the concept of “social stratification” is widely used - hierarchically organized structures of social inequality (ranks, status groups) that exist in any society. The term “social stratification” was introduced as a scientific term by Pitirim Sorokin, who borrowed this concept from geology. Functionalism, in the tradition of Emile Durkheim, derives social inequality from the division of labor: mechanical (natural, gender and age) and organic (arising as a result of training and professional specialization). Marxism focuses on issues of class inequality and exploitation.
Stratification implies that certain social differences between people acquire the character of a hierarchical ranking. The easiest way to understand the realities of social stratification is to determine the place of an individual among other people. Every person occupies many positions in society. These positions cannot always be ranked according to their importance.
To designate the whole picture of differences between people, there is a special concept in relation to which social stratification is a special case. This is social differentiation, showing differences between macro- and microgroups, as well as individuals, both in terms of objective characteristics (economic, professional, demographic) and subjective ones (value orientations, style of behavior). This concept was used by Herbert Spencer when describing the process of the emergence of functionally specialized institutions and division of labor, universal for the evolution of society.
Stratification theory discusses the problem of equality and inequality. Equality means: personal equality, equality of opportunity, equality of life opportunities and equality of results. Inequality, as is obvious, presupposes the same types of relationships, but only in reverse.
Inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification; hence, four main dimensions of stratification can be distinguished: income, power, education and prestige.
Income (property) is measured in monetary units that an individual or family receives over a certain period of time.
Property, by definition, is the basic economic relationship between individual and group participants in the production process. Property can be private, group, public.
Education is measured by the number of years of schooling or university education.
Power is measured by the number of people affected by a decision. Power is the ability of a social subject, in its own interests, to determine the goals and directions of other social subjects, to manage the material, information and status resources of society, to form and impose rules and norms of behavior.
Wealth and poverty define a multidimensional stratification hierarchy. Along with the above components of measurement is social prestige.
Prestige is respect for status established in public opinion.
Types of stratification systems
When it comes to the main types of stratification systems, a description of caste, slave, class and class differentiation is usually given. At the same time, it is customary to identify them with historical types of social structure, observed in the modern world or already irretrievably a thing of the past. Another approach assumes that any given society consists of combinations of various stratification systems and many of their transitional forms.
Social stratification is social inequality between people, which is hierarchical in nature and regulated by the institutions of public life. The nature of social inequality and the method of its establishment form a stratification system. Basically, stratification systems are identified with historical types of social structure and are called: caste, slave, estate and class.
To describe the social organism in the history of different societies, it will be rational to talk about nine types of stratification systems:
1. physical and genetic. Separation of groups according to natural characteristics (gender, age, strength, beauty). The weak have a degraded position;
2. caste. Ethnic differences are at the core. Each caste has its place in society, and it occupies this place as a result of the performance by this caste of certain functions in the system of division of labor. There is no social mobility, since caste membership is hereditary. This is a closed society;
3. estate-corporate. Groups have their own responsibilities and rights. Belonging to a class is often inherited. There is a relative closeness of the group;
4. etacratic. Inequality here depends on the position of the group in the power-state hierarchies, the distribution of resources, and privileges. Groups on this basis have their own lifestyle, well-being, prestige of the positions they occupy;
5. social and professional. The conditions and content of work (special skills, experience) are important here. The hierarchy in this system is based on certificates (diplomas, licenses) reflecting the level of a person’s qualifications. The validity of these certificates is maintained by the government;
6. class. There are differences in the nature and size of property (although the political and legal statuses are the same), level of income, and material wealth. Belonging to any class is not established by law and is not inherited;
7. cultural and symbolic. Different groups have different opportunities to receive socially significant information, to be the bearer of sacred knowledge (previously these were priests, in modern times - scientists);
8. cultural-normative. Differences in people's lifestyles and norms of behavior lead to differences in respect and prestige (differences in physical and mental labor, manners of communication);
9. socio-territorial. Uneven division of resources between regions, use of cultural institutions, access to housing and work are different.
Of course, we understand that any society combines even several stratification systems, and the types of stratification systems presented here are “ideal types.”
Types of social stratification
Social stratification is hierarchically organized structures of social inequality (ranks, status groups, etc.) that exist in any society.
In sociology, there are four main types of stratification: slavery, castes, estates and classes. It is customary to identify them with historical types of social structure, observed in the modern world or already irretrievably a thing of the past.
Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality. Slavery has evolved historically. There are two forms of slavery:
1. under patriarchal slavery, the slave had all the rights of the youngest member of the family: he lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free people, and inherited the owner’s property. It was forbidden to kill him;
2. under classical slavery, the slave was completely enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and did not have a family. It was allowed to kill him. He did not own property, but was himself considered the property of the owner (“a talking instrument”).
Caste is a social group in which a person owes membership solely by birth.
Each person falls into the appropriate caste depending on what his behavior was in a previous life: if he was bad, then after his next birth he must fall into a lower caste, and vice versa.
Estate is a social group that has rights and obligations that are enshrined in custom or legal law and are inheritable.
A class system that includes several strata is characterized by hierarchy, expressed in inequality of position and privileges. The classic example of class organization was Europe, where at the turn of the 14th-15th centuries. society was divided into the upper classes (nobility and clergy) and the unprivileged third class (artisans, merchants, peasants).
In the X - XIII centuries. There were three main classes: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia from the second half of the 18th century. The class division into nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistinism was established. Estates were based on land ownership.
The rights and duties of each class were determined by legal law and sanctified by religious doctrine. Membership in the estate was determined by inheritance. Social barriers between classes were quite strict, so social mobility existed not so much between classes as within them. Each estate included many strata, ranks, levels, professions, and ranks. The aristocracy was considered a military class (knighthood).
The class approach is often opposed to the stratification approach.
Classes are social groups of politically and legally free citizens. The differences between these groups lie in the nature and extent of ownership of the means of production and the product produced, as well as in the level of income received and personal material well-being.
Social mobility
When studying the inequality of members of society, it is important that they are in a moving, functioning society. Therefore, social mobility is taken into account, i.e., the transition of an individual from one social status to another (a child becomes a student, a bachelor becomes a family man).
The term “social mobility” was introduced by P. Sorokin. He called social mobility the transition of an individual from one social position to another. Exist:
horizontal social mobility;
vertical social mobility.31
These movements occur within social space.
P. Sorokin spoke about individual (career) and group (migration) social mobility. Of course, the process of group mobility is more complex.
Vertical mobility is the movement of a social object from one social stratum to another, different in level. Individual vertical mobility practically does not change the stratification and political culture, since its meaning lies mainly in passing through some kind of hierarchical system (promotion in position, income).
The reasons for mass movements must be sought in changes in the economic sphere, a political revolution or a change in ideological guidelines. Group vertical social mobility makes major changes to the stratification structure and changes the existing hierarchy. P. Sorokin named the following institutions as channels of vertical mobility: the army, the church, the university. But they are not always effective. There is also upward mobility (promotion in rank, approval of fashion) and downward mobility (as a rule, forced) - deprivation of ranks, degradation.
Horizontal social mobility is the movement of a social object to another group without changing status. This includes changing jobs in the same position, etc.). Typically, horizontal mobility refers to movements in geographic space. There are main historical types of migrations:
1. movement of entire peoples (for example, the Great Migration of Peoples in the 4th - 5th centuries, which destroyed the Roman Empire);
2. moving from city to village and back. But the process of urbanization prevails;
3. displacements associated with socio-economic reasons (development of empty territories);
4. movements associated with emergency circumstances - natural disasters, revolutions, religious persecution (for example, the Bible describes the departure of the Jews from Egypt).
In connection with the spread of such a phenomenon as displacement, diasporas (an ethnic group living outside its place of origin) began to emerge. They contribute to the rapprochement of ethnic groups and cultures, but often become a source of conflicts and tension in society.
We can say that one of the conditions for the normal development of society, its functioning, the free development of the individual and the establishment of the principles of social justice is freedom of social movement.
People are in constant motion, and society is in development. The totality of social movements of people, i.e. changes in one's status is called social mobility.
Mobility is an independent indicator of the progress of society. There are two main types of social mobility - vertical and horizontal.
Pitirim Sorokin, one of the largest theorists of social stratification, noted that where there is powerful vertical mobility, there is life and movement. The decline of mobility gives rise to social stagnation. He distinguished between vertical (rising and falling) mobility, associated with the transition from one layer to another, and horizontal, in which movements occur within one layer, but the status and prestige of the position do not change. True, P. Sorokin calls social mobility “vertical circulation channels.”
We will consider such social institutions as the army, church, school, family, property, which are used as channels of social circulation (mobility).
The army functions as a channel not in peacetime, but in wartime. In wartime, soldiers advance through talent and courage. Having risen in rank, they use the resulting power as a channel for further advancement and accumulation of wealth. They have the opportunity to loot, rob, and capture.
The church, as a channel of social mobility, has moved a large number of people from the bottom to the top of society. P. Sorokin studied the biographies of 144 Roman Catholic popes and found that 28 came from the lower strata, and 27 from the middle strata.
The school as an institution of education and upbringing, no matter what specific form it takes, has served in all centuries as a powerful channel of social mobility. High competition for admission to colleges and universities in many countries is explained by the fact that education is the fastest and most accessible channel of upward mobility.
Property manifests itself most clearly in the form of accumulated wealth and money. P. Sorokin established that not all, but only some occupations and professions contribute to the accumulation of wealth. According to his calculations, in 29% of cases this allows the occupation of a manufacturer, in 21% - a banker and stockbroker, in 12% - a merchant. The professions of artists, artists, inventors, statesmen and the like do not provide such opportunities.
Family and marriage are channels of vertical mobility if representatives of different social statuses enter into a union. For example, an example of such mobility can be seen in Antiquity. According to Roman law, a free woman who marries a slave becomes a slave herself and loses her status as a free citizen.
It should be noted that the term “social mobility” was not popular among domestic sociologists of the Soviet period. Soviet authors considered it inconvenient to use the terminology proposed by the anti-communist P.A. Sorokin, who was once subjected to devastating criticism by V.I. Lenin.
Along with “social stratification”, “social mobility” was also rejected as an alien and unnecessary concept.
Topic 6. Sociology of national relations (Ethnosociology)
Society, understood as a “product of interaction between people,” as the integrity of social relations of people to nature and to each other, consists of many heterogeneous elements, among which the economic activity of people and their relationships in the process of material production are the most significant, basic, but not the only ones. On the contrary, the life of society consists of many different activities, social relations, public institutions, ideas and other social elements.
All these phenomena of social life are mutually interconnected and always appear in a certain relationship and unity.
This unity is permeated by material and mental processes, and the integrity of social phenomena is in the process of constant change, taking on various forms.
The study of society as the integrity of social relations in all its various manifestations requires grouping the heterogeneous elements of society into separate entities in accordance with their common characteristics and then identifying the interrelations of such groups of phenomena.
One of the important elements of the social structure of society is the social group. Of great importance is the socio-territorial group, which is an association of people that has a unified relationship to a certain territory they have developed. An example of such communities can be: a city, a village, and in some aspects - a separate region of a city or state. In these groups there is a relationship between them and the environment.
Territorial groups have similar social and cultural characteristics that arose under the influence of certain situations. This happens even despite the fact that the members of this group have differences: class, professional, etc. And if we take the characteristics of various categories of the population of a certain territory, then we can judge the level of development of a given territorial community in social terms.
Basically, territorial communities are divided into two groups: rural and urban populations. The relationship between these two groups developed differently at different times. Of course, the urban population predominates. Basically, urban culture today, with its patterns of behavior and activities, is penetrating more and more into the countryside.
The settlement of people is also important, because regional differences affect the economic, cultural state, and social appearance of a person - they have their own lifestyle. This is all influenced by the movement of migrants.
The highest level of development of a socio-territorial community is the people. The next stage is national territorial communities.
The starting point is the primary territorial community, which is holistic and indivisible. An important function of this community is the socio-demographic reproduction of the population. It ensures the satisfaction of people's needs through the exchange of certain types of human activities. An important condition for reproduction is the self-sufficiency of elements of the artificial and natural environment.
It is also important to take into account the mobility of territorial communities. In some cases, the living environment for reproduction requires the formation of a combination of urban and rural environments, taking into account the natural environment (agglomeration).
One of the important elements of social structure is the social group. A social group such as a socio-ethnic community plays an important role in society. Ethnicity is a collection of people formed in a certain territory who have common cultural values, language, and psychological make-up. The defining aspects of this group are everyday life, clothing, housing, i.e. everything that is called the culture of an ethnic group.
The formation of an ethnos occurs on the basis of the unity of economic life and territory, although many ethnic groups in their further development lost their common territories (settlers).
There are certain properties that separate one ethnic group from another: folk art, language, traditions, norms of behavior, i.e. that culture in which people live their entire lives and pass it on from generation to generation (ethnic culture).
Historians and sociologists have created a theory of the development of ethnicity: from tribal associations to totemic clans, and then to clans that united and formed nationalities, and then nations arose. This theory has constantly undergone various changes.
L.N. had his own point of view on the issue of ethnic communities. Gumilyov: ethnicity is the basis of all elements and forms of social structure. Gumilyov viewed all history as a relationship between ethnic groups, which have their own structure and behavior that distinguishes one ethnic group from another. Gumilyov spoke about the concept of a subethnic group, which is an unseparated part of the ethnic group, but has its own differences (Pomors in Russia).
From Gumilyov’s point of view, there are such forms of communities as convictia - people united by living conditions (family), and consortia - people united by common interests (party). We see that Gumilyov spoke about the definitions of social communities and organizations accepted in sociology.
We can say that an ethnos is only that cultural community that recognizes itself as an ethnos and has ethnic self-awareness. Ethnic phenomena change very slowly, sometimes over the course of centuries.
If the sign of ethnic self-awareness is not lost, then no matter how small the group of people is, it does not disappear (for example, “decossackization” did not lead to the disappearance of such an ethnic group as the Cossacks).
Today there are more than 3,000 different ethnic groups living in the world. With the question of ethnic communities, questions of interethnic conflicts arise. This is due to religious intolerance. The residence of different ethnic groups on the same territory contributes to interethnic conflicts, and sometimes the consequence of this is the infringement of the rights of an ethnic minority and mainly the interpretation of the interests of large ethnic groups (for example, the interethnic policy of the CPSU).
To avoid this, each person must combine communication skills with people of other nationalities, respect for the language of another people, and knowledge of the language of the indigenous nationality.
Thus, the process of development of socio-ethnic communities is complex and contradictory and largely depends on the economic, social and political conditions of society.
Settlement sociology studies the relationship between the social development of people and their position in the settlement system. Settlement - the distribution of settlements across the inhabited territory, the distribution of the population among settlements and, finally, the placement of people within the boundaries of the settlement.
For the sociology of settlement, it is fundamentally important that settlement is determined by the development of productive forces (the development of relations in the “society-nature” system) and the nature of social relations (the essence of connections and relationships in the “society-person” system). Resettlement ultimately becomes a category of sociology for three reasons:
1. up to a certain historical milestone, it has a socially differentiated character;
2. factors of a socio-economic nature determine the functioning of settlement as a set of territorially localized settlements;
3. connection of people and the conditions specified above, i.e. living in certain settlements becomes a prerequisite for their unification into social communities of a special kind and thereby for their transformation into the subject of sociology.
The most profound expression of social differentiation of settlement is the difference between city and countryside. The basis of this difference is the separation of handicraft production from agriculture. The separation of these most important types of production led to the separation of the city from the countryside. The division of labor also includes assigning people to certain types. This distribution by type of labor, which is always tied to the territory, gives rise to the phenomenon of settlement as a place of residence.
Demography is the statistical study of the human population (its number and density, distribution and vital statistics: births, marriages, deaths, etc.).
Modern demographic studies also look at the population explosion, the interaction between population and economic development, and the effects of birth control, illegal immigration, and labor distribution.
The major components of population change are few in number. A closed population (when there are no processes of immigration and emigration) can change according to a simple equation:
The size of a closed population at the end of a certain period of time is equal to the size of the population at the beginning of that period plus the number of births minus the number of deaths.
In other words, the closed population grows only through births and declines only through deaths. In general, the planet's population is closed.
However, the population of continents, countries, regions, cities, villages is rarely closed. If we omit the assumption of a closed population, then immigration and emigration affect population growth and decline in the same way as deaths and births. Then the population (open) at the end of the period is equal to the number at the beginning of the period plus births during this period minus migration from the country.
Therefore, to study demographic changes, it is necessary to know the level of fertility, mortality and migration.
An ethnic community is a group of people who are connected by common origin and long-term coexistence. In the process of long-term joint life of people within each group, common and stable characteristics were developed that distinguished one group from another. Such features include language, features of everyday culture, emerging customs and traditions of a particular people or ethnic group. (In some languages, and often in scientific literature, the terms “people” and “ethnic group” are used as synonyms.) These characteristics are reproduced in the ethnic self-awareness of the people, in which they are aware of their unity, first of all, their common origin and thereby their ethnic kinship . At the same time, it distinguishes itself from other peoples, who have their own origin, their own language and their own culture.
The ethnic self-awareness of a people sooner or later manifests itself in its entire self-awareness, which records its origin, inherited traditions, and its understanding of its place among other peoples and ethnic groups.
Ethnic communities are also called consanguineous. These include clans, tribes, nationalities, nations, families, and clans. They are united on the basis of genetic connections and form an evolutionary chain, the beginning of which is the family.
A family is the smallest consanguineous group of people related by common origin. It includes grandparents, fathers, mothers and their children.
Several families entering into an alliance form a clan. The clans, in turn, unite, and in turn, unite into clans.
A clan is a group of blood relatives who bear the name of a putative ancestor. The clan maintained common ownership of the land, blood feud, and mutual responsibility. As relics of primitive times, clans have survived to this day in various parts of the world (in the Caucasus, Africa and China, among the American Indians). Several clans united to form a tribe.
A tribe is a higher form of organization, covering a large number of clans and clans. They have their own language or dialect, territory, formal organization (chief, tribal council), and common ceremonies. Their number reaches tens of thousands of people. In the course of further cultural and economic development, tribes were transformed into nationalities, and those - at higher stages of development - into nations.
A nationality is an ethnic community that occupies a place on the ladder of social development between a tribe and a nation. Nationalities emerge during the era of slavery and represent a linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. The nationality exceeds the tribe in number; consanguineous ties do not cover the entire nationality.
A nation is an autonomous community of people not limited by territorial boundaries. Representatives of one nation no longer have a common ancestor and common origin. It must have a common language and religion, but the nationality that unites them was formed thanks to a common history and culture. The nation emerges during the period of overcoming feudal fragmentation and the emergence of capitalism. During this period, classes that reached a high degree of political organization, an internal market and a unified economic structure, their own literature and art took shape.
Conflict is a clash of interests of different social communities, a form of manifestation of social contradiction. Conflict is an open clash that has reached an aggravated phase between the oppositely directed desires, needs, interests of two or more social subjects (individuals, groups, large communities) that are in a certain connection and interdependence. All functions of conflicts can be reduced to two main ones, based on the duality of the nature of this phenomenon. Conflict cannot be underestimated, since, firstly, conflict is a phenomenon that affects the development of society, serving as a means of its transformation and progress. Secondly, conflicts quite often manifest themselves in a destructive form, entailing dire consequences for society. Based on this, constructive and destructive functions of conflict are distinguished. Thus, the first include such functions of conflict as the release of psychological tension, the communicative and connecting function and, as a consequence, conflict has a consolidating role in society, and it acts as a driving force of social change. The second group of functions of social conflict is negative, destructive, causing destabilization of relations in the social system, destroying social society and group unity.
Classification of social conflicts is carried out on various grounds:
1. the classification may be based on the reasons for the conflict (objective, subjective reasons);
2. classification according to the characteristics of social contradictions that underlie their occurrence (the duration of the contradictions, their nature, role and significance, the sphere of their manifestation, etc.);
3. based on the processes of development of conflicts in society (scale, severity of conflicts, time of its occurrence);
4. according to the characteristic features of the subjects opposing it (individual, collective, social conflicts), etc.
It is customary to distinguish between vertical and horizontal conflicts, the characteristic feature of which is the amount of power that opponents have at the time the conflict begins (boss - subordinate, buyer - seller).
According to the degree of openness of conflict relationships, open and hidden conflicts are distinguished. Open conflicts are characterized by a clearly expressed clash of opponents (disputes, quarrels). When hidden, there are no external aggressive actions between the conflicting parties, but indirect methods of influence are used.
According to the degree of distribution, conflicts are distinguished as personal or psychological, interpersonal or socio-psychological, social.
Personal conflict affects only the structure of the individual’s consciousness and the human psyche. Interpersonal conflicts are a clash between individuals and a group or two or more people, each of whom does not represent the group, i.e. groups are not involved in the conflict.
Intergroup conflict occurs when the interests of members of formal and informal groups conflict with the interests of another social group.
The division of conflicts into types is very arbitrary. There is no hard boundary between species. In practice, conflicts arise: organizational vertical interpersonal, horizontal open intergroup, etc.
In this section we will consider the most important problems of sociology, namely the social stratification of the population, the emergence of poverty and inequality and, on this basis, the social stratification of society. Let’s finish our analysis with the question of the social movements of people from group to group, which received the special name of social mobility.
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
1.1 Initial representations
When we talked about the subject of sociology, we discovered a close connection between the three fundamental concepts of sociology - social structure, social composition and social stratification.
We expressed the structure through a set of statuses and likened it to the empty cells of a honeycomb. It is located, as it were, in a horizontal plane, and 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. When we filled the empty cells with people, each status became 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, from the point of view of social composition, all Russians, women, engineers, non-partisans 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 social strata arranged in a vertical order, in particular the poor, the prosperous, the rich.
If we resort to a physical analogy, then the social composition is in no way an ordered collection of iron filings. But then they placed a magnet in them, and they all lined up in a clear order.
Stratification is a certain “oriented” composition of the population.
What “orients” large social groups? It turns out that society has an unequal assessment of the meaning and role of each status or group. A plumber or a janitor is valued lower than a lawyer and a minister. Consequently, high statuses and the people who occupy them are better rewarded, have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should be higher.
So we have 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 benefits themselves (there may be many of them), but the channels of access to them. A house abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a holiday 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.
Thus, social structure arises in relation to the social division of labor, and social stratification arises in relation to the social distribution of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits. And it is always unequal. This is how the arrangement of social strata arises according to the criterion of unequal access to power, wealth, education and prestige.
1.2 Measuring stratification
Let us imagine a social space in which vertical and horizontal distances are unequal. This or approximately this is how P. Sorokin thought about social stratification - the man who was the first in the world to give a complete theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, and confirmed his theory with the help of a huge empirical material extending over the entire human history.
Points in space are social statuses. The distance between the turner and the milling machine is one, it is horizontal, and the distance between the worker and the foreman is different, it is vertical. The master is the boss, the worker is the subordinate. They have different social ranks. Although the matter can be imagined in such a way that the master and the worker will be located at an equal distance from each other.
This will happen if we consider both of them not as boss and subordinate, but as just workers performing different job functions. But then we will move from the vertical to the horizontal plane.
Inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. It has four measuring rulers, or coordinate axes. All of them are located vertically and next to each other:
education;
Income is measured in rubles or dollars, which is received by an individual (individual income) or a family (family income) during a certain period of time, say one month or year.
Four Dimensions of Social Stratification
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, etc. - up to $75,000 and above.
Income is a stream of cash receipts per unit of time
Education is measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university. Let's say primary school means 4 years, junior high - 9 years, high school - 11, college - 4 years, university - 5 years, graduate school - 3 years, doctoral studies - 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 who are affected by the decision you make (power is the ability to impose your will or decisions on other people regardless of their wishes).
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 foreman - to 7-10 people.
The three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars, years, people. Prestige stands outside this series, since it is a subjective indicator. Prestige is respect for status established in public opinion. Since 1947, the US National Opinion Research Center has periodically conducted surveys of ordinary Americans selected from a national sample to determine the social prestige of various professions. Respondents are asked to rate each of 90 professions (types of occupation) on a 5-point scale: excellent (best), good, average, slightly worse than average, worst occupation. The list included almost all occupations from the chief judge, minister and doctor to plumber and janitor.
By calculating the average for each occupation, sociologists obtained a public assessment of the prestige of each type of work in points. Arranging them in hierarchical order from the most respected to the least prestigious, they received a rating, or scale of professional prestige. Unfortunately, in our country, periodic representative surveys of the population on professional prestige have never been conducted.
A classic example is the comparison between a police officer and a college professor. On the education and prestige scales, the professor ranks above the policeman, and on the income and power scales, the policeman ranks above the professor. Indeed, the professor has less power, the income is somewhat lower than that of the policeman, but the professor has more prestige and the number of years of study. By marking both with points on each scale and connecting them with lines, we obtain a stratification profile.
Stratification Profile of a College Professor and a Police Officer
Each scale can be considered separately and designated as an independent concept.
In sociology, there are three basic types of stratification:
economic (income);
political (power);
professional (prestige).
and many non-basic ones, for example cultural-speech and age.
1.3 Stratum membership
Belonging is measured by subjective and objective indicators:
subjective indicator - a feeling of belonging to a given group, identification with it;
objective indicators - income, power, education, prestige.
Thus, a large fortune, high education, great power and high professional prestige are necessary conditions for you to be classified as one of the highest stratum of society.
Stratum is a social layer of people who have similar objective indicators on four scales of stratification.
The concept of stratification (stratum - layer, facio - I do) came to sociology from geology, where it denotes the vertical arrangement of layers of various rocks. If you cut the earth's crust at a certain distance, you will find that under the layer of chernozem there is a layer of clay, then sand, etc. Each layer consists of homogeneous elements. Also the stratum - it includes people who have the same income, education, power and prestige. There is no stratum that includes highly educated people with power and powerless poor people engaged in unprestigious work.
In a civilized country, a major mafioso cannot belong to the highest stratum. Although he has very high incomes, perhaps 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 qualify according to objective indicators. However, he lacks the main thing - recognition of "significant others".
“Significant others” refer to two large social groups: members of the upper class and the general population. The higher stratum will never recognize him as “one of their own” because he compromises the entire group as a whole. The population will never recognize mafia activity as a socially approved activity, since it contradicts the morals, traditions and ideals of a given society.
Let us conclude: belonging to a stratum has two components - subjective (psychological identification with a certain stratum) and objective (social entry into a certain stratum).
Social entry has undergone a certain historical evolution. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. With the advent of slavery, it unexpectedly intensified.
Slavery is a form of the most rigid consolidation of people in unprivileged strata. Castes are the lifelong assignment of an individual to his (but not necessarily unprivileged) stratum. In medieval Europe, lifelong affiliation was weakened. Estates imply legal attachment to a stratum. Traders who became rich bought titles of nobility and thereby moved to a higher class. Estates were replaced by classes - strata open to all, which did not imply any legitimate (legal) way of being assigned to one stratum.
So, we come to a new topic - historical types of social stratification.
1.4 Historical types of stratification
In sociology, four main types of stratification are known - slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies and the last type - open ones.
A closed society is one where social movements from lower to higher strata are either completely prohibited or significantly limited. An open society is a society where movement from one stratum to another is not officially limited in any way.
Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality.
Slavery has evolved historically. There are two forms:
Under patriarchal slavery (primitive form), the slave had all the rights of the youngest member of the family: he lived in a house with the owners, participated in public life, married free people, and inherited the owner’s property. It was forbidden to kill him.
In classical slavery (the mature form), the slave was completely enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and did not have a family. It was allowed to kill him. He did not own property, but was himself considered the property of the owner (a “talking instrument”).
Ancient slavery in Ancient Greece and plantation slavery in the USA before 1865 are closer to the second form, and servitude in Rus' of the 10th-12th centuries is closer to the first. The sources of slavery differ: the ancient one was replenished mainly through conquest, and servitude was debt, or indentured servitude. The third source is criminals. In medieval China and in the Soviet Gulag (extra-legal slavery), criminals found themselves in the position of slaves.
At the mature stage, slavery turns into slavery. When they talk about slavery as a historical type of stratification, they mean its highest stage. Slavery is the only form of social relations in history when one person is the property of another and when the lower stratum is deprived of all rights and freedoms. This does not exist in castes and estates, not to mention classes. The caste system is not as ancient as the slave system and is less widespread. While almost all countries went through slavery, of course, to varying degrees, 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.
Caste is a social group (stratum) in which a person owes membership solely by his birth. A person cannot move from his caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. The caste position is enshrined in the Hindu religion (it is now clear why castes are not very common). According to its canons, people live more than one life. Each person falls into the appropriate caste depending on what his behavior was in his previous life. If he is bad, then after his next birth he must fall into a lower caste, and vice versa.
There are 4 main castes in India: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), Shudras (workers and peasants) - and about 5 thousand minor castes and semi-castes. The untouchables are special - they do not belong to any caste and occupy the lowest position. During industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is increasingly becoming class-based, while the village, where 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 is a social group that has rights and responsibilities fixed by custom or legal law and inherited.
A class system that includes several strata is characterized by hierarchy, expressed in inequality of position and privileges. The classic example of class organization was Europe, where at the turn of the 14th-15th centuries society was divided into the upper classes (nobility and clergy) and the unprivileged third class (artisans, merchants, peasants). In the X-XIII centuries there were three main classes: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia, from the second half of the 18th century, the class division into nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistines (middle urban strata) was established. Estates were based on land ownership.
The rights and duties of each class were determined by legal law and sanctified by religious doctrine. Membership in the estate was inherited. Social barriers between classes were quite strict, so social mobility existed not so much between classes as within classes.
Each estate included many strata, ranks, levels, professions, and ranks. Thus, only nobles could engage in public service. The aristocracy was considered a military class (knighthood).
The higher a class stood in the social hierarchy, the higher its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were fully tolerated. Individual mobility was sometimes 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.
1.5 Classes
Class is understood in two senses - broad and narrow.
In a broad sense, a class is understood as a large social group of people who own or do not own the means of production, occupy a certain place in the system of social division of labor and are characterized by a specific way of generating income.
Since private property arose during the birth of the state, it is believed that already in the Ancient East and ancient Greece there were two opposing classes - slaves and slave owners. Feudalism and capitalism are no exception - and here there were antagonistic classes: exploiters and exploited. This is the point of view of K. Marx, which is still adhered to today not only by domestic, but also by many foreign sociologists.
In a narrow sense, class is any social stratum in modern society that differs from others in income, education, power and prestige. The second point of view prevails in foreign sociology, and is now acquiring citizenship rights in domestic sociology.
In modern society, based on the described criteria, there are not two opposite, but several transitional strata, called classes. Some sociologists find six classes, others count five, etc. According to the narrow interpretation, there were no classes either under slavery or under feudalism. They appeared only under capitalism and mark the transition from a closed to an open society.
Although ownership of the means of production plays an important role in modern society, its importance is gradually declining. The era of individual and family capitalism is becoming a thing of the past. The 20th century is dominated by collective capital. Hundreds or thousands of people can own shares in one company. There are more than 50 million shareholders in the United States.
And although ownership is dispersed among a huge number of owners, only those who hold a controlling stake are able to make key decisions. Often they are senior managers - presidents and directors of the company, chairmen of boards of management.
The managerial stratum is gradually coming to the fore, pushing aside the traditional class of owners. The concept of "managerial revolution", which appeared thanks to J. Bernheim in the middle of the 20th century, reflects the new reality - the "splitting of the atom" of property, the disappearance of classes in the old sense, the entry into the historical arena of non-owners (after all, managers are hired workers) as leading class or stratum of modern society.
However, there was a time when the concept of "class" was not considered an anachronism. On the contrary, it just appeared and reflected the onset of a new historical era. This happened at the end of the 18th century, when a new historical force loudly declared itself - the bourgeoisie, which decisively pushed the noble class into the background.
The emergence of the bourgeoisie on the historical stage had in those years the same revolutionary impact on society as the emergence of the managerial class has today. Thus, we move on to the topic of the emergence of classes.
1.6 The emergence of classes
The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries destroyed the feudal system and brought to life social forces that led to the formation of the class system.
While the number of the three estates - the clergy, nobility and peasantry - either did not increase or decreased, the number of the “fourth estate” increased sharply: the development of trade and industry gave rise to new professions - entrepreneurs, merchants, bankers, merchants.
A large petty bourgeoisie emerged. The ruin of the peasants and their move to the city led to a reduction in their numbers and the emergence of a new stratum that feudal society did not know - hired industrial workers.
Gradually, a new type of economy was formed - capitalist, which corresponds to a new type of social stratification - the class system. The growth of cities, industry and services, the decline in power and prestige of the landed aristocracy and the strengthening of the status and wealth of the bourgeoisie radically changed the face of European society. New professional groups that entered the historical arena (workers, bankers, entrepreneurs, etc.) strengthened their positions and demanded privileges and recognition of their status. Soon they became equal in importance to the previous classes, but they could not become new classes.
The term "estate" reflected a historically receding reality. The new reality was best reflected by the term “class.” It expressed the economic status of people who were able to move up and down.
The transition from a closed society to an open one demonstrated the increased ability of a person to independently build his own destiny. Class restrictions collapsed, everyone could rise to the heights of social recognition, move from one class to another, with effort, talent and hard work. And although even in modern America only a few succeed in this, the expression “self-made man” holds steady here.
Thus, money and commodity-money relations played the role of a detonator. They did not take into account class barriers, aristocratic privileges, or inherited titles. Money equalized everyone, it is universal and available to everyone, even those who did not inherit fortunes and titles.
A society dominated by ascribed statuses gave way to a society where achieved statuses began to play the main role. "This is an open society.
1.7 Classes and estates in pre-revolutionary Russia
Before the revolution in Russia, the official division of the population was estate, not class. Society was divided into two main classes - tax-paying (peasants, burghers) and non-tax-paying classes (nobility, clergy).
Within each class there were smaller classes and layers. The state provided them with certain rights enshrined in legislation. They were guaranteed only insofar as the classes performed certain duties, for example, grew grain or were engaged in crafts. The apparatus of officials regulated relations between classes, which was its “duty.”
Thus, the class system was inseparable from the state system.
That is why we can define estates as socio-legal groups that differ in the scope of rights and obligations in relation to the state.
According to the 1897 census, the entire population of the country, which is 125 million people, was distributed into the following classes: nobles - 1.5% of the total population, clergy - 0.5%, merchants - 0.3%, burghers - - 10.6%, peasants 77.1%, Cossacks - 2.3%. The first privileged class in Russia was considered the nobility, the second - the clergy. The rest were not among the privileged.
Nobles were divided into hereditary and personal. Not all of them were landowners; many were in public service.
Landowners constituted a special group - landowners (among the hereditary nobles there were no more than 30% of landowners).
Gradually, as in Europe, independent social strata - the embryos of classes - are formed within the estates.
In connection with the development of capitalism, the once united peasantry at the turn of the century was stratified into poor peasants (34.7%), middle peasants (15%), wealthy (12.9%), kulaks (1.4%), as well as small and landless peasants, together making up one third. The burghers were a heterogeneous education - the middle urban strata, which included small employees, artisans, handicraftsmen, domestic servants, postal and telegraph employees, students, etc.
From among the philistinism and peasantry came Russian industrialists, the petty, middle and large bourgeoisie. True, the latter was dominated by yesterday's merchants. The Cossacks were a privileged military class that served on the border.
By 1917, the process of class formation was not completed; it was at the very beginning. The main reason was the lack of an adequate economic base: commodity-money relations were in their infancy, as was the country’s internal market. They did not cover the main productive force of society - the peasantry, which, even after the Stolypin reform, never became free farmers.
The working class, numbering about 12 million people, did not all consist of hereditary workers, many were half-workers - half-peasants. By the end of the 19th century, the industrial revolution was not completely complete. Manual labor was never replaced by machines (even in the 80s of the 20th century its share accounted for 40%). The bourgeoisie and proletariat did not become the main classes of society.
The government protected domestic entrepreneurs from foreign competitors with countless privileges, creating greenhouse conditions for them. The lack of competition strengthened the monopoly and hampered the development of capitalism, which never moved from the early to the mature stage. The low material level of the population and the limited capacity of the domestic market did not allow the working masses to become full-fledged consumers.
Thus, per capita income in Russia in 1900 was 63 rubles, and in England and the USA, respectively, 273 and 346 rubles. The population density was 32 times less than in Belgium. 14% of the population lived in cities, while in England - 78%, in the USA - 42%. There were no objective conditions for the emergence of a middle class in Russia.
The October Revolution easily destroyed the social structure of Russian society, many old statuses disappeared - nobleman, bourgeois, petty bourgeois, police chief, etc., therefore, large social groups of people who held them disappeared. The revolution destroyed the only objective basis for the emergence of classes - private property. The process of class formation, which began at the end of the 19th century, was completely eliminated in 1917.
The official ideology of Marxism, which equalized everyone in rights and financial status, did not allow the restoration of the estate or class system. As a result, a unique historical situation arose: within one country, all known types of social stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes - were destroyed and declared incompetent. Officially, the Bolshevik Party proclaimed a course towards building a classless society. But, as we know, no society can exist without a social hierarchy, even in its simplest form.
1.8 US class system
Belonging to a social stratum in slaveholding, caste and class-feudal societies was fixed by official legal or religious norms. In pre-revolutionary Russia, every person knew what class he belonged to. People, as they say, were assigned to one or another social stratum.
In a class society the situation is different. No one is assigned anywhere. The state does not deal with issues of social security of its citizens. The only controller is the public opinion of people, which is guided by customs, established practices, income, lifestyle and standards of behavior. Therefore, it is very difficult to accurately and unambiguously determine the number of classes in a particular country, the number of strata or layers into which they are divided, and the belonging of people to strata. Criteria are necessary, but they are chosen quite arbitrarily. That is why in such a developed country from a sociological point of view as the USA, different sociologists offer different typologies of classes: in one there are seven, in another there are six, in another there are five, etc. social strata. The first typology of US classes was proposed in the 40s of the 20th century by the American sociologist Lloyd Warner:
the upper upper class included the so-called "old families". They consisted of the most successful businessmen and those who were called professionals. They lived in privileged parts of the city;
the lower upper class was not inferior in level of material well-being to the upper class - the upper class, but did not include old tribal families;
the upper middle class consisted of property owners and professionals who had less material wealth compared to people from the upper two classes, but they actively participated in the public life of the city and lived in fairly comfortable areas;
the lower middle class consisted of low-level employees and skilled workers;
the upper lower class included semi-skilled workers employed in local factories and living in relative prosperity;
the lower lower class consisted of those who are commonly called the “social bottom” - these are the inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places unsuitable for living. They constantly felt an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and constant humiliation.
Other schemes are also proposed, for example: upper - upper, upper lower, upper - middle, middle - middle, lower - middle, working, lower classes. Or: upper class, upper - middle, middle and lower - middle class, upper working and lower working class, underclass.
There are many options, but it is important to understand two fundamental points:
there are only three main classes, whatever they may be called: rich, wealthy and poor;
non-primary classes arise from the addition of strata or layers lying within one of the major classes.
The term "upper class" essentially means the upper stratum of the upper class. In all two-part words, the first word denotes the stratum or layer, and the second the class to which this layer belongs. "Upper-lower class" is sometimes called as it is, and sometimes it is used to designate the working class.
The middle class (with its inherent layers) is always distinguished from the working class. But the working class is also distinguished from the lower class, which may include the unemployed, the unemployed, the homeless, the poor, etc. As a rule, highly skilled workers are included not in the working class, but in the middle, but in its lowest stratum, which is filled mainly by low-skilled mental workers - white-collar workers.
Another option is possible: workers are not included in the middle class, but constitute two layers in the general working class. Specialists are included in the next layer of the middle class, because the very concept of “specialist” presupposes, at a minimum, a college-level education. The upper stratum of the middle class is filled mainly by “professionals”.
Professionals abroad are people who, as a rule, have a university education and extensive practical experience, are distinguished by high skill in their field, are engaged in creative work and belong to the so-called category of self-employed, i.e. having their own practice, their own business. These are lawyers, doctors, scientists, teachers, etc.
It is a great honor to be called a “professional”. Their number is limited and regulated by the state. Thus, only recently social workers received the long-awaited title, which they have been seeking for several decades.
1.9 Middle class
Between the two poles of the class stratification of American society - the very rich (net worth $200 million or more) and the very poor (income less than $6.5 thousand per year), who make up approximately the same share of the total population, namely 5% is that part of the population that is commonly called the middle class. In industrialized countries it makes up the majority of the population - from 60 to 80%.
The middle class is a unique phenomenon in world history. Let's put it this way: it has not existed throughout human history. It appeared only in the 20th century. In society it performs a specific function.
The middle class is the stabilizer of society. The greater it is, the less likely it is that society will be shaken by revolutions, ethnic conflicts, and social cataclysms.
It consists of those who made their destiny with their own hands and, therefore, are interested in preserving the system that provided such opportunities. The middle class separates the two opposite poles - the poor and the rich - and does not allow them to collide. The thinner the middle class, the closer the polar points of stratification are to each other, the more likely they are to collide. And vice versa.
The middle class is the widest consumer market for small and medium-sized businesses. The more numerous this class is, the more confidently a small business stands on its feet. As a rule, the middle class includes those who have economic independence, i.e. owns an enterprise, a firm, an office, a private practice, his own business, as well as scientists, priests, doctors, lawyers, middle managers - the social backbone of society.
The current middle class is the historical successor of the "fourth estate", which at the dawn of the industrial revolution blew up the class system. The very concept of “middle class” arose in the 17th century in England. It denoted a special group of entrepreneurs who opposed, on the one hand, the top of the large landowners, and on the other, the “proletarian poverty.” Gradually, the petty and middle bourgeoisie, managers, and liberal professions began to be included in it.
1.10 Stratification in the USSR and Russia
During the period of the existence of Soviet Russia (1917-1922) and the USSR (1922-1991), the basis of the theory of social structure was V.I. Lenin’s scheme, described by him in his work “State and Revolution” (August-September 1917).
Classes are large groups of people who differ in a) their place in a historically determined system of social production, b) in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, c) in their role in the social organization of labor, d ) according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they may have. Thanks to the four criteria of the classes, they received the name “Lenin’s four-member group”.
Since State and Revolution was written before the October Revolution, Lenin could not have known exactly what classes should exist under socialism. They were first outlined in November 1936 by J.V. Stalin in his report “On the Draft Constitution of the USSR.” Many years of discussions among social scientists were put to an end.
Stalin created a three-part formula: socialist society consists of two friendly classes - workers and peasants and a stratum recruited from them - the working intelligentsia (synonymous with specialists and employees).
A new stage was marked by the creation in the 60s and 70s of the theory of developed socialism. Sociologists have conducted many studies and seem to have discovered the following:
there are intra- and inter-class layers that differ in the nature of work, standard of living and lifestyle;
interclass differences are erased, and intraclass differences (differentiation) increase;
layers are not identical to an interlayer - there are many layers, but there is only one interlayer;
in all classes and strata the share of mental labor is increasing and the share of physical labor is decreasing.
In the early 60s, the term “worker-intellectuals” appeared. It denoted the layer of the working class bordering on intellectuals (specialists), the most qualified workers engaged in particularly complex social types of labor. Over the years, it included from 0.5 to 1.0 million people.
In the growth in the number and proportion of this layer, Soviet sociologists saw the successes of socialism, a sign of the emergence of new social communities. Specific social groups included military personnel, ministers of religious cults and administrative staff.
In the concept of developed socialism, a two-stage scheme of the evolution of Soviet society received theoretical justification:
overcoming differences between classes and building a classless society will occur mainly within the historical framework of the first phase - socialism;
the complete overcoming of class differences and the construction of a socially homogeneous society is completed in the second, highest phase of communism.
As a result of building first a classless society, and then a socially homogeneous society, a fundamentally new system of stratification should emerge: the “antagonistic” vertical system of inequality will gradually (over the course of several generations) be replaced by a “horizontal system” of social equality.
At the end of the 1980s, a critical attitude towards official theory grew among sociologists. It is discovered that with the development of society, social differences do not disappear, but intensify. The degree of inequality under socialism is higher than under capitalism. In the USSR there is antagonism, alienation, and exploitation. The state is not dying out, but strengthening. The workers of the administrative apparatus are not a specific layer, but a social class that dominates and exploits the population. The old theory is gradually being replaced by a new one, which is constantly being improved and expanded.
Already in the 1920s, the question of the emergence of a new ruling class and a new type of social structure in the USSR was raised abroad. At the beginning of the 20th century, M. Weber pointed out those who would become the ruling class under socialism - the bureaucrats. In the 30s, N. Berdyaev and L. Trotsky confirmed: a new stratum had formed in the USSR - a bureaucracy that entangled the entire country and turned into a privileged class.
The idea of transforming a management group into a management class received theoretical justification in the book of the American management specialist J. Bernheim “Managerial Revolution” (1991), which we have already discussed. He proclaimed that the capitalist class was being replaced by a class of managers who, although not owners, nevertheless controlled corporations and society as a whole. Although J. Bernheim spoke only about the USA and did not touch upon the USSR, many of the features he noted apply to Soviet society.
As in the USA, managers in the USSR (they are called “nomenklatura”, “bureaucracy”) are hired workers. But their position in society and the system of division of labor is such that it allows them to control all spheres of production and social life as if they were not employees, but owners. The concept of "public property" served as a cover, and it misled many. In fact, public property was not managed by all citizens, but by the ruling elite, and as it saw fit.
In 1943--1944. The English writer J. Orwell, in the story “Animal Farm,” expressed through artistic means the idea of the existence of a ruling class under socialism. In 1957, Milovan Gilas's work "The New Class. Analysis of the Communist System" was published in New York. His theory soon gained worldwide fame. Its essence was as follows.
After the victory of the October Revolution, the apparatus of the Communist Party turns into a new ruling class, which monopolizes power in the state. Having carried out nationalization, he appropriated all state property. As a result of the fact that the new class acts as the owner of the means of production, it is a class of exploiters.
Being also the ruling class, it exercises political terror and total control. Selfless revolutionaries are degenerating into ferocious reactionaries. If previously they stood for broad democratic freedoms, now they are becoming their stranglers. The method of economic management of the new class is characterized by extreme wastefulness, and culture takes on the character of political propaganda.
In 1980, a book by former USSR emigrant M.S. was published abroad. Voslensky's "Nomenclature", which became widely known. It is recognized as one of the best works on the Soviet system and social structure of the USSR. The author develops the ideas of M. Djilas about partocracy, but calls the ruling class not all managers and not the entire Communist Party, but only the highest stratum of society - the nomenklatura.
Nomenclature is a list of management positions, which are filled by a higher authority. The ruling class actually includes only those who are members of the regular nomenclature of party organs - from the nomenclature of the Politburo of the Central Committee to the main nomenclature of the district party committees.
The number of senior members of the nomenklatura is 100 thousand, and the lower level is 150 thousand people. These are those who could not be popularly elected or replaced. In addition to them, the nomenclature included heads of enterprises, construction, transport, agriculture, defense, science, culture, ministries and departments. The total number is about 750 thousand, and with members of their families, the number of the ruling class of the nomenklatura in the USSR is about 3 million people, i.e. less than 1.5% of the country's population.
Nomenklatura and bureaucracy (officialdom) are different phenomena. Officials represent the stratum of performers, and the nomenklatura represents the highest leaders of the country. She issues orders that are implemented by bureaucrats. The nomenclature is distinguished by a high level and quality of life. Its representatives have luxurious apartments, country villas, servants, and state cars. They are treated in special clinics, go to special stores, and study in special schools.
Although the nominal salary of a nomenklatura worker is only 4-5 times higher than the average salary, thanks to additional privileges and benefits received at public expense, their standard of living is tens of times higher. The nomenklatura - the hierarchical structure of the country's top leadership - represents, according to M. Voslensky, the ruling and exploiting class of the feudal type. He appropriates the surplus value created by a people deprived of political and economic rights.
Summarizing 70 years of experience in building socialism, the famous Soviet sociologist T. Zaslavskaya in 1991 discovered three groups in its social system: the upper class, the lower class and the stratum separating them. The basis of the highest was the nomenklatura, uniting the highest layers of the party, military, state and economic bureaucracy. The lower class is formed by hired workers of the state: workers, peasants, and intelligentsia. The social layer between them consisted of those social groups that served the nomenklatura: managers, journalists, propagandists, teachers, medical staff of special clinics, drivers of personal cars and other categories of elite servants.
Let's summarize. Soviet society has never been socially homogeneous; there has always been social stratification, which is a hierarchically ordered inequality. Social groups formed something like a pyramid, in which the layers differed in the amount of power, prestige, and wealth. Since there was no private property, there was no economic basis for the emergence of classes in the Western sense. The society was not open, but closed, like a class-caste society. There were no estates in the usual sense in Soviet society, since there was no legal recognition of social status.
At the same time, class-like and estate-like groups actually existed in Soviet society. Let's look at why this was so.
It would be more correct to classify Russia as a mixed type of stratification. True, unlike England and Japan, class remnants did not exist in the Soviet period as a living and highly respected tradition; they were not added to the class structure.
In a modified form, the remnants of the estate and class system of stratification were revived in a new society, which, according to plan, was to be devoid of any stratification, all inequality. A new unique type of mixed stratification arose in Russia.
But at the end of the 80s, Russia turned to market relations, democracy and a Western-style class society. Within five years, an upper class of property owners was formed, constituting about 3% of the total population, and the social lower classes of society were formed, whose standard of living is below the poverty line. They made up about 70% of the population in 1991-1992. And no one yet occupies the middle of the social pyramid.
As the standard of living of the population increases, the middle part of the pyramid will begin to be replenished with an increasing number of representatives not only of the intelligentsia, but of all strata of society oriented towards business, professional work and career. From it the middle class of Russia will be born. But he's not there yet.
What is there? There is still the same nomenclature that, by the beginning of economic reforms, managed to occupy key positions in economics and politics. Privatization could not have come at a better time. In essence, the nomenklatura only legalized its function as the real manager and owner of the means of production.
Two other sources of replenishment of the upper class are businessmen in the shadow economy and the scientific and engineering stratum of the intelligentsia. The former were actually the pioneers of private entrepreneurship at a time when engaging in it was persecuted by law.
