Basic criteria of social stratification. Social stratification: concept, criteria and types. Types of social stratification

AT different time there were different approaches in determining the causes of social inequality and social stratification.

The Marxist school of sociology points out that social inequality lie property relations, the degree, form, nature of ownership of the means of production.

Functionalists (W. Moore, K. Davis) believe that the distribution of people into strata depends on the contribution made by their work to achieve the goals of society and the significance of their professional activities.

Representatives of the theory of exchange (J. Homans) showed that the emergence of social inequality in society is influenced by an unequal exchange of the results of human activity.

M. Weber proposed to single out the following criteria of social stratification: economic (level of income, attitude to property), social prestige (acquired or inherited status), belonging to certain political circles.

P. Sorokin singled out political (according to the criteria of power and influence), economic (according to the criteria of income and wealth) and professional (according to the criteria of professional skills, mastery, successful performance of social roles) stratification structures.

T. Parsons, the founder of structural functionalism, proposed groups of differentiating features: qualitative characteristics attributed to people from birth (gender and age characteristics, family ties, ethnicity, personal abilities); role characteristics (education, professional and labor activity, position); characteristics showing possession of material and spiritual values ​​(property, wealth, privileges, etc.)

The main criteria for social stratification

In modern sociology, the following criteria for social stratification are distinguished, according to which the division into strata of the population takes place:

1. Power - the ability to dictate your decisions and will to other people, regardless of their desire; measured by the number of people to whom it applies.
2. Education - a set of skills, knowledge, skills acquired during training; measured by the number of years of study in public or private schools/universities.
3. Income - depends on the amount of cash receipts received by an individual or family over a certain period of time, for example, one year or a month.
4. Wealth - accumulated income (cash or embodied money).
5. Prestige - respect, public assessment of the significance of the position, profession, status that has developed in the public mind.

Remark 1

The above criteria of social stratification are the most universal for all current societies.

Additional criteria for social stratification

There are certain, specific criteria that influence the position of the individual in society, determine, first of all, his "starting opportunities". Additional criteria for social stratification include:

1. social background. It is the family that introduces the individual into the system of society, while determining in many respects his income, profession and education. Insolvent parents recreate probably poor children, which is determined by their education, health, acquired qualifications. Children from poor families are three times more likely to die due to neglect, disease, violence and accidents than children from wealthy families.
2. gender. To date, in Russian Federation there is an intensified process of feminization of poverty. Regardless of the fact that women and men live in families that belong to different social levels, the status, income of women and the prestige of their professions are often less than that of men.
3. Ethnicity and race. For example, in the United States of America, people with white skin receive a better education and have a higher professional status than African Americans. Ethnicity also has its influence on social status.
4. Religion. For example, in American society, members of the Presbyterian and Episcopal churches and Jews occupy the highest social positions. Baptists and Lutherans at a lower level.

social space

P. Sorokin made a significant contribution to the study of status inequality. To determine the sum of all social statuses, he introduced such a concept as social space.

Remark 2

In his work “Social mobility” (1927), P. Sorokin pointed out the impossibility of mixing or comparing such theses as “social space” and “geometric space”. A lower-class person can come into contact with a wealthy person on a physical level, but this circumstance will not at all reduce the prestige, economic or power differences that exist between them, that is, it will not reduce the existing social distance in any way. Consequently, two people between whom there are tangible official, family, property or other social differences do not have the opportunity to stay in the same social space.

Sorokin's social space has a three-dimensional model. It is characterized by three axes of coordinates - political status, professional status, economic status. The social position (general or integral status) of any individual who is an integral part of this social space is represented using three coordinates (x, y, z).

Status incompatibility is a situation in which an individual, having a high status along one of the coordinate axes, at the same time has a low status level along the other axis.

Individuals with a high level of education, providing a high social status relative to the professional dimension of stratification, may occupy a poorly paid position, and, as a result, will have a lower economic status.

The existence of status incompatibility favors the growth of discontent among people, as a result of which they will contribute to radical social changes aimed at changing stratification.

In modern Western sociology, Marxism is opposed by the theory of social stratification.

Classification or stratification? Representatives of the theory of stratification argue that the concept of class is not applicable to the modern post-industrial society. This is due to the uncertainty of the concept of "private property": in view of the wide corporatization, as well as the exclusion of the main shareholders from the sphere of production management and their replacement by hired managers, property relations turned out to be blurred, lost their certainty. Therefore, the concept of "class" should be replaced by the concept of "stratum" or the concept of a social group, and the theory of social class structure of society should be replaced by theories of social stratification. However, classification and stratification are not mutually exclusive approaches. The concept of "class", convenient and appropriate for the macro approach, will be clearly insufficient when we try to consider the structure of interest to us in more detail. In a deep and comprehensive study of the structure of society, it is clearly not enough just economic dimension which offers a Marxist class approach. Stratification dimension- this is a fairly fine grading of layers within the class, allowing for a deeper detailed analysis of the social structure.

Most researchers believe that social stratification- a hierarchically organized structure of social (status) inequality that exists in a certain society, in a certain historical period of time. The hierarchically organized structure of social inequality can be imagined as a division of the whole society into strata. Layered, multi-level society in this case can be compared with the geological layers of the soil. In modern sociology, there are four main criteria of social inequality:

ü Income It is measured in rubles or dollars that an individual or family receives during a certain period of time, say, one month or a year.

ü Education measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university.

ü 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 desire).

ü Prestige- respect for the status that has developed in public opinion.

The criteria of social stratification listed above are the most universal for all modern societies. However, the social position of a person in society is also influenced by some other criteria that determine, first of all, his " starting opportunities. These include:

ü social background. The family carries out the introduction of the individual into the social system, determining in many respects his education, profession and income. Poor parents reproduce potentially poor children, which is determined by their health, education, qualifications. Children from poor families are 3 times more likely to die due to negligence, from diseases, accidents and violence in the first years of life than children from rich families.

ü gender. Today in Russia there is an intensive process of feminization of poverty. Despite the fact that men and women live in families belonging to different social levels, the income, status of women and the prestige of their professions are usually lower than those of men.

ü Race and ethnicity. Thus, in the US, white people receive a better education and have a higher professional status than African Americans. Ethnicity also affects social position.

ü Religion. In American society, members of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, as well as Jews, occupy the highest social positions. Lutherans and Baptists occupy a lower position.

Significant Contribution Pitirim Sorokin contributed to the study of status inequality. To determine the totality of all social statuses of society, he introduced the concept social space.

In his work "Social mobility" in 1927, P. Sorokin, first of all, emphasized the impossibility of combining or even comparing such concepts as "geometric space" and "social space". According to him, a person of the lower class can physically come into contact with a noble person, but this circumstance will not in the least reduce the economic, prestige or power differences existing between them, i.e. will not reduce the existing social distance. Thus, two people between whom there are significant property, family, official or other social differences cannot be in the same social space, even if they are embracing.

According to Sorokin, social space is three-dimensional. It is described by three coordinate axes - economic status, political status, professional status. Thus, the social position (general or integral status) of each individual, which is an integral part of this social space, is described using three coordinates ( x, y, z). Note that this coordinate system describes exclusively the social, and not the personal statuses of the individual.

The situation when an individual, having a high status on one of the coordinate axes, at the same time has a low status level on the other axis, is called status incompatibility.

For example, individuals with a high level of acquired education, which provides high social status along the occupational dimension of stratification, may occupy a poorly paid position and therefore have a low economic status. Most sociologists rightly believe that the presence of status incompatibility contributes to the growth of resentment among such people, and they will support radical social changes aimed at changing stratification. And vice versa in the case of the “new Russians” who aspire to get into politics: they are clearly aware that the high economic level they have achieved is unreliable without being compatible with an equally high political status. Similarly, a poor person who has received a fairly high political status of a deputy State Duma inevitably begins to use the acquired position for the corresponding "pulling up" of his economic status.

1. INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. MEASURING STRATIFICATION

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

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

Curious fact

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

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

income,

power,

education,

prestige.

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

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

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

Let's say Primary School means 4 years, incomplete secondary - 9 years, complete secondary - 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 affected by the decision you make (power- possibility

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

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

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

Prestige - respect for status, prevailing in public opinion.

Since 1947 national center The US Public Opinion Survey periodically polls 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 has from 100 (the highest score) to 1 (the lowest score) points. The second column "points" shows the average score received by this type of occupation in the sample.

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

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

If 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: a driver, a welder, a carpenter, a plumber, a janitor. They have the least status respect. People occupying the same positions on the four dimensions of stratification constitute one stratum.

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

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

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

In sociology, there are three basic types of stratification:

economic (income),

political (power)

professional (prestige)

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

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

3. BELONGING TO A STRATE

Affiliation measured by subjective and objective indicators:

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

objective indicators - income, power, education, prestige.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. HISTORICAL TYPES OF STRATIFICATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At a mature stage slavery turns into slavery. When people 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 stratum is deprived of all rights and freedoms. There is no such thing in castes and estates, not to mention classes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Social stratification and prospects for civil society in Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important social changes that took place 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 people migrated to the city. However, urbanization in our country had a clearly deformed character: mass movements of rural migrants to the city were not accompanied by a corresponding deployment of social infrastructure. A huge mass of superfluous people, social outsiders, has appeared. Having lost contact with the rural subculture and unable to join the urban one, the migrants created a typically marginal subculture.

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

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

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

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

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

As an initial model of the 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; the most important public interests intersect in it. The system of power bodies of post-Soviet Russia has been substantially restructured - some of them have been liquidated, others have only been organized, some have changed their functions, their personal composition has been updated. The previously closed upper stratum of society opened up to people from other groups.

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

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

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

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

The prestige of professions is the second important dimension of social stratification. We can talk about a number of fundamentally new trends in professional structure associated with the emergence of new prestigious social roles. The set of professions is becoming more complex, their comparative attractiveness is changing in favor of those that provide more substantial and faster material rewards. As a result, assessments of social prestige are changing. different types activities where physically or ethically "dirty" work is still considered attractive in terms of monetary reward.

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

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

AT 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 skilled workers. But this trend is contradictory because common interests different social strata, potentially forming the middle class, are not supported by the processes of their convergence on such important criteria as the prestige of the profession and the level of income.

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

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

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

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

Process deepening social differentiation income groups are starting 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, this education system was ineffective, graduate School prepared specialists without taking into account the real needs of society.

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

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

Newly emerging professions require more qualifications and better training, and are better paid. As a consequence, education is becoming more and more an important factor at the entrance to the professional hierarchy. The result is increased social mobility. It depends less and less on the social characteristics of the family and is more determined by personal qualities and education of the individual.

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

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

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

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

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

There is a total marginalization of almost all social groups;

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

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

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

Russia retains a stratum of the population that can be called a potential resource for the middle class. Today, about 15% of those employed in the national economy can be attributed to this layer, but its maturation to a "critical mass" will require 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 strata of the social hierarchy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ideas of civil society found themselves in post-communist Russia in that peculiar context that distinguishes our country both from Western states (with their strongest mechanisms of rational legal relations) and from Eastern countries (with their specifics of traditional primary groups). Unlike Western countries, the modern Russian state does not deal with a structured society, but, on the one hand, with rapidly emerging elite groups, and on the other, with an amorphous, atomized society dominated by individual consumer interests. Today, civil society in Russia is not developed, many of its elements have been forced out or "blocked", although 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 formal features of civil society formations. There are up to 50 thousand voluntary associations in the country - consumer associations, trade unions, environmental groups, political clubs, etc. However, many of them, having survived at the turn of the 80-90s. a short period of rapid growth, in recent years they have become bureaucratic, weakened, and lost their activity. The average Russian underestimates group self-organization, and the most common social type became an individual, closed in his aspirations for himself and his family. In overcoming such a state, due to the process of transformation, is the specificity of the current stage of development.

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

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

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

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

Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

social stratification is main topic sociology. It describes how the strata of society are divided according to their way of life, according to the level of income, according to whether they have any privileges or not. Sociologists "borrowed" this term from geologists. There it indicates how the layers of the Earth are located in a vertical section. Sociologists, too, like the structure of the Earth, arranged strata - social strata - vertically. The criteria in a simplified version are limited to one scale - the level of income. The bottom rung is the poor, the middle is the wealthy, and the top is the richest. Each stratum includes people whose income, prestige, power and education are approximately the same.

There are the following criteria of social stratification, according to which the population is divided into strata: power, education, income and prestige. They are located vertically on the coordinate axis and are inextricably linked with each other. Also, all the listed criteria of social stratification have their own distinctive dimension.

Income is the amount of money that a family or individual receives for a specific time period. This amount of money can be received in the form of a pension, salary, allowance, fee, alimony, interest on profits. Income is measured in national currency or in dollars.

When incomes exceed living expenses, they gradually accumulate and turn into wealth. As a rule, it remains to the heirs. The difference between income and inheritance is that only working people receive it, while non-working people can also receive inheritance. Accumulated movable or immovable property is the main sign of the upper class. The rich may not work, while the lower and middle classes, on the contrary, will not be able to live without a salary. Uneven and wealth and causes economic inequality in society.

The next criterion of social stratification is education. It is measured by years spent studying at school and university.

The third criterion is power. Whether a person has it can be judged by the number of people to whom the decision made by him applies. The essence of power lies in the ability to impose your will on others, without taking into account their desire. And whether it will be carried out is already the second question. For example, the president's decision applies to several million people, and the decision of the director of a small school - to several hundred. In modern society, power is protected by tradition and law. Many social benefits and privileges are available to her.

People with power (economic, political, religious) constitute the elite of society. It determines the policy within the state, its relations with other countries in such a way that it is beneficial to it. Other classes do not have this capability.

These criteria of social stratification have quite tangible units of measurement: people, years, dollars. But prestige is subjective. It depends on what profession or enjoy respect in society. If the country does not conduct research on this topic by special methods, then the prestige of the position is determined approximately.

The criteria of social stratification in a complex determine a person, that is, his social position. And status, in turn, determines belonging to closed society or to the open. In the first case, the transition from stratum to stratum is impossible. This includes castes and estates. AT open society moving up the social ladder is not prohibited (it doesn't matter, up or down). Classes belong to this system. These are the historically established types of social stratification.

Social stratification: concept, criteria, types

To get started, watch the video tutorial on social stratification:

The concept of social stratification

Social stratification is the process of arranging individuals and social groups in horizontal layers (strata). This process is associated primarily with both economic and human causes. The economic reasons for social stratification is that resources are limited. And because of this, they must be rationally disposed of. That is why the ruling class stands out - it owns the resources, and the exploited class - it obeys the ruling class.

Among the universal causes of social stratification are:

psychological reasons. People are not equal in their inclinations and abilities. Some people can concentrate on something for long hours: reading, watching movies, creating something new. Others do not need anything and are not interested. Some can go to the goal through all obstacles, and failures only spur them on. Others give up at the first opportunity - it's easier for them to moan and whine that everything is bad.

biological reasons. People are also not equal from birth: some are born with two arms and legs, others are disabled from birth. It is clear that it is extremely difficult to achieve something if you are disabled, especially in Russia.

Objective causes of social stratification. These include, for example, place of birth. If you were born in a more or less normal country, where you will be taught to read and write for free and there are at least some social guarantees- this is good. You have a good chance of being successful. So, if you were born in Russia, even in the most remote village and you are a kid, at least you can join the army and then stay to serve under the contract. Then you may be sent to a military school. It's better than drinking moonshine with your fellow villagers, and by the age of 30 to die in a drunken brawl.

Well, if you were born in some country in which statehood does not really exist, and local princes come to your village with machine guns at the ready and kill anyone at random, and whoever they hit are taken into slavery, then write your life is gone, and together with her and your future.

Criteria of social stratification

The criteria of social stratification include: power, education, income and prestige. Let's analyze each criterion separately.

Power. People are not equal in terms of power. The level of power is measured by (1) the number of people who are under your control, and also (2) the amount of your authority. But the presence of this criterion alone (even the greatest power) does not mean that you are in the highest stratum. For example, a teacher, a teacher of power is more than enough, but the income is lame.

Education. The higher the level of education, the more opportunities. If you have a higher education, this opens up certain horizons for your development. At first glance, it seems that in Russia this is not the case. But that's just how it seems. Because the majority of graduates are dependent - they should be hired. They do not understand that with their higher education they may well open their own business and increase their third criterion of social stratification - income.

Income is the third criterion of social stratification. It is thanks to this defining criterion that one can judge which social class a person belongs to. If the income is from 500 thousand rubles per capita and more per month - then to the highest; if from 50 thousand to 500 thousand rubles (per capita), then you belong to the middle class. If from 2000 rubles to 30 thousand then your class is basic. And also further.

Prestige is the subjective perception people have of your , is a criterion of social stratification. Previously, it was believed that prestige is expressed solely in income, because if you have enough money, you can dress more beautifully and better, and in society, as you know, they are met by clothes ... But even 100 years ago, sociologists realized that prestige can be expressed in the prestige of the profession (professional status).

Types of social stratification

Types of social stratification can be distinguished, for example, by spheres of society. A person in his life can make a career in (become a famous politician), in the cultural (become a recognizable cultural figure), in the social sphere (become, for example, an honorary citizen).

In addition, types of social stratification can be distinguished on the basis of one or another type of stratification systems. The criterion for singling out such systems is the presence or absence of social mobility.

There are several such systems: caste, clan, slave, estate, class, etc. Some of them are discussed above in the video on social stratification.

You must understand that this topic is extremely large, and it is impossible to cover it in one video tutorial and in one article. Therefore, we suggest that you purchase a video course that already contains all the nuances on the topic of social stratification, social mobility and other related topics:

Sincerely, Andrey Puchkov