Theories of social stratification. I. The essence of the theory of social stratification P Bourdieu identifies the following criteria for stratification

03.05.2024

Keywords

CAPITAL / SYMBOLIC CAPITAL/ TRUST / FORMATION / SOCIAL STRATIFICATION/ P. BOURDIE / K. MARX / CAPITAL / SYMBOLIC CAPITAL / TRUST / FORMATION / SOCIAL STRATIFICATION / PIERRE BOURDIEU / KARL MARX

annotation scientific article on sociological sciences, author of the scientific work - Marina Vladimirovna Demidova

The relevance of the work is due to changes in modern social space. Purpose of the work: identifying new social classes and their stratification in the conditions of symbolic capitalism. Research methods. Philosophical analysis of modern social stratification carried out on the basis of the ideas of P. Bourdieu and K. Marx. Comparative and formational approaches and the synthesis method were used as the research methodology. The concepts of habitus, capital, socio-economic formation, mode of production are used in their alternative interpretation, determined by the modern global social context. Results. The specificity of the interaction between symbolic and material capitals, the rhizomic form of symbolic social stratification, the presence of symbolic and real levels of society. The main mode of production of symbolic capitalism is symbolic capital as a strategy for functioning in society through trust. The author has identified new characteristics of existence symbolic capital, a symbolic stratification of society was developed, consisting of two main classes of symbolic capitalists and symbolic workers. Development of the symbolic hypothesis social stratification is achieved by identifying the features of modern social interaction both at its local and global levels. As a result of the study, definitions of new concepts reflecting the identified characteristics were formulated; trends in strategy development are noted symbolic capital in global society; Practical recommendations for using the results obtained are given. Conclusions. The emerging modern global society is gradually moving away from traditional types of social structures and acts as a social structure based on the principles of functioning symbolic capital, underlying habitus, which regulates and directs the development of society. Symbolic capital acts as a strategy through which social reality is constructed, consisting of relationships in society. New social classes and symbolic social stratification, adapted to modern social realities.

Text of scientific work on the topic “Social stratification under symbolic capitalism: a philosophical approach”

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION UNDER SYMBOLIC CAPITALISM:

PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH

Demidova Marina Vladimirovna,

Ph.D. Philosopher Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Volga Region Institute of Management named after. P.A. Stolypin - branch of RANEPA under the President of the Russian Federation, Russia, Saratov, 410031, st. Sobornaya, 23/25.

Email: [email protected]

Results. The specificity of the interaction of symbolic and material capitals, the rhizomic form of symbolic social stratification, the presence of symbolic and real levels of society are revealed. The main method of production of symbolic capitalism is symbolic capital as a strategy for functioning in society through trust. The author has identified new characteristics of the existence of symbolic capital, developed a symbolic stratification of society, consisting of two main classes - symbolic capitalists and symbolic workers. The development of the hypothesis about symbolic social stratification is achieved by identifying the features of modern social interaction both at its local and global levels. As a result of the study, definitions of new concepts reflecting the identified characteristics were formulated; trends in the development of the strategy of symbolic capital in global society are noted; Practical recommendations for using the results obtained are given. Conclusions. The emerging modern global society is gradually moving away from traditional types of social structures and acts as a social structure based on the principles of the functioning of symbolic capital, which underlies the habitus, which regulates and directs the development of society. Symbolic capital acts as a strategy through which social reality is constructed, consisting of relationships in society. New social classes and symbolic social stratification are being formed, adapted to modern social realities.

Keywords:

Capital, symbolic capital, trust, formation, social stratification, P. Bourdieu, K. Marx.

The desire to structure society, to streamline it by building a hierarchy and ways of interaction in it, has been present in society since ancient times. Plato's theory of the ideal state is a textbook example of this. Over time, society develops, which leads to a change in its stratification.

Compared to all historically previous types of society and the stratifications characteristic of them, modern society is fundamentally different, since in the process of globalization its structuring, functioning and social interactions go far beyond national boundaries. This leads to a blurring of the boundaries of a particular society, its hierarchical structure and, as a consequence, the formation of a new social stratification acceptable for the functioning of a society on a global scale.

If we understand globalization as interstate social functioning based on information and communication technologies, then, in our opinion, the modern initial stage of the formation of a global society acts as a social structure based on the principles of functioning of symbolic capital, which underlies the habitus, which regulates and directs the development of society . This

We called the stage in the development of society symbolic capitalism. If we follow the concept of historical development and the theory of classes by K. Marx (1818-1883), we can consider this stage a new socio-economic formation, following the capitalist one, since the communist one is currently absent, but there is a new mode of production - symbolic capital, underlying this formation.

Symbolic capital is a strategy for accumulating trust and social functioning based on it. The author of the concept of “symbolic capital” - the modern French philosopher and sociologist P. Bourdieu (1930-2002) in 1980 defined it as “the capital of honor and prestige that is produced by the institution of the clientele, to the same extent that it is itself produced by it ". Ten years later, the American researcher E. Toffler called informational capital “symbolic capital”; in a broad sense, it is knowledge identified with wealth. In this interpretation, E. Toffler relies on the idea of intellectualization of labor, which has developed since the second half of the twentieth century. This interpretation implies an understanding of wealth as the possession of a large amount of information. But, on our

view, no matter how great it may be, the priority in social interaction belongs not to the quantity, but to the quality of information that is or is not credible as the basis of social interaction and production.

This is evidenced by the modern socio-economic system, in which symbolic capital, in the interpretation of P. Bourdieu, is one of the main development strategies. Concepts such as “reputation” and “image” come to the fore as components of symbolic capital. Reputation is a real value characteristic of a subject. The image is perfect. The purpose of deliberate imagery of a subject is to obtain monetary and symbolic benefits. These include benefits of political, social and other nature. The more trustworthy the reputation and image are, the greater the benefits will be.

Today, sponsorship is becoming more and more common as a technique for managing the image of an organization. Also, reputation and success are the main components of show business and the service business in general, and not just material production, which was the focus of K. Marx’s concept of economic development.

The specifics of the functioning of capital, according to K. Marx, are determined by the relation “commodity-product-money-commodity”. The unit of measurement of such capital is money as an equivalent to the value of the product; the value of money is determined by the amount of labor invested in the creation of the product. The result of the functioning of this capital is profit, expressed in money or property available to its owner, measured in money as the equivalent of capital that brings profit in the form of money. The advantage of the existence of capital based on physical labor is the material support of money in the form of property: “capital is not a thing, but... a production relation that is represented in a thing... Capital is the means of production converted into capital, which themselves are as much capital in themselves as gold or silver in themselves are money.” The prospect for the development of such capital is property and material accumulation, and, accordingly, economic wealth, leading to the political power of a particular society. Social stratification, according to K. Marx, is based on two classes: 1) those who own the means of production (capitalists) and 2) those who do not own them (workers engaged in manual labor, that is, the proletariat). The relationship between capitalists and workers is determined by the process of production and circulation of capital.

P. Bourdieu, like K. Marx, insisted on the social nature of capital. But he interpreted social relations differently. Therefore, his interpretation of social stratification and capital differs from the interpretation of K. Marx.

P. Bourdieu considered symbolic capital to be the basis for the existence of an archaic society, where social interaction is based on relationships of trust, which he characterized as the “economy of good faith.” The replacement for money here is mutual services; economic capital can only act as recognition in the process of its transformation on the basis, for example, of “gratitude for benefits.” Symbolic capital as a strategy for accumulating capital of honor and prestige solved the problem of the constant availability of labor as help, as well as the presence of allies and acquaintances, to whom members of society held on through obligations, debts of honor, rights accumulated over time and could be realized under certain circumstances.

Along with symbolic capital, P. Bourdieu identified three more types of capital: economic, cultural and social. But if any of these capitals has special recognition in society, then it automatically becomes symbolic.

Structuring the social space based on the characteristics of domination and subordination, P. Bourdieu identified two classes in society: “businessmen” (those who have a lot of economic capital, but little cultural capital) and “intellectuals” (those who have a lot of cultural capital, but little economic capital). capital). There may be a struggle between them for dominance. It is carried out at the intersection of fields of different types of capital. But since it is symbolic capital that has the ability to be all types of capital, if they have special recognition in society, it becomes key in this struggle, which P. Bourdieu called the “field of power.” The structure of the field is a system of social relations, the main meaning of which lies in the concept of “habitus”. The habitus of a social system is a way of life that comes from the particular life experiences of a particular social group.

Features of the interpretation of symbolic capital by P. Bourdieu are as follows. The specifics of the functioning of symbolic capital are determined by the “service-trust-service” relationship. The unit of measurement of such capital is a service as an equivalent of trust; the value of trust is determined by the quantity and, most importantly, the quality of the labor invested in creating trust. The result of the functioning of this capital is trust expressed in services. The advantage of the existence of symbolic capital is its mobility. The reason is the informational nature of the existence of symbolic capital. The prospect for the development of symbolic capital is information accumulation leading to the symbolic power of a particular society.

If we try to consider modern globalizing society from the standpoint of the principles of social interaction, then first we must

Let us turn to the analysis of modern society, its stratification and the peculiarities of the functioning of capital of both forms.

Researchers of modern stratification of society often identify the formation of new social groups in it.

Thus, in the work of domestic scientists Z.T. Golenkova and Yu.V. Goliusova “New social groups in modern stratification systems of global society” presents and explores a new social group - the “precariat”. The basis for identifying this group was social and labor relations, namely the lack of a stable social and labor status for this group of people. “...This group cannot be built into any of the existing socio-structural systems. It stands apart, but has two-way connections with any stratification system." The precariat “has minimal relations with the state and the employer in terms of stability and security...”, it is a social group marginalized in the labor sense. It includes not only freelancers, but also people who live on odd jobs. To identify the reasons for the formation of this class, the authors of the article turn to the international experience of studying the precariat. This experience shows that most often the reasons for the formation of this group are the impossibility, inability, and sometimes simply the unwillingness of people to function in the current social and labor circumstances. This situation leads to the marginalization of part of society and, as a consequence, its instability. In the point of view of the authors of the article, there is an idea about modern changes in the world of work that are of an information and knowledge nature, which, perhaps, is, according to Z.T. Golenkova and Yu.V. Goliusova, the reason for the formation of the precariat.

Another social group - the “creative class” - is the subject of interest of the modern American philosopher R. Florida, who described it in 2005 in the work “The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent”. The creative class here is understood as the creative elite, leading the entire society. This class is a key factor in economic development, according to R. Florida. But, in our opinion, the idea of the existence of a creative elite leading society was voiced a long time ago, in 1929, by the Spanish philosopher J. Ortega y Gasset in his work “The Revolt of the Masses.” He structured society according to the principle of creative activity and passivity, thereby identifying two levels in the structure of society: the creative elite and the masses. R. Florida, rather, concretized this idea in relation to the economic sphere of social development.

Most often among researchers of the modern structure of society the concept of “cognition” is heard.

riat”, proposed by E. Toffler. The cognitariat is a class of intellectual workers, the number of which increases with the increasing intellectualization of work. A new social stratum - “people of fame” - is the subject of research by the domestic scientist L.E. Grinina. The appearance of this layer in society is associated with the growing importance of personal fame.

Having summarized the above theories of stratification and the functioning of modern society, we see that they were implemented for some reason. In one of our studies, “Socio-philosophical aspects of symbolic capital management,” an attempt was made to analyze modern society from the perspective of symbolic capital management. As a result, we proposed our idea of symbolic stratification of modern society, carried out according to the principle of the functioning of symbolic capital in it. This makes it possible to study the basic principles of the functioning of society under symbolic capitalism. In the symbolic stratification of such a society, two basic classes are distinguished: symbolic capitalists (those who already have symbolic capital) and symbolic workers (those who are just starting to earn it). “The wealth of symbolic capitalists is not necessarily measured in monetary terms, but primarily by the presence of symbolic capital as a credit of trust and the specifics of its implementation.”

Due to the development of information technology, the mode of production, which is the basis for the existence of society, has become more information-based and based on the strategy of accumulating trust. Therefore, labor is intellectualized, which leads to social conflict as a result of the process of discrepancy between productive forces (to a large extent material) and production relations (to a large extent information-knowledge). This leads to social changes, and more specifically, to the formation of new social classes in accordance with the symbolic stratification of society: 1) not adapted to a given social situation (symbolic workers, including the “precariat”) and 2) adapted to it (symbolic capitalists , including cognitariat, creative class, “famous people”). These classes are very mobile, have their own patterns of social interaction and, most importantly, a new environment of interaction - information.

This situation is complicated by the fact that a globalizing society is increasingly driven by the values of democracy, which presupposes choice as a manifestation of a personal position in relation to the world. Accordingly, there is an increase in the activation and legitimation of differences in views on the world, that is, social, political, cultural and other types of inequality, which, in turn,

turn, is a tendency to complicate social stratification, multiply new classes both at the local and global levels. The symbolic social stratification under construction is far from traditional linear, vertical, horizontal, pyramidal, spiral and other structures in form. It looks more like a network or rhizome.

Therefore, “network branches” can also be distinguished within this stratification. This is a symbolic elite, consisting of: “symbolic oligarchs with enormous credit, symbolic tyrants - those who abuse their symbolic capital, symbolic aristocrats as the noble and privileged elite of society.

Also in this stratification, one can distinguish a symbolic mass that has much less symbolic capital. She is driven, passive in terms of earning symbolic capital, has a lesser degree of responsibility for her actions, and therefore does not inspire much trust, and, most importantly, is not distinguished by a creative approach to the implementation of her ideas, and therefore is intellectually inert. A special place in this stratification is occupied by the class of social simulacra that simulate their social belonging to one or another symbolic stratum (usually capitalist) with the help of image and RI technologies.” Such social stratification is characteristic of modern society both at the local and global levels.

But, in our opinion, despite the importance of symbolic capital for modern globalization, it cannot exist separately from material capital. The reason is the fact that symbolic capital cannot exist separately from its carriers, which are social units. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to the existence of a sign without a referent, which in terms of material capital means the existence of money without its property support. This means that symbolic society is a complete simulation. Rather, it would be more correct to talk about the formation today of two levels of society - real and symbolic (informational). Each level has its own patterns of functioning, arising from the physical or intellectual characteristics of the labor participation of individuals in the life of society. Here money is an informational expression of the material, property and intellectual spheres of society.

The emerging modern global society is gradually moving away from traditional types of social structures and acts as a social structure based on the principles of the functioning of symbolic capital, which underlies the habitus, which regulates and directs the development of society. Symbolic capital acts as a strategic

gy, through which social reality is constructed, consisting of relationships in society. Their goal is “to establish or reaffirm the social bonds of individuals or groups.” F. Fukuyama, who studied the features of the economic, political, and cultural development of different countries based on the development of trust relations in them, came to the conclusion about its increasing role in modern national and international relations. In our opinion, the importance of trusting relationships in global society will only increase over time, since their presence significantly simplifies social interaction, leveling out the negative risks of communication.

Thus, as a result of the research carried out by the author, for the first time, the features of modern social interaction were identified and formulated in new concepts both at the local and global levels. These include the following:

1) Modern globalizing society represents the emergence of a new socio-economic formation - symbolic capitalism.

2) The main way of producing symbolic capitalism is symbolic capital as a strategy for functioning in society through trust.

3) Social stratification under symbolic capitalism consists of two main classes: symbolic capitalists (those who already have symbolic capital) and symbolic workers (those who are just starting to earn it). The remaining classes - cognitariat, creative class, “famous people”, precariat, etc. - are derived from the first two.

4) Symbolic social stratification is rhizomic in form; within it one can also distinguish a symbolic elite, a symbolic mass, and social simulacra.

5) With the globalizing modern society, two of its levels are being formed: real and symbolic (informational). Each level has its own patterns of functioning, arising from the physical or intellectual characteristics of the labor participation of individuals in the life of society.

This study is incomplete. The development and specification of issues of social interaction within the presented symbolic stratification of society are outlined as prospects.

The results obtained during the study can be useful in social work and economic practice. They can also help optimize social, economic, political and cultural processes both at the local and global levels. In particular, improving democratic institutions and processes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Marx K. Capital. T. I: The process of capital production // K. Marx, F. Engels Soch. T. 23. 2nd ed. - M.: State. Publishing house of political literature, 1960. - 900 p.

2. Marx K. Capital. T. II: The process of circulation of capital // K. Marx, F. Engels Soch. T. 24. 2nd ed. - M.: State. Publishing house of political literature, 1961. - 643 p.

3. Marx K. Capital. T. III: The process of capitalist production, taken as a whole // K. Marx, F. Engels Soch. T. 25. Part I. 2nd ed. - M.: State. Publishing house of political literature,

1961. - 1078 p.

4. Marx K. Capital. T. III: The process of capitalist production, taken as a whole // Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 25. Part II. 2nd ed. M.: State. Publishing house of political literature,

5. Bourdieu P. Practical meaning. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2001. -562 p.

6. Toffler E. Metamorphoses of power. - M.: LLC Publishing House "AST", 2003. - 669 p.

7. Demidova M.V. Symbolic capital: social and philosophical analysis // Sociology, political science, philosophy and history in the modern world. - Novosibirsk: Siberian Association of Consultants, 2012. - P. 64-70.

8. Ivanov M.M. Symbolic capital of an employee as a means of career realization: dis. ...cand. sociol. Sci. - M., 2011. -170 p.

9. Mestnikov A.A. Development of the venture investment market: a sociological approach: dis. . Ph.D. sociol. Sci. - M., 2011.- 130 p.

10. Mestnikov A.A. Investment of symbolic capital as an instrument of state innovation policy // Labor and social relations. - 2010. - No. 6. - P. 113-119.

11. Mestnikov A.A. Innovation discourse as a factor in the modernization of the Russian economy // Innovations. - 2010. -№3(137). - pp. 54-57.

12. Bourdieu P. On symbolic power // Sociology of social space. - M.; St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2007. - pp. 87-96.

13. Bourdieu P. Sociology of social space. - M.; St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2007. - 288 p.

14. Golenkova Z.T., Goliusova Yu.V. New social groups in modern stratification systems of global society // Sociological science and social practice. -2013. - No. 3. - P. 5-15.

15. Florida R. The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent. - New York: Harper Business, 2005. - 350 p.

16. Ortega y Gasset H. Uprising of the masses. - M.: AST, 2008. - 347 p.

17. Grinin L.E. “People of fame” - a new social class? // Socis. - 2004. - No. 12. - P. 46-54.

18. Demidova M.V. Social and philosophical aspects of symbolic capital management // Innovations in science: material. XVI International correspondence scientific and practical work. conf. Part II. - Novosibirsk: SibAK, 2013. - pp. 15-25.

19. Schrader H. Economic anthropology. - St. Petersburg: Petersburg Oriental Studies, 1999. - 192 p.

20. Fukuyama F. Trust: social virtues and the path to prosperity. - M.: AST, 2004. - 732 p.

Received 05/30/2014

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION UNDER CONDITIONS OF SYMBOLIC CAPITALISM: PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH

Marina V. Demidova,

Cand. Sc., Volga Region Institute of Administration at Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, 23/25, Sobornaya street, Saratov, 410031, Russia. Email: [email protected]

The relevance of the research is caused by the change of contemporary social space.

The main aim of the research is to single out new social classes and to stratify them in symbolic capitalism.

The methods used in the research. Philosophical analysis of contemporary social stratification has been carried out on the grounds of Pierre Bourdieu"s and Karl Marx"s ideas. Comparative approach and synthesis method were used as a research methodology. The author has used such concepts as habitus, capital, socioeconomic formation, production process in its alternative interpretation determined by the modern global social context.

The results. The author determined particular characteristics of interaction between symbolic and physical capital, rhizomic form of symbolic social stratification, presence of symbolic and real level of society Symbolic capital as a strategy of functioning in society through trust acts as the main mode of production of symbolic capitalism. The author identified new features of symbolic capital existence and developed symbolic stratification of society, which consists of the two main classes - symbolic capitalists and symbolic workers. Development of hypothesis regarding symbolic social stratification is achieved through identification of modern social interaction features at both local and global levels. The author singled out new characteristics of symbolic capitalism existence and developed the symbolic society stratification. The definitions of new concepts, which reflect identified features, were formulated. The paper describes the trends of symbolic capital strategies development in the global community. It also introduces practical guidelines for the obtained results usage.

Conclusions. Modern global society under development is gradually leaving behind the traditional types of social order and acting as a social order based on the principles of functioning of symbolic capital underlying habitus which regulates and guides the development of the society. Symbolic capital serves as a strategy through which social reality consisting of social relationships is constructed. New social classes and symbolic social stratification adapted to contemporary social realities are formed.

Capital, symbolic capital, trust, formation, social stratification, Pierre Bourdieu, Karl Marx.

1. Marx K. Kapital. Protsess proizvodstva kapitala. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo politiches-koy literatury, 1960. 900 p.

2. Marx. K. Capital. Protsess obrashcheniya kapitala. Marx. K., Engels F. Sochineniya. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo politicheskoy literatury, 1961. 643 p.

3. Marx. K. Capital. Protsess kapitalisticheskogo proizvodstva, vsyaty v tselom. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo politicheskoy literatury, 1961.1078 p.

4. Marx. K. Capital. Protsess kapitalisticheskogo proizvodstva, vsyatyy vzelom. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo politicheskoy lite-ratury, 1962. 552 p.

5. Bourdieu P. Le Sens Pratique. Paris, Minuit, 1980. 475 p.

6. Toffler A. Power shift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century. New York, Bantam Books, 1990. 586 p.

7. Demidova M.V. Simvolichesky capital: sotsialno-filosofsky ana-liz. Sotsiolo-giya, politologiya, filosofiya i istoriya v sovremennom mire. Novosibirsk, Sibirskaya assotsiatsiya konsultantov, 2012. pp. 64-70.

8. Ivanov M.M. Simvolichesky kapital rabotnika kak sredstvo reali-satsii karery. Dis. Kand. nauk. Moscow, 2011. 170 p.

9. Mestnikov A.A. Razvitie rynka venchurnykh investitsy: sotsiolo-gicheskiy podkhod. Dis. Kand.nauk. Moscow, 2011. 130 p.

10. Mestnikov A.A. Vlozhenie simvolicheskogo kapitala kak instrument innovatsionnoy politiki gosudarstva. Trud i sot-sialnye otnosheniya - Labor and Social Relations, 2010, no. 6, pp. 113-119.

11. Mestnikov A.A. Innovatsionny diskurs kak faktor modernisatsii rossiyskoy ekonomiki. Innovatsii - Innovations, 2010, no. 3 (137), pp. 54-57.

12. Bourdieu P. Sur le pouvoir symbolique. Annales. Economic. Société. Civilisations, 1977, no. 3, pp. 405-411.

13. Bourdieu P. Sociologiya socialnogoprostranstva. St. Petersburg, Moscow: Aleteyya, 2007. 288 p.

14. Golenkova Z.T., Goliusova Yu.V. Novye sotsialnye gruppy v sov-remennykh stratifikatsionnykh sistemakh globalnogo obshche-stva. Sotsiologicheskaya nauka i sotsialnayaprakti-ka - Social study and social practice, 2013, no. 3, pp. 5-15.

15. Florida R. The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent. New York, Harper Business, 2005. 350 p.

16. Ortega y Gasset J. Vosstanie mass. Moscow, AST Publ., 2002. 509 p.

17. Grinin L.E. “Lyudi izvestnosti” - new social sloy? [“People of popularity” - a new social class?]. Sotsiologicheskie issledova-niya - Sociological researches, 2004, no. 12, pp. 46-54.

18. Demidova M.V. Sotsialno-filosofskie aspekty upravleniya simvo-licheskim kapitalom. Innovatsii v nauke: Materialy XVI Mezhdynarodnoy zaochnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konfe-rentss. Novosibirsk, Sibirska-ya assotsiatsiya konsultantov, 2013. P. II, pp. 15-25.

19. Shrader H. Economic anthropology. St. Petersburg, Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 1999. 192 p.

20. Fukuyama F. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York, Free Press, 1995. 457 p.

The sociological concept of stratification reflects the stratification of society, differences in the social status of its members.

“Social stratification” is a term used to designate structured social inequality, conditions under which social groups have unequal access to such social benefits as money, power, prestige, education, information, professional career, self-realization, etc. Social inequality can manifest itself both for individuals within a group and for social groups. At the same time, when studying social stratification, inequality between groups of people is considered, which arises as an unintended consequence of social relations and is reproduced in each next generation. According to the European tradition, inequality, or social stratification, is seen as a result of social and economic conditions.

In contrast to the social structure that arises in connection with the social division of labor, social stratification arises in connection with the social division of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits

In the scientific tradition, there are two main approaches to the study of social stratification - class, based on objective indicators of belonging to a social class or layer, and status, based on subjective assessments of the prestige of individuals, social groups, and professions.

At the same time, stratification acts as a method of identifying the relevant segments of society. Social stratification is a method of analyzing and describing the social structure of society, which involves the identification of social strata based on such characteristics as the amount of power, prestige, amount of income received, level of education and qualifications, official position, etc.

It reflects the different position of people, groups, layers in society, their unequal status. Therefore, stratification can be characterized as a hierarchically organized structure of social inequality that exists in a certain society in a certain historical period of time.

To determine belonging to a particular social stratum, sociologists offer a variety of parameters and criteria. According to P. Sorokin, there are three types of stratification:

Economic (based on income and wealth criteria);

Political (according to the criteria of influence and power);

Professional (according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).

The founder of structural functionalism T. Parsons identifies three groups of signs of social stratification:

Qualitative characteristics of members of society that they possess from birth (origin, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities, congenital characteristics, etc.);

Role characteristics determined by the set of roles that an individual performs in society (education, profession, position, qualifications, various types of work activities, etc.);

Characteristics associated with the possession of material and spiritual values (wealth, property, works of art, social privileges, etc.).

In modern sociology, as a rule, the following main criteria of social stratification are distinguished:

1) income - the amount of cash receipts for a certain period of time (month, year);

2) wealth - accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or materialized (for example, real estate) money;

3) power - the ability and opportunity to exercise one’s will and control the activities of people through various means (authority, law, violence, etc.);

4) education - a set of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the learning process;

5) prestige - public assessment of the significance and attractiveness of a particular profession, position, or certain type of occupation.

Social status- the relative position of an individual or group, determined by social characteristics (economic status, profession, qualifications, education, etc.), natural characteristics (gender, age, etc.), as well as prestige and place in the power structure; a set of rights and obligations of an individual or social group associated with their performance of a certain social role.

Social role- a set of norms that determine the behavior of individuals operating in a social system.

The nature of social stratification, the methods of its determination and reproduction in their unity form what sociologists call stratification system. From a historical perspective, stand out four main types of stratification systems: slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three types characterize closed societies, and the fourth is open.

A closed society, in this context, should be understood as a society where social movements from one stratum to another are either completely prohibited or significantly limited. In open societies, the transition from lower to higher strata is not officially limited by law.

1. Slave stratification- represents a form of the most rigid consolidation of people in the lower strata. This is the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the owner of another, deprived of all rights and freedoms.

The methods of reproducing the slave system are characterized by significant diversity. Ancient slavery was maintained mainly through conquest. For early feudal Rus', debt and bonded slavery were characteristic.

2. Caste stratification- involves the lifelong assignment of a person to a certain stratum on ethnic, religious or economic grounds. A caste is a closed group that is assigned a strictly defined place in the social hierarchy. There is a clear list defining the occupations that members of this caste can engage in (priestly, military, agricultural), as a result of which the isolation of this group increases even more. Since membership in the caste system was inherited, opportunities for social mobility were limited. It is most widespread in India.

3. Class stratification- implied the legal assignment of a person to a particular stratum. The rights and duties of each class were determined by law and sanctified by religion. Belonging to the class was mainly inherited, but as an exception it could be acquired for money or granted by power. In general, the class system was characterized by a branched hierarchy, which was expressed in inequality of social status and the presence of numerous privileges.

Examples of developed class systems are feudal Western European societies, as well as feudal Russia.

4. Class stratification- an open type system that does not imply a legal or any other way of assigning an individual to a specific stratum. Unlike previous closed systems, class membership is not regulated by authorities, is not established by law, and is not inherited. It is determined, first of all, by its place in the system of social production, ownership of property, as well as the level of income received,

The class system is characteristic of modern society, where there are opportunities for free transition from one stratum to another.

This system is complemented by a description of such types of stratification systems, a combination of which is found in any society.

Among them are:

. physical-genetic stratification system, which is based on ranking people according to natural characteristics: gender, age, the presence of certain physical qualities - strength, dexterity, etc.;

. etacratic- in which differentiation between groups is made according to their position in power-state hierarchies (political, military, administrative and economic), the possibility of mobilization and distribution of resources, as well as the privileges that these groups have depending on their rank in the structures of power ;

. socio-territorial- formed due to the unequal distribution of resources between regions, differences in access to jobs, housing, quality goods and services, etc.

. cultural-normative- in which differentiation is based on differences in respect and prestige that arise as a result of comparison of existing norms and styles inherent in certain social groups (attitudes towards physical and mental labor, etc.);

. socio-professional- according to which groups are divided according to their content and working conditions; ranking here is carried out using certificates (diplomas, ranks, licenses, patents, etc.), fixing the level of qualifications and ability to perform certain types of activities;

. cultural-symbolic- arising from differences in access to socially significant information, unequal opportunities to select, preserve and interpret this information (pre-industrial societies are characterized by theocratic manipulation of information, industrial ones - partocratic, and post-industrial societies - technocratic).

In reality, all these stratification systems are closely intertwined and complement each other.

In the process of development of democratic and market reforms, the social stratification of Russian society has undergone a significant transformation. Currently, there are several models of social stratification of modern Russian society. Let's look at some of them.

Domestic sociologist N. M. Rimashevskaya identifies the following elements in the social structure of Russian society:

1) "all-Russian elite groups", connecting the possession of property in amounts comparable to the largest Western fortunes with the means of power influence at the all-Russian level;

2) "regional and corporate elites", possessing a significant fortune on a Russian scale, as well as influence at the level of regions and sectors of the economy;

3) Russian "upper middle class" having property and income that provide him with Western standards of consumption, claiming to improve his social status and focusing on established practices and ethical standards of economic relationships;

4) Russian "dynamic middle class"“s”, with incomes that ensure the satisfaction of average Russian and higher consumption standards, relatively high potential adaptation, significant social aspirations and motivations, social activity and orientation towards legal ways of its manifestation;

5) "outsiders" characterized by low adaptation and social activity, low income and focus on legal ways of obtaining them;

6) "marginals" characterized by low adaptation and asocial or antisocial attitudes in their socio-economic activities;

7) "criminals" possessing high social activity and adaptation, but at the same time acting quite rationally contrary to legal norms of economic practice.

Scientist A.V. Dmitriev, taking three criteria as the basis for stratification (income level, level of education and prestige), identified five main social groups included in the social structure of modern Russian society:

. administrative elite(ruling elite), consisting of the old party nomenklatura of the first and second echelons, as well as the new political elite;

. working class, which in turn is divided according to industry and qualification criteria;

. intelligentsia;

. "new bourgeoisie" which consists of entrepreneurs and bankers;

. peasantry.

Group of benefits, resources	examples of resources	representatives
Economic	Ownership of land, farms, factories, professional practice, business, liquid assets, people or labor	K. Mark, Eric Wright
Political	Power in the family, workplace, party, society	M. Weber, R. Dahrendorf
Cultural	Consumption practices, “good manners”, lifestyle	P. Bourdieu, Paul DiMaggio
Social	Access to high-status social connections and groups	Lloyd Warner, James Coleman
Honorary	Prestige, "good reputation", fame, respect, ethnicity and religion	E. Shils, Donald Treman
civilian	Property rights, contracts, freedom of association, speech	Marshall, Rogers Brubaker, Kare
human	Skill, competence, experience, knowledge	Svastoga, Harry Becker

Within the framework of structural functionalism, there are two main approaches to explaining stratification.

One of them ( functionalist) received the greatest development in American sociology. Its supporters differentiate the population by income level, prestige, power and other characteristics, taking their quantitative indicators as self-sufficient and abstracting from their sources. In this case, each individual occupying one or another status position acts as an autonomous unit: this is his personal success, etc.

The entire tradition of American individualism works towards this approach. There are people who “made” themselves - winners (winners) and there are losers (losers). The reasons for the success of some and the failure of others are only in their personal qualities.

The second tradition and the second approach ( structuralist) examines social stratification through the prism of relations between elements of social

structures, i.e. social groups. Social stratification is perceived not as a result of differentiation of the abilities of individuals, but as a consequence of the fact that society is structured in the form of a hierarchy: it always has a top and a bottom; the higher you go, the fewer seats there are. Therefore, even if everyone is brilliant and endowed with a heroic character, only a few will be able to get to the top. At the same time, the success of individuals is explained not only and not so much by their personal qualities, but by the level at which they started: it is easier for someone who inherited a million dollars and/or an expensive first-class education to become a multimillionaire or a major official than the son of an unemployed person (for example, Bill Gates ).

So, within the framework of this approach, power as an indicator of status does not mean the power of someone over someone, i.e. not an inter-individual relationship, but power

a layer with power over a layer without power.

1. Marks K. Class theory. Classes are distinguished by a common position in the economic mode of production, a specific way of life, conflictual relations with other classes, the presence of class consciousness, the presence of political ideology, and the level of education and culture. Social stratification depends on the level of property ownership.

2. M. Weber believed that it is worth defining stratification according to three parameters: property, prestige, power; they are the ones who create the status of any person or “social” group. According to them, three groups can be distinguished: lower, middle and higher.M. Weber did not attach much importance to property ownership. A person or social group, without having significant property, can have great prestige and power. For example, a high-class manager at an enterprise.

Prestige also decisively determines a person’s position in the social structure. For example, the prestige of an athlete, actor, or model can be exchanged for economic benefits. Political power is also relatively independent of property.
In real society, various options are possible. A person can be rich, but lack the necessary status, education, or political influence. This situation in Western sociology is designated by the term “status of incompatibility.” People experiencing the status of incompatibility feel disappointment, dissatisfaction, and are prone to extremism. If a person has a higher rank in one status and a relatively low rank in another, then he tries to emphasize his high status, and when people around him evaluate him, they see first of all his low status.

3. T. Parsons identified three groups of differentiating characteristics. These include:

1) characteristics that people have from birth - gender, age, ethnicity, physical and intellectual characteristics, family ties, etc.;

2) signs associated with the performance of the role, i.e. with various types of professional and labor activities;

3) elements of “possession”, which includes property, privileges, material and spiritual values, etc.

4. In concepts Kingsley Davis and Wilbur (G.) Moore it was argued that the theory of social stratification combines functional necessity and the universal presence of stratification in every society. Stratification for them is the uneven distribution of material wealth and social prestige, which is determined by the functional significance of the position.

5. P. Sorokin. He identified three types of stratification: economic, political, professional.

Economic exists when there are haves and have-nots in society

Political exists when there are governed and managers in society and depends on two criteria: the size of the political organization (the larger the size, the higher the stratification), the heterogeneity of the organization (with greater heterogeneity, the higher the stratification)

Professional (intraprofessional and interprofessional)

6. American sociologist Elton Johnson in his stratification studies, he designated the social status of individuals according to three main characteristics: occupation, education, and racial-ethnic group of the person.

Higher, secondary and lower education. High-status education includes people who at one time graduated from not just universities, but prestigious universities.

Racial-ethnic group. Taking into account the specifics of the United States, he singled out Irish by origin into one group, Italians (among the whites) into the second, and representatives of the yellow and black races into the third.

Occupation: high status, middle status and low status.

Using a combination of individual ranks across the three groups, the compatibility status of specific people can be determined. A white American, with a higher education, working as a garbage collector or taxi driver - one status. The mayor of the city, without higher education, black, is a different status. Determining the social status of an individual or social group in a stratification system makes it possible to significantly predict a person’s behavior, his reaction to specific situations, his attitude to social conflicts, and much more.

Stratification systems

To fly to the government - you must have a gravitsap! The government lives on another planet... dear.

film "Kin-dza-dza"

№	Name of stratification system	Basis of differentiation	Maintenance method	Time and place of existence
	Physico-genetic	Socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age) and physical characteristics	Physical coercion, custom	Primitive community to this day
	Slaveholding	Citizenship and property rights	Military legal coercion	Ancient slavery, servility in Rus' (during the time of “Russian Truth”), plantation slavery (in the south of North America), German and Soviet camps of the 20th century.
	Caste	Religious and ethnic division of labor	Religious ritual, ethnic isolation	India before 1950, Central Asian states, the period of the fascist regime, etc. China, Japan, Egypt, Peru, Iran
	Estate	Responsibilities to the state	Rules of law	Feudal society
	Etacratic (bossy)	Ranks in the power hierarchy	Military-political domination (tables of ranks, military regulations)	Societies of Asian Despotism (China, India), Chile (under Pinochet), Soviet system
	Social and professional	Occupation and qualifications	Educational certificates	Any society
	Class	Amount of income and property	Norms of a market economy	Bourgeois society
	Cultural-symbolic	Sacred knowledge (or socially significant information	Religious, ideological, scientific manipulation	Any society
9	Cultural-normative	Norms of behavior, lifestyles	Moral standards, imitation	Any society

Marginality

- We’ll sing “mother” around the Galaxy for a month - and the planet is in our pocket. Another month and we’ll buy air. Those who have no air will all pour in here. The air is ours.
- They will crawl on all fours, and we don’t care about them!
- What for?
- What do you mean why? It's a pleasure to receive.
- What's the fun in this?
- Still young…

Film "Kin-dza-dza"

The concept of marginality has played an important role in sociological thought, but there are still many difficulties in defining the content of the concept of marginality.

The term “marginal” itself has long been used to designate notes, notes in the margins; in another sense it means "economically close to the limit, almost unprofitable."

As a sociological it has existed since 1928. American sociologist, one of the founders of the Chicago School Robert Ezra Park(1864-1944) first used it in his essay “Human Migration and the Marginal Man,” dedicated to the study of environmental processes immigrants. True, the background to the emergence of the term can be considered the term “interstitial element”, used by another researcher of this school in 1927 when studying immigrant groups in an urban social organization.

Robert Park is best known for his studies of urban development (particularly immigrant communities in American cities) and cross-cultural race relations. Their result was the formation of an idea of the type of “borderline” person characteristic of intensive migration processes in American society.

At the Park concept of marginality(from the Latin margo - edge, border, limit) meant the position of individuals located on the border of two different, conflicting cultures, and served to study the consequences of the lack of adaptation of migrants, the peculiarities of the situation of mulattoes and other “cultural hybrids”.

In his theory, the marginalized person appears as an immigrant; a half-breed living simultaneously “in two worlds”; Christian convert in Asia or Africa. The main thing that determines the nature of a marginal person is a sense of moral dichotomy, division and conflict, when old habits are discarded and new ones have not yet been formed. This state is associated with a period of moving, transition, defined as a crisis. “No doubt,” Park notes, “the periods of transition and crisis in the lives of most of us are comparable to those experienced by the immigrant when he leaves his homeland to seek fortune in a foreign country. But in the case of the marginalized person, the period of crisis is relatively continuous. As a result, it tends to develop into a personality type." And further he notes that in the nature of marginal man, the “moral confusion” that cultural contacts cause manifests itself in more obvious forms; By studying these phenomena where changes and merging of cultures occur, we, the scientist explains, can better study the processes of civilization and progress.

In describing the “marginal person,” Park often resorts to psychological accents. American psychologist T. Shibutani paid attention to complex of personality traits of a marginalized person, described by Park. It includes the following features:

Ø serious doubts about your personal worth,

Ø uncertainty of connections with friends and constant fear of being rejected,

Ø tendency to avoid uncertain situations so as not to risk humiliation,

Ø painful shyness in the presence of other people,

Ø loneliness and excessive daydreaming,

Ø excessive worry about the future and fear of any risky undertaking,

Ø inability to enjoy and the belief that others are treating him unfairly.

At the same time, Park associates the concept of a marginal person not with a personality type, but with a social process. He views the marginalized person as a "by-product" of the process of acculturation in situations where people of different cultures and different races come together to continue a common life, and prefers to examine the process not from the point of view of the individual, but from the point of view of the society of which he is a part.

Park comes to the conclusion that a marginal personality embodies a new type of cultural relationships emerging at a new level of civilization as a result of global ethnosocial processes. "A marginalized person is a type of personality that appears at a time and place where new communities, peoples, and cultures begin to emerge from the conflict of races and cultures. Fate condemns these people to exist in two worlds at the same time; forces them to accept both worlds the role of a cosmopolitan and a stranger. Such a person inevitably becomes (in comparison with his immediate cultural environment) an individual with a broader horizon, a more refined intellect, more independent and rational views. The marginal person is always a more civilized being.

Thus, the initial consideration of the problems of marginality is associated with the “cultural approach” of Robert Park, which gave many fruitful ideas to modern researchers.

Park's ideas were picked up, developed and reworked by another American sociologist - Everett Stonequist in the monographic study "Marginal Man" (1937). His name is most often associated with the final consolidation and legitimation of the concept of marginality in sociology.

Stonequist describes the marginal position of a social subject participating in a cultural conflict and being “between two fires.” Such an individual is on the edge of each culture, but does not belong to any of them.

As examples of such behavior, Stonequist examines racial hybrids (Anglo-Indians, Cape Coloreds of South Africa, mulattoes in the United States, Coloreds of Jamaica, mestizos of Brazil, etc.), cultural hybrids (Europeanized Africans, denationalized Europeans, immigrants, etc.) .

The object of Stonequist's attention is the typical features of such a person and the problems associated with his inability and adaptability, as well as the sociological significance of a marginal person. He considers a marginal person as a key personality in cultural contacts. Stonequist defines the marginalized person in terms of an individual or group who moves from one culture to another, or in some cases (for example, through marriage or education) connects with two cultures. He is in a psychological balancing act between two social worlds, one of which, as a rule, dominates the other. Just like Park, focusing on describing the inner world of a marginalized person, Stonequist uses the following psychological characteristics reflecting the severity of cultural conflict:

Ø disorganization, stupefaction, inability to determine the source of the conflict;

Ø feeling of an “impregnable wall”, inadequacy, failure;

Ø restlessness, anxiety, internal tension;

Ø isolation, alienation, non-involvement, constraint;

Ø disappointment, despair;

Ø destruction of the “life organization”, mental disorganization, meaninglessness of existence;

Ø self-centeredness, ambition and aggressiveness.

Researchers note the closeness of his characteristics of a “marginal person” and the characteristic features of a society defined by Durkheim that is in a state of anomie, as a consequence of the breakdown of social ties. However, Stonequist was interested in the causes of culturally determined marginality.

It should be noted that if Park considered a marginal personality as a person at the border of two cultures and two societies, who would never be accepted into a new society, remaining in it a person with a split consciousness and an upset psyche, then Stonequist believed that the adaptation process could lead to the formation personalities with new properties. This is an important point in looking at issues of marginality in a positive way. The process of “transformation of the social, mental and emotional aspects of personality,” according to the scientist, can take about 20 years. Stonequist highlighted three phases of the evolution of "marginal man":

1. the individual does not realize that his own life is engulfed in a cultural conflict, he only “absorbs” the dominant culture;

2. the conflict is experienced consciously - it is at this stage that the individual becomes “marginal”;

3. successful and unsuccessful searches for adaptation to a conflict situation.

Thus, the concept of marginality is initially presented as the concept of a marginal person. R. Park and E. Stonequist, having described the inner world of the marginalized, became the founders of the tradition of psychological nominalism in understanding marginality in American sociology. It should be emphasized once again that the original central issue of marginality was cultural conflict, and hence the marginality described in this case was labeled as cultural.

Subsequently, the concept of marginality was picked up by countless sociologists. In the 40s - 60s, it was especially actively developed in American sociology. The problem of marginality is no longer limited to cultural and racial hybrids, as with Stonequist. Stonequist’s theory itself has been criticized. For example, D. Golovensky considered the concept of “marginal person” to be a “sociological fiction.” A. Green argued that marginal person is an all-encompassing term (omnibus term), which, including everything, does not exclude anything, and therefore should be used carefully and only after its parameters. defined.

In turn, R. Merton defined marginality as a specific case of reference group theory. He notes that marginality occurs when an individual, through prior socialization, prepares for membership in a positive reference group that is not inclined to accept him. Such a state implies multiple loyalties and double identification, incomplete (incomplete) socialization and lack of social affiliation.

German sociological literature is characterized by an approach to marginality in the field of social structure as a social position characterized by a high social distance in relation to the dominant culture of the “main society” (Kerngesellschaft). This position is usually located at the lowest level of the hierarchical structure (in this sense, “on the edge”) of society, and the social category of people who are in a marginal position is here designated as a marginal group (as well as “marginal,” “problem group,” “socially despised strata", declassed; in everyday speech - "sediment", "bottom", "scum", lepers", "asocial"). In German research literature, various heterogeneous groups are classified as social outlying (marginal) groups, for example, gypsies, foreign workers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, drug addicts, tramps, youth subcultures, beggars, criminals and released criminals.

There are three dimensions of the process of marginalization:

Economic - marginalization as “relative deprivation”, exclusion from activity and consumption;

Political - defeat of civil/political rights (de facto or de jure), deprivation of the right to vote; exclusion from participation in normal political activities and from access to formal political influence;

Social - marginalization as a loss of social prestige: declassing, stigmatization (“Verachtung”), etc. marginal groups.

Currently, the concept of marginality is under further development. First of all, it identified three directions, three types: cultural, structural and marginality of social role.

Cultural marginality - in its classical definition, refers to the processes of cross-cultural contacts and assimilation. This type of marginality is based on the relationship between the value systems of two cultures in which the individual participates, which results in ambiguity, uncertainty of status and role. The classic descriptions of cultural marginality are provided by Stonequist and Park (as mentioned earlier).

Marginality of a social role - marginality of this type occurs in the following cases: in case of failure when trying to be assigned to a positive reference group; being in a role that lies between two adjacent roles; membership in groups defined as marginal (some professional groups); This type also includes those social groups that are completely outside the main stream of social organization (for example, gypsies, homeless people, etc.)

Structural marginality - refers to the political, social and economic powerlessness of certain disenfranchised and/or disadvantaged segments within society.

Exploring the degree of severity of marginality and essentially posing the problem of measuring this phenomenon in various social situations, Mancini proposes a system of meters. The extreme degree of marginality is mental disorganization and/or suicide. The first type of marginality is associated rather with position in the structure, when an individual becomes marginal “by definition.” The second type, Mancini notes, is based on movement between two groups, when an individual tries to move from one social position to another. In this case, marginality occurs when, in the process of moving from the “feeder-group” to the “recipient group” - usually a positive reference group, the personality still has roots in the old one, but is not yet fully accepted into the new one. Obviously, essential and procedural marginality generalize the characteristics of, in the first case, cultural and structural, and in the second - social-role marginality.

In general, two main approaches can be distinguished in the study of marginality:

Ø study of marginality as a process of moving a group or individual from one state to another;

Ø the study of marginality as a state of social groups that are in a special marginal (marginal, intermediate, isolated) position in the social structure as a consequence of this process.

Society's reaction to the presence of marginalized people: therapy and exclusion

Therapy is activated when the marginal definition of reality is psychologically disruptive for other members of society;

The exclusion of strangers – carriers of other definitions – is carried out in two directions.

1) Limiting contacts with “outsiders”;

2) Negative legitimation. Negative legitimation means belittling the status and possibility of influence of marginalized people on the community.

Resources for overcoming marginality

1) Social resources. An important resource for overcoming marginality is the presence of relatives and friends in a new place, which in most cases determined the choice of a particular city. The next “authority” is friends.

2) Economic resources. These include property brought with you, cash and the presence of a “convertible” specialty. It is these resources that migrants usually experience the most acute shortage of. People arrive almost empty-handed, since the proceeds from selling property for next to nothing can barely cover travel expenses. Like the unemployed, forced migrants usually find employment with a significant decrease in social status.

3) Legal resources - Russian citizenship, local registration and forced migrant status. They are equally important both in solving practical problems of employment and solving the housing problem, and in acquiring the status of “one of our own”. Thus, many migrants noted that the first stage of their journey was the recognition of the legitimacy of their stay in this territory as an equal.

4) Activity resources are represented by a conscious choice of the current situation, a willingness to take on any work, in general to difficulties and long-term efforts.

5) Symbolic compensation for lost opportunities. “Transforming” a difficult situation into a favorable one, finding the positives in any event is also a resource that helps you avoid severe stress and soberly assess your capabilities. The most important element of such a sober assessment is lowering the bar of people's needs, accepting the fact that they only have access to a lower standard of living than the one that existed before.

6) Emotional resources.

Types of marginals:

1) Post-specialists. Thus, with all the heterogeneity and complexity of the group of “post-specialists”, the most common types can be identified:

o Regional-settlement workers - workers of small and medium-sized cities with a collapsing mono-industry, labor-surplus and depressed regions.

o Professional-industrial - workers in industries (mechanical engineering, light industry, food industry, etc.) and professions, specialties (engineering and technical workers) that are not in demand by modern economic conditions.

o Budgetary - employees of the reformed budgetary sectors of science, education, and the army.

2) “New agents” - or small business entrepreneurs - are a more homogeneous group that has all the characteristics of a new social stratum in the structure of Russian society.

3) “Forced migrants” - The peculiarities of the situation of this group are related to the fact that they objectively find themselves in a situation of multiple marginality, caused by the need to adapt to a new environment after a forced change of place of residence.

Alternative theories of product properties and its value. Concepts of goods, use value, utility and price. Three laws of pricing and three pricing effects

And social mobility, both in domestic and Western sociology, is based on the theoretical developments and concepts of M. Weber, P. Sorokin, P. Bourdieu, M. Kohn and other researchers.

Theories of stratification by M. Weber

The decisive condition (the first criterion of stratification) influencing the fate of an individual is not so much the fact of class affiliation as the position (status) of the individual in the market, which allows him to improve or worsen his life chances.

The second criterion of stratification is the prestige, respect, honors that an individual or position receives. The status respect received by individuals unites them into groups. Status groups are distinguished by a certain way of life, lifestyle, they have certain material and ideal privileges and try to usurp their morals on them.

Both class and status positions are resources in the struggle for power on which political parties rely. This is the third stratification criterion.

Theory of social stratification and social mobility P. Sorokin (1889-1968)

P. Sorokin's theory of stratification was first outlined in his work “Social Mobility” (1927), which is considered a classic work in this area.

Social stratification, according to Sorokin’s definition, is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community.

All the diversity of social stratification can be reduced to three main forms - economic, political and professional, which are closely intertwined. This means that those who belong to the highest stratum in one respect usually belong to the same stratum in another respect; and vice versa. This happens in most cases, but not always. According to Sorokin, the interdependence of the three forms of social stratification is far from complete, because the different layers of each form do not completely coincide with each other, or rather, they coincide only partially. Sorokin was the first to call this phenomenon status discrepancy. It lies in the fact that a person can occupy a high position in one stratification and a low position in another. Such a discrepancy is painfully experienced by people and can serve as an incentive for some to change their social position and lead to the social mobility of the individual.

Considering professional stratification, Sorokin distinguished between interprofessional and intraprofessional stratification.

In interprofessional stratification, two universal bases are distinguished:

the importance of an occupation (profession) for the survival and functioning of the group as a whole;
the level of intelligence required to successfully perform professional duties.

Sorokin concludes that in any given society, more professional work consists of carrying out the functions of organization and control and requires a higher level of intelligence for its implementation and accordingly implies the privilege of the group and its higher rank, which it occupies in the interprofessional hierarchy.

Sorokin presented intraprofessional stratification as follows:

entrepreneurs;
employees of the highest category (directors, managers, etc.);
hired workers.

To characterize the professional hierarchy, he introduced the following indicators:

height;
number of floors (number of ranks in the hierarchy);
professional stratification profile (the ratio of the number of people in each professional subgroup to all members of the professional group).

Sorokin defined social mobility as any transition of an individual or a social object (value, i.e. everything that is created or modified by human activity) from one social position to another (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. Types of social mobility

Under horizontal social mobility, or movement, implies the transition of an individual from one social group to another, located at the same level.

Under vertical social mobility refers to those relationships that arise when an individual moves from one social layer to another. Depending on the direction of movement, vertical mobility is divided into upward and downward, i.e. social ascent and social descent.

Updrafts exist in two main forms:

penetration of an individual from a lower layer into an existing higher layer;
the creation of a new group and the penetration of the entire group into a higher layer to the level with already existing groups of this layer.

Downdrafts also have two forms:

the fall of an individual from a higher social position to a lower one without destroying the original group to which the individual previously belonged;
degradation of a social group as a whole, lowering its rank against the background of other groups or destruction of its social unity.

Sorokin named the reasons for vertical group mobility as wars, revolutions, and foreign conquests, which contribute to changing the criteria of stratification in society and change group status. An important reason may also be a change in the importance of a particular type of work or industry.

The most important channels ensuring the social circulation of individuals in society are social institutions such as the army, school, political, economic and professional organizations.

Functionalist views on social stratification

K. Davis And W. Moore saw the reason for the existence of the stratification system in the uneven distribution of benefits and social prestige. The main functional reason explaining the universal existence of stratification is related to the fact that any society inevitably faces the problem of placing individuals and stimulating them within its social structure. As a functioning organism, society must somehow sort its members into various social positions and encourage them to fulfill the responsibilities associated with those positions.

To accomplish such tasks, society must have some types of benefits that can be used as incentives; develop ways to distribute these benefits (rewards) unevenly depending on the positions held.

Remuneration and its distribution become part of the social structure and, in turn, give rise to (are the cause of) stratification.

As a reward, the company offers:

items that provide livelihood and comfort;
means for satisfying various inclinations and entertainment;
means to strengthen self-esteem and self-expression.

According to Davis and Moore, “social inequality is the unconsciously developed means by which society ensures that the most competent individuals are promoted to positions of importance...”

P. Bourdieu(b. 1930), a famous French scientist, made an important contribution to the development of the theory of stratification and mobility. He came to the conclusion that opportunities for social mobility are determined by the different types of resources, or “capitals,” that individuals have at their disposal—economic capital in its various forms, cultural capital, symbolic capital.

In modern societies, the upper strata reproduce their positions:

ensuring the transfer of economic capital;
providing the younger generation with special educational capital (training in special privileged schools and prestigious universities);
transferring to the younger generation cultural capital, linguistic and cultural competence, which is formed by creating a high-quality cultural environment for them (reading books, visiting museums and theaters, mastering the style of interpersonal relationships, behavioral and linguistic manners, etc.).

American sociologist M. Kohn put forward a hypothesis and proved, on the basis of empirical research, a close connection between the stratification position and the values of the individual.

For those who have a high social status and feel like a competent member of a society that is favorable to them, the main value is the mindset of achievement.

On the contrary, for lower social stratification positions, in which people see themselves as less competent members of a society that is indifferent or hostile to them, conformism is characteristic.

Regarding issues of social mobility, Cohn emphasized that people with an active lifestyle have a greater chance of occupying a higher social position.

The stratification position of the individual, on the one hand, influences the professional orientation towards achievement, and on the other hand, it depends on the non-personality.

The term “stratification” comes from “stratum” (Latin) - layer and “facio” (Latin) - do. Stratification- this is not just differentiation, a listing of differences between individual layers, strata in society. The task of stratification is to identify the vertical sequence of positions of social layers, their hierarchy.

The theory of social stratification is one of the most developed parts of social theory. Its foundations were laid by M. Weber, K. Marx, P. Sorokin, T. Parsons.The basis of the stratification structure is the natural and social inequality of people.

In the English Dictionary of Social Sciences, stratification is understood as a process as a result of which families and individuals are not equal to each other and are grouped into hierarchically located strata with different prestige, property and power.

All criteria for social stratification must comply with the following principles (according to M. Weber and E. Durkheim):

1) all social strata of a given society should be studied without exception;

2) it is necessary to compare and compare groups using the same criteria;

3) the criteria should be no less than required for sufficient

accurately complete description of each layer.

P. Sorokin defined social stratification as “the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community.” Stratification model of society ( pyramid divided into strata) was borrowed by P. Sorokin from geology. However, unlike the structure of rocks, in society:

the lower layers are always much wider than the higher ones,

the number of layers is not strictly defined: it all depends on how many stratification criteria are taken into account,

the thickness of the layer is not constant, since people can move from one layer to another (social mobility processes).

There are two main ways to stratify society, depending on the number of underlying characteristics:

1. Univariate stratification. It is based on one-dimensional strata, that is, strata distinguished according to any one social characteristic. This approach assumes the stratification of society according to the following groups of characteristics:

1) gender and age;

2) national-linguistic;

3) professional;

4) educational;

5) religious;

6) by settlement.

Some researchers also use other characteristics as the basis for classification.

2. Multivariate stratification. At the same time, stratification is based on several characteristics.

The second method of stratification involves dividing society into:

1) socio-territorial communities (population of a city, village, region);

2) ethnic communities (tribe, nationality, nation);

3) the system of slavery (an economic, social and legal form of securing people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality);

4) castes (social groups to which a person is obliged to belong by birth);

5) estates (social groups supported by established customs or laws, and in which rights and responsibilities are inherited);

6) public classes.

In sociology, there are several main approaches to stratification structure.

1. Economic approach, whose supporters (K. Marx, E. Durkheim, etc.) considered the division of labor as the main cause of social differentiation. K. Marx was the first to develop the theory of the economic basis of classes. He associated the existence of classes only with certain historical forms of development of production, where ownership of the means of production is distributed evenly between different layers of the population, as a result of which some exploit others, and struggle between them is inevitable.

2. Political approach to stratification. Its founders are L. Gumplowicz, G. Mosca, V. Pareto, M. Weber. Political stratification is the differences between politically dominant groups and masses, in which the very vertical of the political hierarchy is built through the prism of belonging to certain political forces, and the main criterion for identifying a particular political stratum is the level of possession of political power. L. Gumplowicz believed that the nature of class differences is a reflection of differences in power, which also determine the subsequent division of labor and the distribution of social responsibilities. G. Mosca and V. Pareto considered inequality and mobility as related aspects of the same phenomenon, the movement of people between the ruling class, the elite and the lower class - passive subordinates.

3. Functionalist concept social stratification, which is based on the ideas of T. Parsons, K. Davis, W. Moore. T. Parsons considers stratification an aspect of any social system. He proceeds from the fact that any action is inevitably associated with choice and evaluation. Commonly accepted rating standards allow positions to be ranked as superior or inferior. Since the desired positions are not enough, the preservation of the system requires the institutionalization of inequality, allowing interactions to proceed without conflict. The generality and generally accepted nature of the rating scale implies coverage of all types of rewards, of which “respect” is considered the most important.

Each given person, according to Parsons, actually enjoys respect correlated with a graded hierarchy; his relative respect in an ordered total system of differentiated evaluation is prestige, which means comparative evaluation. In turn, differentiated prestige is the basis of stratification.

Davis and Moore rightly believe that some positions in the social system are more functionally important than others and require special skills for their implementation. However, the number of individuals with these abilities is limited. Therefore, these positions should be given stimulus in the form of differential access to society's limited and desirable rewards, in order to force talented individuals to make sacrifices and acquire the necessary training. These differentiated rewards lead to differentiation of the prestige of the strata and, consequently, to social stratification.

Modern studies of social stratification use the theoretical basis of the above approaches, and also proceed from the principle of multidimensionality of stratification measurements. The foundations of this approach were already laid in the works of M. Weber, who studied the interdependence between various stratification criteria. Weber believed that class affiliation is determined not only by the nature of the relationship to the means of production, but also by economic differences that are not directly related to property: for example, qualifications, skills, education.

Other criteria for stratification, according to Weber, are status and party affiliation (groups of individuals having a common origin, goals, interests).

Thus, income, power, prestige and education determine the overall socio-economic status, i.e. the position and place of a person in society.

In modern sociological science, various approaches to the analysis of social stratification coexist (activity approach, the concept of “emergence” of the emergence of unexpected criteria of social inequality, etc.).

From the point of view of the activity-activist approach to the analysis of social inequalities (T.I. Zaslavskaya), the social hierarchy of modern Russian society can be presented as follows:

elite – ruling political and economic – up to 0.5%;

upper layer - large and medium-sized entrepreneurs, directors of large and medium-sized privatized enterprises, other sub-elite groups - 6.5%;

middle layer - representatives of small businesses, qualified professionals, middle management, officers - 20%;

base layer – ordinary specialists, assistant specialists, workers, peasants, trade and service workers – 60%;

bottom layer – low-skilled and unskilled workers, temporarily unemployed – 7%;

social bottom – up to 5%.