Revision summary
Davis–Moore: unequal rewards motivate talent into functionally important, scarce positions. Premises: universality, positional inequality, motivation through prestige and pay. Tumin, Marx, Weber, and Merton show tautology, exploitation, status, and latent privilege. India: exams look like contests; informal labour, caste, and care refute the general claim. Relevant as merit ideology and some professions; not as the theory of Indian stratification.
Model answer
Introduction
Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore argued that stratification is a functional necessity. Unequal rewards attach to positions so that scarce talent is placed where it is most needed. The premises are neat. Contemporary India shows both the sorting story and its tautology.
Body
Basic premises
- Some positions are more functionally important and more scarce in qualified personnel.
- Society must motivate the talented to train and to occupy those positions.
- Unequal material and prestige rewards are the mechanism of motivation.
- Stratification is thus universal and functionally explained, not a historical accident.
- The theory is about positions, not about eternal families; mobility is thinkable.
Internal problems already named
- Melvin Tumin asked how we know importance except by the reward itself: tautology.
- Training can be blocked by property, caste, and gender, so the pool of talent is socially produced, not found.
- Dysfunctions: wasted talent, hostility, and the hiding of alternative motives such as service or coercion.
- Karl Marx: class is exploitation, not a team sorting nurses and CEOs for the common good.
- Max Weber: status honour and party power allocate reward beside “function”.
- Robert K. Merton: apparent functions can hide latent privilege.
Contemporary India: partial relevance
- Exam competition, IITs, and medical seats look like Davis–Moore contests for scarce skill.
- Public office and specialist medicine do need trained personnel; unequal pay is partly a labour-market fact.
Where relevance fails
- Caste and unpaid care, as Ann Oakley-type analysis shows, sort people before “talent” is measured.
- Informal labour is the majority: functionally crucial work, low reward, opposite of the premise.
- Mandal politics treats ascription as a claim on office, which the theory reads as interference rather than as a correction of blocked talent.
- Property and English-medium coaching sponsor mobility, Ralph Turner’s sponsored type, not a pure contest.
- NFHS nutrition and schooling gaps show that the talent pool is stratified in childhood.
How far
- Relevant as a folk ideology of merit and as a description of some professional labour markets.
- Weak as a general theory of Indian stratification, which remains a mix of class, caste status, and party, in Weber’s three orders, under a capitalist mode in Marx’s sense.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD PREM[Important scarce positions] --> REW[Unequal reward] REW --> SORT[Talent sorted] TUM[Tumin tautology] --> CRIT[Critique] IND[Caste care informal] --> CRIT
Conclusion
Davis–Moore premises treat unequal reward as a functional sorter of talent. Tumin, Marx, Weber, and Merton dismantle the tautology and the harmony. In India the theory fits some credential races and fails the informal majority, caste closure, and gendered care. Use it as a claim to test, not as the map.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Discuss the relationship between poverty and social exclusion
Next question on this syllabus topic (2016 · Q4(c)). View answer →
-
Did Davis deny mobility?
The theory allows mobility of persons among positions. It still justifies a steep hierarchy of positions.
-
Are doctors’ high rewards proof of the theory?
They show scarcity and organisation. They do not prove that street cleaners’ low rewards match low social importance.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2018 · Q1(d) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
What is the difference between natural and social inequality examples from caste and class dimensions -
2018 · Q5(e) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
In social mobility possible in closed systems of stratification ? Illustrate from research work. -
2017 · Q4(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
What is Weberian critique of Marxist notion of social stratification -
2017 · Q4(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Examine gender. Ethnicity and race as major dimensions of social stratification -
2016 · Q1(e) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
"Vertical mobility brings structural change even in a closed social system." Comment -
2016 · Q4(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Discuss the relationship between poverty and social exclusion -
2015 · Q1(e) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
"No society can either be completely open or completely closed." comment. -
2015 · Q3(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Differentiate between Maxian and Weberian theories of Social stratification.
More from this topic
Q5(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Does the structural-functionalist perspective on social stratification promote a status quo? Give reasons for your answer.
Stratification and Mobility: Concepts
Davis and Moore treat unequal rewards as devices to fill important positions. Parsons ties ranking to a shared value system and role allocation. That logic easily sanctifies the present hierarchy as necessary. Tumin asked who defines importance and why talent and reward match so neatly. Unpaid gendered labour and caste inheritance expose the payoff story. Merton’s dysfunctions qualify equilibrium but do not make functionalism a conflict theory.
Q3(a) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Compare capability deprivation approach with that of social capital deprivation in understanding chronic poverty
Stratification and Mobility: Concepts
Sen’s approach defines poverty as capability deprivation, not income shortfall alone. Functionings are beings and doings; capabilities are the real set of lives one can choose. Social capital is networks, trust and norms in Coleman, Putnam and Bourdieu, unequally held. Chronic poverty lasts because freedoms stay contracted or because bridges to work and credit stay closed. Dense caste bonding can coexist with capability failure. Indian SHGs, migration networks and multidimensional poverty measures illustrate the comparison.
Q1(e) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Is the social stratification theory gender-blind? Elucidate.
Stratification and Mobility: Concepts
Marx, Weber and Davis–Moore mapped class, status, power and function, usually with a male default. Gender-blindness means treating the household as a unit and unpaid care as non-economic. Hartmann, Walby, Oakley and Acker made patriarchy a structure of stratification. Crenshaw’s intersectionality warns against adding gender as an afterthought. Indian work on Brahmanical patriarchy and Dalit feminism shows caste and gender as one field. The elucidation is critical but not a dismissal of class analysis.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.