Revision summary
Davis and Moore: unequal rewards fill important roles; the device is unconscious. Tumin: importance is politically defined. Marx and Weber add exploitation, status, and party. Caste and gender close talent before sorting begins. Use the thesis for incentives; do not use it as a full theory of inequality.
Model answer
Introduction
Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore argued that unequal rewards place talent in functionally important roles. Stratification is, for them, a necessity of complex society and a device that works without a planner. The claim is neat. It is also contested.
Body
Functional necessity
- Some positions are more functionally important and harder to fill. Higher prestige and pay attract training and effort.
- The family and school sort people into those slots. Inequality is treated as a mechanism of allocation, not as theft.
- The device is unconscious: no committee sits to invent caste or class. The pattern is said to arise as a system need.
Limits of the thesis
- Melvin Tumin asked who decides importance. Power, not function, often sets pay, as inherited wealth shows.
- Karl Marx treated class as exploitation, not as a talent contest. Max Weber added status and party.
- Indian caste and gender close talent before the market opens. M. N. Srinivas’s Sanskritisation is group honour, not Davis–Moore sorting.
- Census and NFHS inequalities of education and work sit poorly with a pure necessity story.
Discussion
- The thesis names a real problem of filling skilled roles.
- Calling the device unconscious hides who benefits. Necessity is an overclaim.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD NEED[System need for talent] --> DM[Davis Moore] DM --> REW[Unequal rewards] POW[Power ascription] --> CRIT[Tumin Marx caste] CRIT --> LIM[Not pure necessity]
Conclusion
Davis and Moore made stratification a functional sorter that no one designs. Tumin, Marx, and caste–gender closure show that power and ascription also allocate. Treat the thesis as a hypothesis about incentives, not as a defence of every hierarchy.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Modernization presupposes class society; however caste, ethnicity and race are still predominant. Explain
Next question on this syllabus topic (2019 · Q4(a)). View answer →
-
Did they praise inequality as moral?
They presented it as a system device. Critics say that still naturalises privilege.
-
Is the device really unconscious?
No elite sits to invent the whole map, but laws, schools, and property are quite conscious.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2020 · Q2(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
How are Hierarchy and Exclusion the major impediments in the transformation of societies ? Discuss. -
2020 · Q4(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Critically assess social mobility in closed and open systems. -
2019 · Q4(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Modernization presupposes class society; however caste, ethnicity and race are still predominant. Explain -
2019 · Q6(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Why is gender dimension of social stratification ? How does gender intersect other dimensions of inequality based on caste, class, race and ethnicity ? -
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
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.