A Critique on Davis and Moore

*Note: this post was created and intended for last night, but had to be delayed til today because of technical difficulties. As you will notice, there are similarities in what is in the post below and what was presented today in lecture.

Kingsley Davis’s and Wilbert Moore’s “Some Principles of Stratification” asserts inequality as a functional necessity to societies. They claim that we reward positions proportionally to how we deem the position as important to society and scarce (due to inherent ability or extensive training/sacrifices needed.) Ultimately, because we want our most valuable positions to be filled by the most qualified persons, we distribute rewards unequally, creating social stratification.

Although the ideas purported by Davis and Moore neatly provide an answer to why there is social inequality, there are many holes in their arguments, which are pointed out by sociologist Melvin Tumin’s “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis” – a reading I became familiar with from another sociology course. First, Tumin refutes Davis’s and Moore’s idea that certain positions are functionally more important than others by raising the question that we have no way of determining which positions are more important. In fact, positions that we may deem valuable in the U.S. may not be so in another nation. Second, Davis and Moor claim that “Only a limited number of individuals in any society have the talents that can be trained into the skills appropriate to these positions,” to which Tumin argues that there are structural stratification systems that make it appear that only a limited number of individuals can obtain these skills. Scarcity is not because of “inherent ability,” as proposed by Davis and Moore, but rather because of other factors (i.e. lack of money to go to medical school) or the fact that power elite groups limit opportunities for people who are not in their group (i.e. a young teacher can’t find a job because tenured teachers already fill the vacancies.) Third, the fact that we reward positions based on perceived sacrifices seems faulty to Tumin. He claims that sacrifices are more subjective and that going to medical school, for example, may not be perceived as a sacrifice to everyone. Lastly, Tumin points out that Davis and Moore’s arguments void any possibility that one may pursue a position, not because of the monetary rewards, but because of other personal factors such as feelings of self-motivation or duty.

In all, Tumin criticizes Davis and Moore for their assumption that everyone has equal opportunity and motivations – and appropriate critique considering the fact that Tumin as a Marxist. Furthermore, Davis’s and Moore’s work is critiqued as a work of sociology, itself, because they create explanations based upon universals (everyone in competition with everyone). Yet, in order for sociology to explain causes, it needs variation. Finally, it is interesting to note that Tumin’s critique is later critiqued by Davis and Moore, themselves. If interested, find “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis: Reply,” American Sociological Review 18:4 (Aug., 1953), pp. 394-397.