Chapter 1 - 9

09 Sociology

Listen to a discussion in a sociology class. Fill in the diagram with the information that you hear.

W: We had started yesterday with a lot of theories, I know, and before we get into anything new today, I wanted to ask you all if there was anything that you were unclear about? Anything you wanted me to expand upon? Anything?

M: Well, I don’t want to derail the discussion or anything, but I found a theory in our book last night that we didn’t go over. I don’t know if it’s really all that pertinent, but I thought it was kind of interesting. It was called the Principles of Stratification.

W: Ah, yes, Davis and Moore’s Principles of Stratification. You know, I had actually taken that out of the syllabus at the last minute because I didn’t think we would have enough time for it. I actually really like that theory, too.

So, as long as we have time for it today, let’s discuss it briefly. Since you were the one to bring it up, Brad, do you want to define the theory for us?

M: Um… sure. I’m trying to remember what I read. Basically, Davis and Moore were trying to figure out how−uh, why there’s inequality in the distribution of wealth in society, right?

W: Yes, and to clarify for those who didn’t read it, Davis and Moore wanted to know why some jobs have more prestige and why those jobs have higher salaries associated with them.

Now, the main function of stratification is to place and motivate people within our social structure. Some positions have more importance placed on them, and so people in these positions get paid more.

An example would be a doctor. Doctors usually earn quite a lot of money. But why? Why should doctors get paid a lot and not, say, teachers?

Hint, hint. Well, the theory that Davis and Moore came up with in their article Principles of Stratification says that some jobs have a higher salary associated with them because it encourages people to do the jobs that are the most difficult to do.

Now, difficult can mean different things, right? Well, let me go ahead and give you some examples of this theory and work-uh, how it might work.

And I’ll let you all make your own decisions about whether this theory is viable or not.

Let’s return to our example of the doctor. Is anyone here studying medicine? OK, well if you were, you would know what a commitment it is.

Becoming a doctor is not easy. It requires significant financial investment, hours upon hours of training… You get the idea. So, if that job didn’t pay well, why would anyone do it?

We need doctors, right? So, the Davis and Moore theory would say that because we need doctors so pressingly, and because it is so difficult to become a doctor, doctors will receive higher salaries.

It’s kind of a reward system. You’ll get rewarded for all your hard work training with a high salary when you become a doctor. Does that all make sense to you?

M: Well, I mean, your explanation makes perfect sense, but the theory doesn’t. You said yourself that teachers don’t get paid a lot, and where would we be without teachers?

W: That’s a good point, and it’ll serve as a good second example. Why would anyone want to become a teacher, then? It also has a lot of training associated with it… I mean, I went to school for what feels like half of my life, but teachers don’t get paid nearly as much as doctors.

Davis and Moore explain this by saying that teaching jobs are not hard to fill, and therefore they don’t need to get paid as much.

So, in essence, they mean that there are enough people who want to be a teacher for its own sake−not for the money involved−that teachers will always be easy to find. Considering that’s why I became a teacher; I’d have to say they’re right.

I knew I wouldn’t get a doctor’s salary, but I did it anyway. There’s still a reward, but in this case, it’s the job itself.

Now, many people think that being a doctor isn’t also a reward in itself, so here we might begin to see some of the failings of the theory.

1) What is the main topic of the lecture? 2) What aspect of the theory does the professor mainly discuss?