Describe the functionalist view of social stratification, and the conflict

theory's view of social stratification.

Then take a pro or con position on each of the following three points:
first, social stratification is necessary for societies to exist and prosper;
second, the United States functions, overall, as a meritocracy;
and third, human beings-driven as they are by human nature-are
incapable of ever creating and/or living in a classless society. Provide
detail about 'why' you are taking the pro or con position for each point.

Structural functionalists assume that stratification must contribute to the continued

persistence of society or stratification would not be such a common and enduring
element of social organizations. The structural functionalist Talcott Parsons
theorized that diversification was essential to the survival of societies. Without
diversification, societies would not be sufficient enough to supply the basic needs of
their members. Parsons felt that this diversification led inevitably to the creation of
imbalances of power, chains of command, and other elements of social
stratification.
Where structural functionalists see stratification as a social fat beyond human
control, conflict theorists stress the role that humans play in actively creating and
maintaining social stratification. For these theorists, the labor of the lower classes
creates advantages, most typically wealth, for the upper classes. The upper classes
then use their advantages to maintain the inequality of power that ensures their
privileged status.

Functionalist Theories
Functionalists see rise of state systems as driven by reciprocity, a "social contract"
In this view, centralized rule is a bargain that benefits everyone: citizens pay taxes
(share of crops, labor, etc.) and give up some freedom, and in return the state
provides public order, military security, various public works (e.g., irrigation,
highways, public buildings)
Conflict theorists (of whom the most famous/influential is Marx) see states as
essentially exploitative, primarily benefiting ruling elites, and arising only when

masses must submit to dominance & exploitation, or else face starvation and
repression
Functional theories emphasize mutualistic relations between elites and commoners;
elites are seen as providing managerial benefits, and the commoners' part of the
bargain is to produce the surplus necessary to adequately reward these services
Conflict theories by contrast see elites as parasitic, extracting surplus from
commoners by various means: ideological control (patriotism, theocracy, etc.),
monopoly on technical knowledge, and (if necessary) force
On one hand, functionalists point to benefits obtained through stratification:
1) Conflict reduction (state as police force to prevent anarchy, quell the Hobbesian
"warre" of all against all): in this view, individuals voluntarily sacrifice some
freedoms in order to obtain benefits of safety & domestic order
2) Redistribution: ruling elites as (benevolent?) economic administrators who
manage redistribution networks that buffer disparities in resources due to
environmental & socioeconomic fluctuations or heterogeneity
3) Military defense: effective defense from enemies favors hierarchical organization,
larger social unit (bigger army), surplus production to support military and
administrative specialists
Conflict Theories
In contrast, conflict theories see stratification as driven by resource competition,
with elites establishing themselves whenever ecological and socioeconomic
conditions permit:
Since resource competition of some form is ubiquitous, convincing conflict theories
must explain why competition leads to stratification in some instances and not in
others
One influential argument (Carneiro, Boone) proposes a combination of 1) economies
of scale and 2) environmental circumscription
Economy of scale refers to situations where per-capita economic efficiency is
greater at larger scales (number of people cooperating, area under production, size
of factory, etc.); for example, using a few large ships to carry out trade between
islands, rather than many small ships
Circumscription refers to environmental or economic heterogeneity that imposes
very high costs for leaving an area (for example, a river floodplain with rich, wellwatered soil surrounded by desert)

Given severe circumscription (or really any situation of extreme environmental

heterogeneity), there's a higher chance that a segment of society can monopolize
or dominate access to resources, and use this control to extract value (in form of
taxes, labor, military service, etc.) from other members of society
In the typical scenario, population growth intensified resource competition
development of incipient hierarchical social organization within local groups for
more effective competition; permanent stratification occurs when one segment able
to effectively control access to resources, and subordinates cannot afford to
emigrate because surrounding area much poorer in resources (circumscription), or
occupied by other groups unwilling to allow immigration
This scenario fits the 6 accepted cases of "pristine" (independent) state
development: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus Valley, Shang/central China, Valley of
Mexico, coastal Peru, all river valleys or basins ringed by arid land and/or
mountains; it also fits areas that were on threshold of state formation prior to
European colonization (NW Coast, parts of Polynesia, etc.); but in addition seems to
fit some areas lacking stratification
Technological complexity provides an alternative reason elites are able to control
means of production & extract surplus from producers, and this is central to Marx &
Engels' model of the emergence of stratification (see "hydraulic hypothesis" below)

http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/stratif.htm

I would say that I tend more to agree with the functionalist view and therefore to agree with the
first statement. I believe that stratification comes naturally and actually benefits society to some
degree and I do not believe it is caused by the upper classes systematically oppressing the lower.
Human nature being what it is, I find it hard to believe that a prosperous society could ever be
fully egalitarian (at least in terms of economic outcomes). It seems to me that people are too
selfish to work their hardest if they are not going to be able to profit from their efforts any more
than someone who does not work as hard.
Overall, I think the US does function as a meritocracy, which is a major reason why we have so
much inequality.