Final answer:
The Davis-Moore thesis posits that social stratification is necessary to motivate people to fill important societal roles, however, it is criticized for not accommodating inequalities in education and personal connections. The concept supports a meritocracy, yet fails to address how social capital can significantly impact upward mobility.
Step-by-step explanation:
Analyze the Davis-Moore Thesis
The Davis-Moore thesis, proposed by sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore in 1945, suggests that social stratification is necessary for the functioning of a society. They argue that certain positions in society require special skills and offer greater responsibilities, and thus, should be rewarded more highly to encourage individuals to aspire to these roles. This would theoretically lead to increased productivity and efficiency within society by motivating people to fill these important positions.
However, Melvin Tumin's criticism in 1953 refuted this thesis by highlighting that it does not account for the influence of social factors, such as education inequality, race, or gender, in determining a job's importance or rewards. Tumin pointed out that social inequalities can prevent truly qualified individuals from ascending to roles they are suited for, thus questioning the thesis's justification for social stratification.
The concept of a meritocracy, where hard work and skill are rewarded, aligns with the functionalist perspective of a well-designed class system. Yet, in reality, social capital, such as connections and higher education, often plays a crucial role in one's ability to access high-paying jobs, indicating that intelligence and hard work alone might not guarantee success.
Through this lens, while the Davis-Moore thesis presents a case for the functionality of social stratification in encouraging societal progression, it falls short in explaining many aspects of modern-day social inequalities.