The Davis–Moore theory of stratification: The life course ... · theory of stratification that was intended to account for what they contended was the "universal necessity" for

The Davis-Moore Theory of&ratification: The Life Course of a Socially

Constructed Classic

ROBERT C. HAUHART

In 1945 Davis and Moore, following an earlier formulation by Davis, proposed a functional theory of stratification that was intended to account for what they contended was the "universal necessity" for social inequality in any social order. Beginning with an article by Tumin in 1953, the Davis-Moore theory elicited regular analysis, commentary, criticism, and debate through the 1970s. Although professional work on the theory has largely ceased since the late 1980s, the Davis-Moore theory remains perhaps the single most widely cited paper in American introductory sociology and stratification textbooks and constitutes "required reading" in hundreds, if not thousands, of undergraduate and graduate courses throughout the United States. The present paper traces the history of the debate and attempts to explain the theory's longevity and vitality in the face of what has amounted to largely negative assessments by other sociologists over the preceding fifty years.

In 1945, two young Harvard-trained sociologists, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, published a short, seven-page article on social and economic inequality in the younger of the discipline's two most prestigious journals, the American SociologicalReview. Titled "Some Principles of Stratification, ''1 the article elicited no published commentary for a number of years. However, beginning in 1953 with the publication of Melvin Tumin's article entitled "Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis, ''2 the Davis and Moore article began to receive regular public treatment and attention within the discipline. No doubt Davis and Moore's willingness (and, one may say, eagerness) to join issue with Tumin contributed to the original article's increasing notoriety) Over time, "Some Principles of Stratification" became one of the most frequently ci ted--and negatively evaluated--papers within Ameri- can sociology. Yet, although widely discredited on both logical and empirical grounds, the article remains a mainstay of conventional sociology and is even considered a "classic." How did this happen?

A Biographical Sketch

Kingsley Davis (1908-1997), a student of Pitirim Sorokin and Talcott Parsons, received his Ph.D. from Harvard's Department of Sociology in 1936. Parsons, at the time, was gath-

Robert C. Hauhart has worked for over twenty years as a civil rights attorney. He currently teaches at the University of Maine at Machias.

Hauhart 5

ering around him the faculty and students who would assist him in developing functional theory, including Davis and Moore. In the late 1930s Davis held a position at Pennsylvania State College (now Pennsylvania State University), followed by positions at Princeton Uni- versity during the 1940s; Columbia University during the 1950s; and the University of California at Berkeley from the late 1950s until his retirement in the 1980s. Davis' primary academic interest eventually centered on demography.

Wilbert E. Moore (1914-1987) received his Ph.D. from Harvard's Department of Soci- ology in 1940. While Moore was also a student of Parsons, Davis--along with Robert Merton and John Riley--was part of Parsons' first graduate student cohort and Davis maintained a closer intellectual and collegial connection with Parsons early in his career? In 1945, at the time "Some Principles of Stratification" was written, both Davis and Moore were teaching at Princeton University (as was their first published critic, Melvin Tumin). Moore remained at Princeton University until the mid-1960s. He left for the Russell Sage Foundation for a few years before joining the faculty at the University of Denver, where he completed his career. In addition to receiving their doctoral degrees from a prestigious department, and teaching at several highly regarded universities, both Davis and Moore were elected to terms as president of the American Sociological Association.

The "Some Principles" Debate in Historical Context

In 1953 Melvin Tumin published the first public commentary on the Davis-Moore article. Tumin carefully critiqued their thesis and later engaged in a series of published exchanges with Davis and Moore regarding the theory.

The visibility, and perhaps the tenor, of the debate with Tumin, as well as its location within the pages of the ASR, engendered wide attention and led to more published responses to the original article. Indeed, the Davis and Moore article is now recognized as "one of the most widely cited and debated pieces to ever appear in a sociology journal, ''5 a rather remarkable feat for an argument consisting of fewer than 5,000 words. 6 No fewer than thirty substantive articles and commentaries have appeared addressing the Davis-Moore article in professional journals in the United States over the years, many written by prominent members of the profession. 7 Moreover, most of these papers appeared in the major journals: the majority of the articles during the 1950s and 1960s appeared in the pages of the American Sociological Review, with nearly two-thirds appearing in either the ASR or the American Journal of Sociology. In this regard, one may almost say that the stature of the ASR only in its tenth year when the original article was published--and the prominence of the Davis-Moore controversy grew symbiotically, each feeding off the other.

While primarily an American thesis advanced and debated by American academic sociologists, papers, books, and course syllabi addressing the article and ensuing controversy have been written by foreign authors and appeared in languages other than English, a further indicator of the reach, if not influence, of the article? Given the immediate postwar insularity of American sociology, the diffusion of the Davis-Moore article into European sociology circles was not immediate. Most foreign references are within the last twenty-five years, not the first twenty-five years, after publication of the 1945 paper.

Throughout the long debate there was--as Broom and Cushing observed twenty-five years ago--"a sense that the writers were dealing with matters worthy of argument," although addressing a topic and theory "susceptible to diverse interpretations. ''9 More than fifty years later, this sense of"worthiness" permeates the entire debate, and all of the succes- sive references to it, although the vast majority of the collective commentary has been nega-

6 The American Sociologist / Winter 2003

tive. One is tempted simply to conclude that having spilled so much ink over the matter, sociologists are collectively unwilling to concede that there is little theoretical benefit we can find lurking there. Like the average investor, having made a bad investment we are per- suaded that if we simply put more money into the stock which has turned sour, at the new lower price, we will most certainly recoup something someday, when things look up. Re- peated negative assessments of the viability of the Davis-Moore theory seem to have made little discernible effect in disabusing the discipline of the notion that the theory is "worthy" of analysis.

Thus, one may only note with some incredulity the extent to which the Davis-Moore article lives on in American university sociology syllabi 1~ and American introductory sociology texts H more than fifty years after its appearance. This is nonetheless impressive given that the substantial majority of the critical commentary on the theory has been negative, and the balance questioning, but noncommittal, at best. One may count on less than one hand the unabashedly positive responses to the theory that have appeared over the years. Although empirical analyses brought to bear on the thesis are more mixed in their assessment, no one reading the articles discussed here could suggest that the theory has been verified.

Given this remarkable record, one is compelled to try and understand why the article achieved such widespread dissemination, garnered such voluminous published discussion, and remains so deeply entrenched within sociology. In order to appreciate the many interwoven layers of reciprocal influence at work, a summary review of the article and the commentaries it evoked provides a starting point.

Defining a Sociological Classic

Perhaps the most arresting fact about the longevity of the Davis-Moore thesis is not the simple fact that it is still referenced and heavily cited in the face of generally negative assessments by other professional sociologists, but the fact that it is frequently still accorded the status of a "classic statement" or "influential" theory of stratification. Since very few theories of society achieve such treatment, the fact that the Davis-Moore theory is among them warrants some discussion.

"Classic" theories within sociology appear to achieve this status by being either positive exemplars or negative cases. Thus, William E Whyte's Street Corner SocietF 12 achieved the status of a positive classic in sociology because of its imaginative analysis of street corner life in an urban ethnic working class neighborhood and the fact that subsequent investigators documented similar street corner cultures in either the same or similar urban settings. ~3

On the other hand, some theories and studies become "negative classics" because subsequent investigations undercut the major findings or contradict the essential heart of the theory. These negative sociological classics, although commonly referenced in the contemporary sociological literature, including introductory and specialty area textbooks, are clearly identified as such by other professional sociologists through the use of such phrases as "now discredited" or "no longer generally accepted as valid." Thus, Caesare Lombroso's linking of physical abnormalities with criminal proclivity 14 and William Sheldon's theoretically similar body-type theory of criminogenesis 15 are both commonly cited in introductory sociology and criminology texts. While sometimes described as "influential" in the earlier stages of historical development of positivist criminology, these theories--and other negative exemplars like them--are also routinely described as "crude" in their methodology; filled with scientific "shortcomings"; "not generally relied upon by sociologists today"; and "groundless. ''16

Hauhart 7

The Davis-Moore thesis, however, as we shall see, is somewhat of an anomaly within sociology in the sense that it is often accorded the status of a positive classic even though-- like Lombroso and Sheldon's theories--it has met largely with negative evaluations of its internal theoretical structure, its definitional ambiguity, and its explanatory utility. Rather than being rejected or discredited like these theories, and many others that have faced negative assessments over the years, the Davis-Moore theory is accorded a special niche within stratification theory. Thus, the Davis-Moore theory is frequently described as "a classic statement" of the functionalist view 17 or "the most influential functionalist theory of stratification. "18 If, in fact, the theory does not correctly or adequately explain societal inequality, as most commentators have concluded, one would expect the discipline to simply say so.

In essence, this treatment of the Davis-Moore theory as a positive exemplar is achieved by trichotomizing sociology into three of its better-known paradigms--structural-functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism--and granting the Davis-Moore thesis superordinate status only within functional theory. This permits textbook authors, for example, to minimize attention to the theory's legion of professional critics and still describe the Davis-Moore theory as presenting a "compelling" argument) 9 The critical theoretical and empirical analyses of the Davis-Moore theses are then pigeonholed within their own rightful place within sociology's holy trinity, and may be effectively disregarded. It is as though the goal in sociology is no longer to explain how social inequality arises and is sustained but rather to create an artificial balance among theoretical schools.

In short, the Davis-Moore theory, while largely discredited by subsequent professional work, maintains a revered spot within stratification theory largely due to sociology's search for balance among competing theoretical traditions. Since the 1960s, sociology has been variously described as "polarized" between standard American sociology, largely represented by Parsonsian structural-functionalism, and more critical theories of society, primarily Marx- ism, and as exhibiting a "polycentric" structure--with many new emerging theoretical traditions competing with the heretofore dominant paradigms. 2~ The consequence of these competing paradigms was--as many will recall--discord, division, and "crisis. ''21 The solu- t i o n - a t least with respect to the Davis-Moore theory--has been to forego validation and rejection of theories based on scientific rigor, and to construct a tri-partite zone of ideological and theoretical balance. In this manner, the Davis-Moore theory appears to have avoided definition as a negative classic and maintained its accredited status within the canon of positive sociological theories.

"Some Principles" Revisited

The Davis-Moore article attempted, by its authors' own account, "to show the relationship between stratification and the rest of the social order. ''22 In conceiving of this intellectual project, Davis and Moore were not breaking any new ground. Rather, they were following in the wake of functionalism's primary intellectual leader, 23 and Davis and Moore's mentor at Harvard, Talcott Parsons.

Parsons' theorizing on stratification began seriously with his 1940 published paper "An Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification. ''24 Davis, following closely in the footsteps of Parsons, offered up "A Conceptual Analysis of Stratification," originally delivered as a paper at the meetings of the Ohio Valley Sociological Society 25 in 1940 and then published in the American Sociological Review in 1942. 26 The Davis and Moore article followed in 1945.


Parsons and Davis' conceptions of the fundamental importance of stratification within social theory generally derive from their appreciation that societies embody both achievement/competitive elements and social integrative/solidarity features. As Parsons phrases the problem, "[T]he allocation of roles and that of facilities in a system must, as a condition of integration of the system, have some kind of ordered correspondence. "27 Hence, one must explain how an achievement based stratification system fits within other systems of society that promote solidarity and thereby achieves a certain compatibility (correspondence) with them. This background sets up societal inequality as an intellectual problem worthy of explanation, albeit one defined wholly within the closed confines of functional theory.

Starting from the (widely challenged) proposition that no society is "classless," Davis and Moore attempted to explain "in functional terms, the universal necessity which calls forth stratification in any social system. ''28 Following this line of inquiry into cultural uni- versals, Davis and Moore further attempted to explain "the roughly uniform distribution of prestige as between the major types of positions in every society, "29 while acknowledging that there appeared "great differences in the degree and kind of stratification" among different societies.

As Davis and Moore saw it, social stratification was compelled by "the requirement faced by any society of placing and motivating individuals in the social structure." Thus, they believed that any society must "somehow distribute its members in social positions and induce them to perform the duties of these positions," and further believed it was quite important for society to determine who gets into which p.osition. 3~ In their view, every society must therefore develop rewards that the society can use as inducements to fill and motivate performance within social positions, and further have "some way" of distributing these rewards "differentially" according to social position.

In short, stratification arises as a motivational scheme because it is "functionally necessary" for society to distribute members among positions and then persuade members to perform the requisite duties associated with those positions. In general, those positions convey the best rewards (and hence have the highest rank) which (a) have the greatest importance for the society and (b) require the greatest training or talent. Thus, while there must be differential rewards offered for different positions, the reward for any position must only be sufficient to insure the position is competently filled. 3t While Davis and Moore do not specifically reference Parsons' and Davis' earlier theoretical constructions, it is apparent that this means of "filling positions" is viewed as integrative, and therefore reconciles this feature of society with the achievement driven patterns created by inequality. Since any society must "somehow distribute its members ... and induce them to perform," an induce- ment based stratification system, in the authors' view, successfully achieves this end and still "corresponds" to the value integrative features of society functionalism requires as part of its theory.

This thumbnail sketch of the Davis-Moore thesis would be entirely insufficient if the purpose of this paper, like so many others that have addressed the article, were to analyze the theoretical model it presents or to attempt to test, in various ways, the propositions it sets forth. However, the purpose of this paper is to attempt to understand why the Davis-Moore article elicited such a robust and continuing response, over many years, and to understand its legacy within sociology. For these purposes, it is not necessary to re-state, nor analyze, the various detailed propositions the authors assert. Rather, it will be most useful to turn to the various responses, and examine them for clues as to the nature of the controversy the article inspired, and the standing the theory continues to hold within American sociology.

Hauhart 9

Some Principles: The Critical Response

As Tumin noted in his 1953 review and commentary, it was "difficult" to locate a single systematic analysis of the argument advanced by Davis and Moore at that time. 32 Thus, although Tumin characterized the Davis-Moore article as "well-known," the article seems to have stirred little public controversy within sociology, and merited no published analysis, until Tumin's critique some eight years later.

Like the article it assesses, Tumin's analysis of the Davis-Moore thesis may fairly be said to be "well-known." Indeed, as we shall see shortly, the two articles have become joined at the hip over the last fifty years, and with rare exception nowhere appear alone, without reference and citation to the other. In fact, like Wilbert Moore's sociological legacy, Melvin Tumin's fate has been to have his career reduced in many instances to this single pair of joined citations. 33 Of the three, only Professor Davis appears to have escaped this ignomini- ous outcome.

As we need not belabor here, Tumiffs "well-known" critique of the Davis-Moore thesis is largely negative. Generally agreeing that societies have historically distributed their scarce resources unequally, Tumin challenges the twin assumptions that this is both inevitable and "positively functional." Thus, Tumin questions the explanatory utility of the phrase "functionally important," and examines whether the Davis-Moore motivation-reward thesis places too much importance on those material resources that may be used as benefits or rewards and insufficient emphasis on social rewards, such as prestige and esteem. 34

An Exchange of Replies

Davis' (and Moore's) reply to Tumin, 35 Tumin's reply to Davis, 36 Moore's "But Some Are More Equal Than Others, "~7 Tumin's "On Inequality, "38 and Moore's "Rejoinder, ''39 early on set the style for the series of critical commentaries written by those outside the brother- hood of original antagonists. 4~ Thus, most of these additional exchanges remain--like the original article--highly abstract, analytical, and non-empirical. In short, most of the subsequent papers are exercises in rarefied, disembodied verbal argument. In retrospect, the Davis- Moore-Tumin exchanges, and those like them that follow, appear to stand for little other than the proposition that a profession consists of those who act as though they are addressing a shared problem in a self-referential way, and are acknowledged as having the right to do so by other relevant audiences (such as colleagues, students, and university administra- tors). A chronological review of the various commentaries, critiques, and empirical assessments of the Davis-Moore thesis follows, decade by decade.

The 1950s

In the 1950s, for example, only one paper addressing the Davis-Moore thesis brought to bear any data on the theory. 41 The remaining analyses by Simpson, 42 Buckley, 43 and Wrong, 44 as well as the exchanges between Davis, 45 Levy, 46 and Buckley, 47 all remain in the style and tenor of the original article, initial response, and replies. Indeed, the Davis-Levy-Buckley contretemps reproduces many of the dissonant tonal earmarks of the Davis-Moore-Tumin round. 48

Among the more prescient of the 1950s papers is Dennis Wrong's attempt at an evenhanded analysis of the Davis-Moore argument and the positions taken by its critics. Wrong conceded that the "[C]ritics ... have succeeded in showing that there are a great many


things about stratification that Davis and Moore have failed to explain," while urging that Davis and Moore's "central argument" regarding the universal necessity of unequal rewards remained unscathed. 49 However, it is not primarily Wrong's restrained style of discourse, nor his appreciation of the subtleties of the debate, that mark his paper as distinctive. Rather, it is his understanding of the social location of the combatants within the broader intellectual milieux that defined the emerging era. Thus, he notes that:

What the critics of the Davis-Moore theory fundamentally object to is that in their view "the theory implies an assumption that any scheme of stratification is somehow the best that could be had, that the prevailing distribution of rewards comes in to being somehow because it is 'functionally necessary.'" The charge, repeated in some form by all the critics, that Davis and Moore are defending" or "justifying" the status quo, any status quo, rests on finding this implication in the theory. Yet it is not a logically correct implication, although it has never been explicitly disavowed by the authors. 5~

As it later turned out, the Davis-Moore debate was simply one of a number of essential theoretical divergences that pitted practitioners of functionalism against adherents of the emerging Marxist-conflict-critical school, leading to what one analyst memorably defined as a "coming crisis" for Western sociology. Moreover, not only was there a theoretical divide, but a generational divide as well. As Goulder noted a decade later, in retrospect:

The declining attractiveness of Functionalism to the younger sociologist was certainly earlier evidenced in the augmented publication of polemical criticism against the Functionalist model during the 1950s and 1960s. These criticisms seem to have been most particularly voiced by scholars still under fifty, 5~

In short, the Davis-Moore theory and the response of its critics must be seen as socially located within the emergent "crisis" in theoretical sociology that dominated the 1950s- 1970s. Davis' well-known presidential address to the American Sociological Association equating Functionalism in sociology with "what any science does, ''52 was reaching an increasingly less responsive audience. Thus, not only Davis and Moore's willingness to engage their critics, but the fervent atmosphere of the times, lent a certain importance to the debate which would continue to draw participants for another twenty years. This fact alone should not be underestimated with respect to the place the Davis-Moore theory presently holds within conventional sociology. Indeed, it is the graduate student cohorts of the 1960s and 1970s that have entrenched the Davis-Moore theory within sociology, however discredited it may be, and anointed it as a "sociological classic." Having studied the thesis at length, and the critical responses to it, many sociologists of this generation appear to have concluded that the theory's obdurate facticity alone warrants its continuing inclusion within the canon.

The 1960s

The 1960s saw an acceleration of commentary on the Davis-Moore theory with an increasing willingness to propose, and attempt, empirical tests of the principal theoretical propositions. Still, the majority of articles remained rooted in the form of abstract analysis and commentary. In 1963, for example, both Walter Buckley 53 and George Huaco 54 offered critiques of the debate that remained firmly moored in the abstract critique and argu- mentation approach favored by Tumin. Reproducing both the abstract nature of the argument to date as well as some of the competitive tone established early on, both Buckley and Huaco fired mild salvos across the bow of one 55 or more 56 of the discussants. Three years later, Huaco published a second, lengthy article summarizing the contours of the debate after two decades. He concluded that the Davis-Moore theory "will be remembered as a

Hauhart 11

brilliant effort "57 but one that "[does] not add up to a fully adequate theory of social inequality, mobility, and ascription, much less of stratification. "58 Wesolowski, writing in 1962, also addresses the theory in a wholly analytical manner, suggesting--among other things--that "it is possible that at least the inner structure of [capitalist and socialist societies'] system[s] of values . . . . . 59 miters. In short, rather than accepting the motivational scheme on which Davis and Moore rely, Wesolowski poses motivation as a central question in different types of society. 6~

Stinchcombe, writing in the same number of the American SociologicalReview as Buckley and Huaco, reviewed the theory with an eye toward outlining some of the empirical impli- cations the theory might harbor. Stinchcombe suggested, as others had done before, that "[d] eciding whether [the theory] is true or false is not a theoretical or ideological matter but an empirical one, TM but did not pursue any empirical investigations. Later in the decade, Stinchcombe and Harris produced a further elaboration of Stinchcombe's ideas with respect to task interdependence and stratification but again limited themselves to identifying "a number of empirically testable deductions" without conducting any t e s t . 62

Lopreato and Lewis, noting that it had been almost twenty years since Davis and Moore published their 1945 article, reported the results of an empirical study that attempted to test through correlational analysis the relationship between functional importance, prestige, skill, and reward. 63 In a subsequent paper, Lopreato and Lewis attempted to delineate further their understanding of the relationship between functional importance and prestige by further manipulating the results of the self-administered questionnaire of high school students used in their initial paper. 64 It is worth observing that in this latter paper Lewis and Lopreato express the view that for the purposes of the work they are presenting, "it is not necessary to consider the various criticisms of this argument [i.e., the distribution of awards, as attached to social positions of occupations, constitutes the universal system of stratification in human society] that have been made in the last 10 years. "65

Harris re-analyzed some of Lopreato and Lewis' findings and concluded that a reduction in the magnitude of the correlations did not alter the substantive conclusions they had reached. 66 Harris also reported findings from another [unpublished] investigation that led to the conclusion that the functional importance of occupation roles tended to be more independent of prestige than of reward. 67

This flurry of empiricism, however, left largely mixed assessments of the theory and did not build, in any coherent, meaningful way, on the various theoretical criticisms that Tumin, Simpson, Schwartz, Wrong, Huaco, and Buckley, among others, had set forth. Consequently, the debate continued to develop as two rather clearly demarcated prongs--those articles that launched new (or re-hashed) abstract analyses and critiques and those papers that attempted empirical tests of the theory--with little useful connection between them.

The 1970s

The 1970s continued the regular run of commentary and analysis on the Davis-Moore thesis established during the 1950s and 1960s with eight additional full-length papers. Al- though a number of these articles continued simply to analyze and critique the theory in the generally accepted style, several papers expanded the scope of the debate and the application of various empirical assessments.

Bershady (1970) recapitulates and re-analyzes the theory, in his own way, as many had now done before him. He raises, among other points, the proposition that what is desired,


and what will therefore be satisfying, is rarely defined uniformly by the population of stable social systems. 68 As a consequence, Bershady concluded that the Davis-Moore motivational schema is inapplicable to those positions in society whose "rewards" simply fall below the level of anyone's desires because such positions (as, for example, the case of untouchables in India) are still occupied. Hence, while the theory might contribute to explaining movement toward higher strata (i.e., upward social mobility), it would not explain why those at the very bottom of society are willing to stay at the very bottom.

On the other hand, Land--also writing in 1970--proposed a complex mathematical formalization of the Davis-Moore thesis using path analysis. Applying path analysis tech- niques to the rank order data developed by Lopreato and Lewis in 1963, Land concluded that there was no basis for rejecting the Davis-Moore theory as mathematically formalized. However, Land also concluded that the Davis-Moore theory would fit best, and would most likely be empirically confirmed, under conditions of high interdependence of activities in a social system, rather than low interdependence. 69

Collins, evaluating the evidence favoring either the functional or conflict theories with respect to educational stratification, concludes that the Davis and Moore thesis contributes relatively little to understanding why educational requirements for employment have become increasingly widespread, both at the higher and lower levels of the occupational hierarchy. 7~ Collins notes that neither the movement from a "low skill" economy to a "high skill" economy, nor the upgrading of skill requirements for particular jobs, can explain the unceasing increase in educational requirements for all jobs in the American economy over the last half century. Likewise, Collins recites the evidence that shows that educated employees are not more productive than uneducated employees and examines the possibility that vocational skills are learned outside of formal education in any event. Based on his review of these and other related issues, Collins concludes that educational requirements may reflect the interests of whichever groups have the power to enforce them, thus support- ing a status group conflict theory of educational stratification and undermining Davis and Moore's assertion of "functional necessity" as the essential criteria governing inequality.

Abrahamson (1973), observing that "[E] mpirical indications of the utilities and disutilities of functional perspectives remain conspicuously absent, ''71 offered two empirical tests of the theory. Following Stinchcombe (1963), Abrahamson tests the proposition that during times of war the rewards of positions with direct bearing on the war effort will rise relative to the rewards of positions that are not directly related to the war. Abrahamson concluded that the data he examined supported the functional hypothesis that the income of military related positions rose relative to nonmilitary positions during selected war periods. 72 How- ever, Leavy 73 and Van Fossen and Rhodes TM rejected Abrahamson's proof as "falling short," once again challenging a number of the theoretical assumptions underpinning the Davis Moore theory. In a subsequent article, Abrahamson, again following Stinchcombe, attempts an empirical test of the proposition that the greater the difference (in consequences) of individual contributions to the total social production, the greater will be the inequality of rewards. 75 Relying on data with regard to salary scales that contrasted research-oriented universities versus teaching--oriented universities; Abrahamson again concludes that the Davis-Moore hypothesis is upheld. Thus, Abrahamson's work is among the very few empirical assessments of the Davis-Moore theory that suggests certain Davis-Moore derived hy- potheses can be unqualifiedly supported, although Abrahamson's conclusions--like the Davis and Moore theory generally--are not unequivocally accepted by his colleagues.

Kemper, writing in 1976, suggested that both functionalist and Marxist theories ofstrati-

Hauhart 13

fication could explain some of the variance in the actual distribution of system rewards. Specifically, he identified the "rank order of evaluation of contribution," analogous to prestige, as a factor derived from the functionalist theory that likely explained part of the variance. Likewise, he identified the deployment of social power "in manifold ways" as the likely explanation for another part of the variance in rewards, and thus supportive of a Marxist interpretation. Kemper concludes by noting that the actual extent of variance to be explained by each approach is "an empirical question"--that--like Stinchcombe and many others before him--Kemper does not attempt to address. 76

Grandjean and Bean (1975) further noted the insufficient attention given to empirical testing of the Davis-Moore thesis and offered data to test what the authors' termed "logically possible extensions, though not logically necessary derivations" of the theory. As the authors acknowledged, their modification focused on how members ofa society perceive the system of stratification and their own places in relationship to the distribution of positional rewards. Based on their Italian survey data, the authors report some support for their proposed revision, but with less support for the effect of "functional importance" on rewards than Davis and Moore's formulation. Although an intriguing modification and test, Grandjean and Bean perhaps too uncritically accept that survey responses to questions regarding "the skill of a person's occupation" can be meaningfully equated with Davis-Moore's training or formal education factor. As Collins (1971) argued, many skills may actually be learned outside of formal training and formal education merely a social ritual for reproducing class division and hierarchy.

Finally, Broom and Cushing subjected the Davis-Moore theory to a test by examining executive compensation at over 700 of the largest U.S. companies to determine whether the level of reward is positively related to company performance (as a measure of functionality [i.e., survival]). They found that the size of executive compensation was not related to company performance but was likely a "function" of company size, practices of status groups and the influence chief executives have over their own rewards. 77 Thus, they found that stratification was not functional for the companies since it did not contribute to achieving their goal of successful financial performance, but persisted anyway, contradicting the Davis- Moore theory.

The 1980s

The 1980s saw the first significant diminution in professional interest in the Davis- Moore theory in thirty years. Indeed, the only professional article directly addressing the theory at some length published in an American sociology journal during the decade was Milner's 1987 paper summarizing various alternative theories of inequality and suggesting a strategy for synthesis. TM Briefly, Milner identified what he believed were five major approaches to explaining inequality, including the Davis-Moore theory which Milner characterized as a sub-theory concerned with the level of rewards (or punishments) distributed by society in unequal amounts. 79

In Milner's view, the Davis-Moore theory was inadequate without reference to the other theories discussed. While Lenski's explanation of social inequality offered one possible synthesis of the competing conflict and consensus approaches to explaining inequality, Milner believed it was not a fully elaborated theory sufficient for explaining stratification in modern societies. Milner, in turn, offers his own theory, incorporating the Davis-Moore propositions within a broader framework of variables reflecting the level of technology in society, the available terms of discourse and modes of linguistic repression, structural pressures for


coordination, the existing level of solidarity, the relationship between differential authority and others. 8~

The 1990s

By the 1990s, the discipline's interest in the Davis-Moore theory has run its professional course in terms of published analysis, commentary, and testing in refereed journals. While citations to the original article occur, there are no further published articles in American academic journals of which I am aware that substantively address the theory Davis and Moore put forward in "Some Principles of Stratification" after Milner's 1987 paper. Thus, for the last fifteen years--and for the first time in thirty-five years--the discipline's published record had gone silent with respect to the Davis-Moore theory. Where does this leave Davis and Moore's formulation?

The Discipline's Consensus

The Theory

A re-reading of all of the American professional articles, commentaries, and letters addressing the Davis-Moore theory noted in this paper leads to the conclusion that a general- ized professional assessment does exist with respect to the theory Davis and Moore proposed. The theory is generally considered unsatisfactory (other than by its authors 8J ) due to conceptual ambiguities, terminological inadequacies, ahistoricity, unwarranted assumptions, cultural limitations, and a causal explanation that relies on one or more of these perceived problems that makes the theory not subject to empirical verification. Thus, the discipline has, for the most part, appeared to reject the theory in its professional publications on the basis of one or more of these perceived theoretical flaws.

The Empirical Assessment

Those articles that have attempted to evaluate the Davis-Moore theory empirically present a much more mixed response, but also one that is in many respects negative. Thus, Lopreato and Lewis, 82 like many of the purely theoretical analysts, concluded that the factor of"functional importance" may be of little value in explaining social stratification, and Harris agreedY Land, on the other hand, concludes by re-analyzing the Lopreato and Lewis data through path analysis that the Davis-Moore thesis would provide a more accurate representation of cultural beliefi about stratification under conditions of high organizational interdependence as compared to the Parsonsian stratification theory. Land accepts the possible contribution of the factor of "functional importance" to the results, which Lopreato and Lewis, and Harris, disavow.

Collins, addressing the stratified educational requirements common to modern societies, concludes after a review of the evidence that the principal dynamics are a result of competi- tion among status groups and individuals for organizational benefits and not related to the technical-functional demands of job performance, thus rejecting the Davis-Moore thesis. 84 Abrahamson, following Stinchcombe's analysis, concluded in two articles that the evidence supported the theory. Thus, Abrahamson concluded that the financial rewards of military occupations would rise during wartime as their "functional importance" increased. 85 Like- wise, Abrahamson concluded the greater the differences (in consequences) for individual

Hauhart 15

contribution to the total "production" of an organization, the greater will be the inequality of rewards by comparing salary differences at research and teaching universities. 86 The first of these papers, however, elicited dissenting commentaries that attacked both the theoretical and empirical grounds for Abrahamson's assessment. 87

Finally, Broom and Cushing substituted the testable notion of "company performance" for what they considered to be the untestable concept of survival and studied the empirical evidence relating to chief executive compensation among more than 700 large U.S. companies. They found that CEO compensation was positively related to the magnitude of company assets (that is, to societal importance) but found no support for the central thesis that rewards (CEO pay) would be related to company performance. 88 Hence, difference in performance is not differently valued and the Davis-Moore theory was not supported. Indeed, Broom and Cushing conclude that the most plausible explanation for chief executive compensation supports a conflict theory: large companies can provide the highest compensation with the least visible impact on their balance sheets; they do so irrespective of company performance; and the CEO recipients highly influence, when they do not actually determine, their own compensation within the existing range of the status group (large company executives) to which they belong. Among those who have examined the theory to see if it can explain social inequality, many, like Collins and Broom and Cushing, believe that positional power is a more important factor than functional necessity in distributing rewards.

Introductory Textbooks

The Davis-Moore theory has been analyzed and assessed within American sociology in more than thirty professional papers and commentaries since 1953. As the above review indicates, the vast majority of those reviewing the theory have rejected it on either theoretical or empirical grounds, or both. Still, the theory remains a mainstay within sociology, particularly within the context of introductory sociology texts, introductory sociology syllabi, and undergraduate courses on stratification. What type of treatment does the Davis- Moore theory receive in these settings. ~

In order begin to develop an answer to this question, I initially selected two introductory texts from each of five decades (the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and post 1990s) and reviewed their treatment of the Davis-Moore theory. I chose to review the textbooks because they are easily available in the public realm and, unlike syllabi which only show evidence of interest or disinterest in a particular subject, the textbooks offer the author's view of the Davis- Moore thesis directly.

In the 1950s, the first volume I examined made no mention of the "unequal distribution of rewards" thesis at the heart of the 1945 Davis and Moore article. Rather, Merton chose to cite the article for some of their illustrative comments about the nature of religion in modern society and the integrative function that Davis and Moore, following Durkheim generally, attribute to the religious sphere. 89

The second volume from the 1950s treated the theory respectfully, but in summary fashion. Thus, the text noted that "it is apparently also necessary for the [occupational] categories to be assigned different degrees of prestige in order to guarantee that all essential positions are filled and their corresponding roles are performed. "9~ Other than suggesting that a comparative evaluation of industrialized nations provided some support for the view that this principle was "universal," the theory warranted no further discussion in this text.

By the 1960s the treatment of the theory seems to have changed somewhat due to the mounting number of critical professional responses. 91 Still, while noting some reservations,


the treatment remains respectful and positive. 92 Thus, Bredemeier and Stephenson carefully summarize the Davis-Moore argument, calling it "seminal and controversial, "93 before analyzing, and virtually dismissing, the idea of the "universal functional necessity" of stratification in favor of the view that inequalities may be "appreciably reduced, if not elimi- nated."94

By the 1970s the focus of introductory textbooks has largely become the criticisms and the controversy, and not the Davis-Moore theory itself. Thus, in one early 1970s text the author begins by quoting parts of four sentences from the original Davis-Moore article that give a sense of what they are proposing, and then proceeds to identify five of the author's principal criticisms of the theory. 95 The text then refers the reader to the additional criticisms raised in Tumin,s 1953 article. 96

Likewise, a second early 1970s textbook sums up the Davis-Moore theory in two sentences, and then paraphrases two of Tumin's principal criticisms in two additional sentences. 97 The author then cites an earlier discussion of "status groups" in the text and concludes that "the debate concerning the necessity of stratification systems continues to rage among sociologists and indeed, implicitly, among all members of all societies and gives little indication of being resolved in the near future. ''98

By the mid-1980s--when the spate of professional articles criticizing and assessing the theory has slowed to nearly a full s top--the treatment of the theory has noticeably changed yet again. Thus, in one 1984 text the theory is accorded evenhanded treatment and described as a "classic statement" of the functionalist view, although it is contrasted with a summary of Tumin's critique under the label The Conflict-Theory �89 99

The second 1980s textbook pursues much the same strategy. Both the Functional Theory and the Conflict Theory of stratification receive their own neatly labeled subsections, their own carefully worded (although brief) summaries, a tip of the professional hat in each direction, and a bland, non-committal (and somewhat abrupt) conclusion. 1~176

Introductory textbooks published after 1990 follow closely the above approach, which appears to have become de rigeur within sociology. The Davis-Moore theory, while profes- sionally rejected as inadequate, appears as the exemplar of the "consensus" or "functional" or "order theory" view of stratification which is then neatly contrasted with an opposing "conflict" view. Sometimes a "balanced" view, or "synthesis" is then offered. This formulaic approach may be seen in numerous texts from this period, and perhaps represents the cul- mination of what was once a lively debate about the nature of man and society. 1~

Conclusion

The "principles of stratification" debate has undeniably left its mark on sociology, but its legacy appears to have been one of rather dubious value. Certainly, Davis, Moore, and Tumin, among others, gained prominence through the debate, as did the nascent American Sociological Review. Tumin's contention, in an early retort to Davis, that "[w]e advance our science by developing and expanding the existing theoretical statements formulated by our fellow scientists, ''1~ while stating succinctly the idealized scientific norm, finds only modest support in the backwash of the "some principles of stratification'' debate some fifty years later. Hundreds of pages of exegesis seem to have produced very little in the way of a scientific advance. Milner (1987), attempting to incorporate the Davis-Moore theory into a more sophisticated theory of stratification, seems hard pressed to find a reader, based on the citation record of his article over the succeeding fifteen years.

Moreover, there exists, in fact, a rather marked sociological divide in the sociology litera-

Hauhart 17

ture regarding the thesis, although neither wing of the divide seems to deliver much in the way of scientific benefit. Thus, introductory sociology texts--those residua of yesteryear's certainties--continue, implicitly and explicitly, to assert the "worthiness" of the Davis-Moore theory, often calling it the most "influential" [American] theory of stratification and a "classic" formulation. Typically, the texts also make brief reference to the "controversy" the Davis- Moore thesis engendered by setting out a thumbnail account of Tumin's critique. However, beyond this profarma deference to historical fact, there is scant discussion of the content, and merits, of the original theory; or parameters of the lengthy controversy that followed; or offer any summary of the status of the theory among contemporary professional sociologists. Rather, authors of introductory texts are increasingly prone to offer up a pro and con debate format in a crisp paragraph or two followed by an artificial synthesis of functional and conflict theories set out under neatly labeled headings.

Meanwhile, at the higher reaches of the profession, there is little indication that the Davis-Moore theory continues to influence viable analyses within sociology, except in ab- sentia. Thus, published professional discussions of stratification, inequality, and related top- ics over the most recent fifteen-year period continue to occasionally cite--but seldom substantively address--the original article.I~ Moreover, those articles (like Milner's), which do continue to take the theory seriously themselves languish on the sidelines of contemporary sociology. TM In short, the Davis-Moore theory has become little more than a convenient historical footnote at this juncture within the active intellectual circles of professional Ameri- can sociology.

What was it, then, that made the theory of interest--and such a lightning rod for controversy? In retrospect, one may suggest that the principal contribution of the Davis-Moore thesis, and ensuing debate, was to exorcize a particularly painful and troublesome question for sociology in the 1950s-1970s: the fact of social inequality. The Davis-Moore controversy may be said to have permitted sociology to successfully supersede the issue, rather than solving it either practically or theoretically. (Indeed, there are frequent reports in recent years that suggest that social inequality in American society has been increasing.) The Davis-Moore theory permitted sociology to appear to struggle valiantly with this issue, at a time when sociology was under attack from within and without, without achieving much, thereby giving an illusion of social and intellectual progress, all the while maintaining full professional employment. Certainly Davis and Moore's failed effort at theorizing inequality did them no harm: both led active professional lives at highly respected universities l~ and each served a term as president of the American Sociological Association. 106 The arc of their careers suggests that the article made them more visible and prominent, thus lending cre- dence to the proposition that "there is no bad publicity."

The issue of inequality, like the issue of"fairness" generally, is a touchy one in American society, and perhaps any society, once broached. Like the "third rail" of American poli- tics, 1~ those who touch the subject of inequality in society are often burned. Davis and Moore, having been singed for their efforts, and provided fodder for many a course and seminar, have passed quietly from the scene, leaving only scant and faint residue. Still, having no serious alternative theory to offer the young that does not carry an implicit argument for radical social change, contemporary conventional sociology permits Davis and Moore to linger on.

In this regard, the trajectory of the controversy was like that of many social movements: the Davis-Moore thesis, having achieved this initial--if unintended--social objective (which in their terms, may fairly be said to have been "functionally necessary"), was compelled to emerge victorious, mutate or disappear/~ For all intents and purposes, professional sociol-


o g y - - h a v i n g lanced the b o i l - - h a s chosen to let the theory quietly wither away, a l though embalming the controversy in the undergraduate curr iculum for the sake o f future genera- tions. For those in the profession who critically lambasted the theory (and theorists) as an "apologia for the status quo," the ultimate i rony may be the fact that even in death Davis and Moore's theory continues to buttress the class d i v i d e - - between those who can safely ignore the theory (the professoriat) and those who cannot (the student).

Notes

* The author would like to thank Professor Susan Tiano, chairperson of the Department of Sociology at the University of New Mexico, and Dr. Michael Kimball, University of Maine at Machias, for their support. The author would also like to thank Murray Milner, Jr., Todd C. Hanson, and Theodore E. Long for their discussions of the Davis-Moore theory over the years. By way of full disclosure, the author was briefly a student of Wilbert Moore at the University of Virginia in 1976 (although studying the processes of third world development and modernization, and not stratification).

1. American Sociological Review 10:242-249 (April 1945). 2. American Sociological Review 18:387-394 (August 1953). Melvin Tumin had been teaching at Princeton

since 1946, where he and Wilbert Moore remained on the faculty at the time of Tumin's 1953 article, although by 1953 Davis had been at Columbia University for several years. Nicholas C. Mullins, Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology, New York: Harper and Row, 1973, 54-57, Table 3.3.

3. See "Reply," by Kingsley Davis, American Sociological Review 18: 394-397; "Comment" by Wilbert E. Moore, American Sociological Review 18: 397; "On Inequality," by Melvin Tumin, American Sociological Review 28:19-26 (1963); and "Rejoinder," by Wilbert E. Moore, American Sociological Review 28:26-28 (1963).

4. Mullins (1973, 47-48). The information on Davis and Moore's career paths also follows Mullins. Also see Mvin Gouldner, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology (New York: Avon Books, 1970, 89).

5. John E. Farley, Sociology (5th Ed.) (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003, 151). 6. One colleague (also a student of Wilbert Moore) has suggested that the brevity of the original article was

due, in part, to the "throwaway" nature of the piece: that Moore, if not Davis, did not take the topic or analysis wholly seriously, and consequently was somewhat cavalier in his various responses to Tumin (and others). Personal conversation with Todd C. Hanson.

7. Published articles in American academic journals known to the author addressing the Davis-Moore theory at some length are collected in the References at the conclusion of this paper.

8. With respect to university course syllabi, for example, one can find references to the Davis-Moore theory in syllabi on the World Wide Web originating from German universities (Leipzig; Tuebingen; Frankfurt; Bonn; Koeln); Austrian universities (Linz); Canadian universities (Toronto and Alberta); and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, among others. With respect to books and articles, one may start a search with the foreign language editions of Bendix and Lipset's Class, Status, and Power [e.g., Classe, Potere, Status (Padova: Marsillo, 1969-1971)(3 vol.)] and locate the thread of related works in each language.

9. Broom and Cushing, "A Modest Test of An Immodest Theory: The Functional Theory of Stratification," American Sociological Review 42:157 (1977).

10. A simple search on the World Wide Web under Wilbert E, Moore's name, for example, produces dozens of"hits" on the Davis-Moore article in course syllabi from dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of American universities and colleges, including Rice University, the University of California at San Diego, Princeton University, the University of Colorado, Georgia Southern University, Skidmore College, Gettysburg Col- lege, the University of Michigan, Harvard University, Hanover College, and Cornell University. One impression that arises from such a search, and from a review of the citations and references in introductory sociology texts, is that Wilbert E. Moore's sociological career has been reduced in many instances to the afterglow of this single seven-page article. It is difficult, though not impossible, to find a reference to any of his other work in undergraduate syllabi or introductory textbooks, although Moore published many books and dozens of professional articles in the course of his career.

11. A few of these are cited and discussed in the text, below. 12. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981)(3rd Ed.)(orig. published 1943). 13. See, e.g., Herbert Gans, The Urban Villagers (NewYork: The Free Press, 1962, pp. 35, 72, 117, 152, 178,

and 254, among others).

Hauhart 19

14. G. Lombroso-Ferreo, Lombroso's CriminalMan (Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith, 1972). 15. William Sheldon, Varieties of Delinquent Youth: An Introduction to Constitutional Psychiatry (New York:

Harper, 1949). 16. Farley, Sociology (5th Ed., p. 259), discussing Lombroso ("crude"/"groundless") and Sheldon's theories

(filled with "shortcomings" and "not generally relied upon by sociologists today"). 17. Blassis, Gelles, and Levin, Sociology: An Introduction (New York: Random House, 1984, pp. 297-299). 18. Linda L. Lindsey and Stephen Beach, Sociology (2nd Ed.) (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002, p.

248). 19. Lindsey and Beach, Sociology (2nd Ed, p. 248). 20. Alvin W. Gouldner, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology (New York: Avon Books, 1970, pp. 158-159). 21. See, e.g., Goulder, pp. 10-11. 22. American SociologicalReview 10: 242. 23. By describing Talcott Parsons as functionalism's "primary intellectual leader," I do not mean to disregard

the influence others such as W. Lloyd Warner had upon development of functional theory and upon Davis and Moore. With respect to stratification theory, see, for example, W. Lloyd Warner and Paul S. Lund's The Status System of a Modern Community (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941). Still, it is apparent that Parsons' intellectual influence on functionalism (and his students) was paramount. See, among others, Gouldner, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, p. 14 (American functionalism, "created by Talcott Parsons" is "the dominant system of American social theory") and Mullins, Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology, pp. 46-60, especially 46 ("when writing a history of sociology between 1935 and 1970, one cannot ignore Parsons' towering presence.... He was central to the Harvard department, to the profession of sociology, and to the intellectual specialty of social theory.")

24. American Journal of Sociology 45:841 (May 1940), reprinted in Talcott Parsons, Essays in Sociological Theory (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1954)(Rev. Ed.).

25. The Ohio Valley Sociological Society is now the North Central Sociological Association. 26. American Sociological Review 7:309 (June 1942). 27. Parsons, "A Revised Analytical Approach to the Theory of Stratification," in Bendix and Lipset, Class,

Status, and Power, 403. 28. American Sociological Review 10: 242. 29. Ibid. 30. American SociologicalReview 10: 243. 31. Ibid. 32. American Sociological Review 18: 387. 33. For support of this proposition, one may turn to nearly any of the many introductory sociology texts

released over the last thirty-five years. In most instances, both Moore and Tumin are cited solely for their contributions to this debate, rather than to one of the other many published works both produced over the span of their careers. Davis, on the other hand, seems to have managed to escape this fate by receiving routine citation for one or more of his many works on demography in addition to the stratification controversy.

34. American Sociological Review 18:388 and 392, respectively. 35. American SociologicalReview 18:394 (Davis) and 397 (Moore) (1953). 36. American Sociological Review 18:672 (1953). 37. American Sociological Review 28:13 (February 1963). 38. American SociologicalReview 28:19 (February 1963). 39. American Sociological Review 28:26 (February 1963). 40. One of the sociological insights that one can affirm by reviewing the residue of this debate is the existence

of a gender divide within the discipline during the immediate postwar period. Only one of the more than 25 authors writing on the controversy over the years was a woman. See Beth Van Fossen and Robert I. Rhodes, "A Critique of Abrahamson's Assessment," American Journal of Sociology 80:727 (1974), and her contribution did not appear until the mid-1970s. Moreover, Professor Van Fossen was relegated to the role of"critic on a commentator," a second tier position within the hierarchy of Davis-Moore critics, and shared credit with a male co-author.

41. Richard D. Schwartz, "Functional Alternatives to Inequality," American SociologicalReview 20:424 (Au- gust 1955). Schwartz attempted to show that inequality, as analyzed by Davis and Moore, had "functional alternatives" in actual communities (two middle-sized Israeli settlements, a collective kvutza and a coop- erative moshav).

42. Richard L. Simpson, "A Modification of the Functional Theory of Social Stratification," SocialForces 35: 142, (December 1956).


43. Walter Buckley, "Social Stratification and the Functional Theory of Social Differentiation," American Sociological Review 23:369 (August 1958).

44. Dennis H. Wr•ng• ``The Functi•nalist The•ry •f Stratificati•n: S•me Neglected C•nsiderati•ns••• Ameri- can Sociological Review 24:772 (December 1959).

45. Kingsley Davis, "The Abominable Heresy: A Reply to Dr. Buckley," American Sociological Review 24:82 (December 1959).

46. Marion J. Levy, Jr., "Functionalism: A Reply to Dr. Buckley," American Sociological Review 24:83 (De- cember 1959).

47. Walter Buckley, "A Rejoinder to Functionalists Dr. Davis and Dr. Levy," American Sociological Review 24: 84 (December 1959).

48. "Waiter Bucldey's attack on the so-called Davis-Moore theory of stratification suggests that the theory contains an abominable heresy. How else can the repetitive distortion and vehemence in the critique be explained?" Davis, American SociologicalReview 24:82 (footnote deleted; emphasis supplied). "Dr. Davis appears to believe that the way a well-established scientific concept is used is merely a matter of personal preference." Buckley, American Sociological Review at 24: 84. Kemper, examining the debate in 1976, characterized the overall quality as "often acerbic dialogue between Davis and Moore and their critics...." Theodore D. Kemper, Sr., "Marxist and Functionalist Theories in the Study of Stratification: Common Elements that Lead to a Test," SociaIForces 54: 559, 564 (1976). One is reminded, albeit facetiously, from a different era and context, of the intemperate verbal exchanges Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd slung at each other in mock debate in a 1970s era Saturday Night Live skit: "Jane, you ignorant slut!"

49. Wrong, American Sociological Review 24: 773. 50. Wrong, American Sociological Review 24:773-774 (footnote in original to quote from Simpson (1959)

deleted). 51. Gouldner (1970) p. 378. 52. Kingsley Davis, "The Myths of Functional Analysis as a Special Method in Sociology and Anthropology,"

American Sociological Review 24:757 (1959). 53. Buckley, Walter, "On Equitable Inequality." American Sociological Review 28:799 (October 1963). 54. Huaco, George A. "A Logical Analysis of the Davis-Moore Theory of Stratification." American Sociologi-

cal Review 28:801 (October 1963). 55. "The student might well retort [to Professor Moore]: So what else is new?" Walter Buckley, "On Equi-

table Inequality," American Sociological Review 28: 799. 56. "The recent exchange between Moore and Tumin suggests that a thorough logical analysis of the Davis-

Moore theory of stratification is yet to be made." George A. Huaco, "A Logical Analysis of the Davis- Moore Theory of Stratification," American Sociological Review 28:801.

57. Huaco, George A. "The Functionalist Theory of Stratification: Two Decades of Controversy," Inquiry 9: 215 (1966).

58. Inquiry 9: 239. 59. Wesolowoski, Wlodzimierz. "Some Notes on the Functional Theory of Stratification," Polish Sociological

Bullen 5-6: 28, 32-33 (1962). 60. Wesolowski, like Schwartz, identifies the Israeli kibbutz as a particular form of socialist society that might

warrant special consideration in this regard. 61. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. "Some Empirical Consequences of the Davis-Moore Theory of Stratification."

American Sociological Review 28:805,808 (October, 1963). 62. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. and T. Robert Harris, "Interdependence and Inequality: A Specification of the

Davis-Moore Theory," Sociometry 32:13 (1969). 63. Lopreato, Joseph and Lionel S. Lewis, "An Analysis of Variables in the Functional Theory of Stratifica-

tion," The Sociological Quarterly 4:301 (1963). 64. Lewis, Lionel S. and Joseph Lopreato, "Functional Importance and Prestige of Occupations," Pacific

SociologicalReview 6:55 (1963). 65. Pacific SociologicalReview 6: 55, fn. 2 (citation deleted). 66. Harris, Edward E. "Prestige, Reward, Skill, and Functional Importance: A Reconsideration," The Socio-

logical Quarterly 4:261 (1964). 67. Harris, Edward E. "Research Methods, Functional Importance, and Occupational Roles," The Sociologi-

cal Quarterly 8:255 (1967). 68. Bershady• Har•ld J.• ``On Davis and M••re again; •r• dissensus and the stability •f s•cial systems••• British

Journal of Sociology 2 h 446, 451 (1970). 69. Land, Kenneth C., "Path Models of Functional Theories of Social Stratification as Representations of

Cultural Beliefs on Stratification," The Sociological Quarterly 11:474, 480-483 (1970).

Hauhart 21

70. C•••ins• Randa••• `̀ Functi•na• and C•n•ict The•ries •f Educati•na• Stratificati•n••• American Soci•l•gica• Review 36:1002 (1971).

71. Ahrahamson, Mark, "Functionalism and the Functional Theory of Stratification: An Empirical Assess- ment," American Journal of Sociology 78:1236-1246 (1973).

72. Abrahamson (1973) p. 1243. 73. Marvin D. Leaw, "Comment on Abrahamson's 'Functionalism and the Functional Theory of Stratifica-

tion: An Empirical Assessment," American Journal of Sociology 78:724 (1973). 74. Beth E. Van Fossen and Robert I Rhodes, "A Critique of Ahrahamson's Assessment," American Journal of

Sociology 78:727 (1973). 75. Ahrahamson, Mark, "Talent Complementarity and Organizational Stratification," Administrative Science

Quarterly 18:186 (1973). 76. Kemper, "Marxist and Functionalist Theories in the Study of Stratification: Common Elements that Lead

to a Test," SocialForces 54: 559, 577 (1976). 77. Broom and Cushing, "A Modest Test of an Immodest Theory: The Functional Theory of Stratification,"

American SociologicalReview 42: 157, 167-168 (1977). 78. Milner, "Theories of Inequality: An Overview and a Strategy for Synthesis," Social Forces 65:1053 (June

1987). 79. Milner, SocialForces 65: 1055. Milner, following Collins (1975), Grandjean (1975), Simpson (1956),

and Wrong (1959), also recognizes the Davis-Moore theory as a variant of the supply and demand model of market economics re-stated in sociological terms and viewed institutionally over time.

80. Milner's theory is interwoven throughout his discussion of the five theoretical approaches he discusses and incorporates in to his theory, but it is set out in schematic form at SocialForces 65: 1078, Figure 6.

81. Neither Davis nor Moore appear to have conceded anywhere in print that the essential core of their theory was in any way flawed or incorrect.

82. The Sociological Quarterly 4:309-310 and Pacific Sociological Review 6: 59. 83. The Sociological Quarterly 8: 255. 84. Collins, American SociologicalReview 36: 1004-1007. 85. Abrahamson, Mark, "Functionalism and the Functional Theory of Stratification: An Empirical Assess-

ment," American Journal of Sociology 78:1236,1245 (1973). 86. Abrahamson, Mark, "Talent Complementarity and Organizational Stratification," Administrative Science

Quarterly 18:186 (1973). 87. Leavy, "Comment on Abrahamson's "Functionalism and 'The Functional Theory of Stratification: An

Empirical Assessment,'" American Journal of Sociology 80:724 (1974) and VanFossen and Rhodes, "A Critique of Abrahamson's Assessment," American Journal of Sociology 80:727 (1974).

88. Broom and Cushing, pp. 167-168 (1977). 89. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, pp. 28-29). 90. Lundberg, Shrag, and Larsen, Sociology (New York: Harper and Row, 1958, 2nd Ed., 352). 91. Johnson, SociologyA_Systematic_Introduction (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1960, 487-488). 92. Johnson, at pages 543-544 and especially page 549 in Recommended Readings ("This article is especially

valuable for its analysis of the factors that give great prestige to religious, political, and economic leaders and of the factors that prevent any one of these types of leader from monopolizing prestige and power. A criticism of Davis and Moore is presented in [Melvin Tumin's 1953 article]. [Davis and Moore] successfully answer Tumin's criticism in the same issue of the [ASR].")

93. Bredemeier and Stephenson, The Analysis of Social Systems (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965, 322 and fn 5).

94. Bredemeier and Stephenson, 326. 95. Bottomore, Sociology (NewYork: Pantheon Books, 1971) at 201-202. (Bottomore's criticisms are: (1) the

theory assumes stratification is universal, which it is not; (2) the theory assumes that "most important positions" and "most qualified persons" are unambiguously defined; (3) the theory is conceived in terms of positions and ranking individuals, but does not explain the existence of well-defined status groups, elites, and classes; (4) the theory merely recognizes, but does not account for, the existence of different types of stratification, and the processes of change from one system to another; and (5) the theory ne- glects the role of force in maintaining systems of stratification, and has little to say about political conflict.)

96. Bottomore (1971), 202, fn. 1. 97. Scott, Social Processes and Social Structures." An Introduction to Sociology (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and

Winston, 1970), 580-581. 98. Scott (1970), p. 581.


99. Blassis, Gelles, and Levine, Sociology: An Introduction (New York: Random House, 1984), 297-299. 100. DeFleur, D'Antonio, and DeFleur, Sociology: Human Society (New York: Random House, 1984)(4th

Ed.), 263-265. 101. See, e.g., Eitzen and Baca Zinn, In Conflict and Order (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998)(8th Ed.), 226-27;

Lindsey and Beach, Sociology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002 (2d Ed.), 248-249; and Farley, Sociology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003)(5th Ed.), 151-152.

102. Tumim, Melvin E. "Reply to Kingsley Davis," American Sociological Review 18:672 (1953). 103. A review of the references to the original article in the Social Science Citation Index, for example, shows

an average of 6.5 cites/year over the most recent fifteen years. 104. The Milner article has been receiving only a small handful of cites annually in the fifteen years since its

publication. 105. See above at pp. 2-3 and Mullins, 54-57. 106. Davis was president in 1959; Moore in 1966. 107. i.e, Social Security. 108. See, for example, Kniss, Disquiet in the Land: Cultural Conflict in American Mennonite Communities New

Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1997, 155-180.

References

Abrahamson, Mark. 1973. "Functionalism and the Functional Theory of Stratification: An Empirical Assess- ment." American Journal of Sociology 78 (March): 1236-1246.

Abrahamson, Mark. 1973. "Talent Complentarity and Organizational Stratification." Administrative Science Quarterly 18 (June): 186-193.

Abrahamson, Mark. 1974. "In Defense of Assessment." American Journal of Sociology 80: 732-738. Bendix, Reinhard and Seymour Martin Lipset. 1966. Class, Status, and Power. New York: The Free Press. Bershady, Harold J. 1970. "On Davis and Moore Again; or: Dissensus and the Stability of Social Systems."

British Journal of Sociology 21 : 446-454. Broom, Leonard and Robert G. Cushing. 1977. "A Modest Test of an Immodest Theory: The Functional

Theory of Stratification." American Sociological Review 42:157-169. Buckley, Walter. 1958. "Social Stratification and the Functional Theory of Social Differentiation." American

Sociological Review 23 (August): 369-375. Buckley, Walter. 1959. "A Rejoinder to Functionalists Dr. Davis and Dr. Levy." American Sociological Review

24: 84-86. Bucldey, Walter. 1963. "On Equitable Inequality." American Sociological Review 28 (October): 700-801. Collins, Randall. 1971. "Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification." American Sociologi-

cal Review 36 (December): 1002-1019. Davis, Kingsley. 1942. "A Conceptual Analysis of Stratification." American Sociological Review 7:309-321. Davis, Kingsley. 1948. Human Society. New York: McGraw-Hill. Davis, Kingsley. 1953. "Reply to Tumin." American Sociological Review 18: 394-397. Davis, Kingsley. 1959. "The Abominable Heresy: A Reply to Dr. Buckley." American Sociological Review 24:

82-83. Davis, Kingsley. 1959. "The Myths of Functional Analysis as a Special Method in Sociology and Anthropol-

ogy." American Sociological Review 78: 757-773. Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. 1945. "Some Principles of Stratification." American SociologicalReview

10 (April): 242-249. Gouldner, Alvin W. 1970. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Avon. Grandjean, Burke D. 1975. "An Economic Analysis of the Davis-Moore Theory of Stratification." Social Forces

43: 543-552. Grandjean, Burke D. and Frank D. Bean. 1975. "The Davis-Moore Theory and Perceptions of Stratification:

Some Relevant Evidence." SocialForces 54: 166-180. Harris, Edward E. 1964. "Prestige, Reward, Skill, and Functional Importance: A Reconsideration." Sociologi-

cal Quarterly 4: 261-264. Harris, Edward E. 1967. "Research Methods, Functional Importance, and Occupational Roles," Sociological

Quarterly 8: 255-259. Huaco, George A. 1963. "A Logical Analysis of the Davis-Moore Theory of Stratification," American Sociologi-

calReview 28 (October): 801-804. Huaco, George A. 1966. "The Functionalist Theory of Stratification: Two Decades of Controversy." Inquiry 9:

215-240.

Hauhart 23

Kemper, Theodore D. 1976. "Marxist and Functionalist Theories in the Study of Stratification: Common Hements that Lead to a Test." SocialForces 54: 559-578.

Land, Kenneth C. 1970. "Path Models of Functional Theories of Social Stratification as Representations of Cultural Beliefs on Stratification." The Sociological Quarterly 11:475-484.

Leavy, Marvin D. 1974. "Comment on Abrahamson's 'Functionalism and The Functional Theory of Stratifi- cation: An Empirical Assessment.'" American Journal of Sociology 80: 724-727.

Levy, Marion J., Jr. 1959. "Functionalism: A Reply to Dr. Buckley." American SacialogicalReview 24: 83-84. Lewis, Lionel S. and Joseph Lopreato. 1963. "Functional Importance and Prestige of Occupations." Pacific

Sociological Review 6: 55-59. Lopreato, Joseph and Lionel S. Lewis. 1963. "An Analysis of Variables in the Functional Theory of Stratifica-

tion." The Sociological Quarterly 4: 301-310. Mullins, Nicholas C. 1973. Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology. (New York: Harper

and Row). Parsons, Talcott. 1940. "An Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification." American Sociological

Review 45: 841-862. Parsons, Talcott. 1954. Essays in Sociological Theory. (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1954) Parsons, Talcott. 1966. "A Revised Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification." Pp. 380-439 in

Bendix and Lipset, Class, Status, andPower. New York: The Free Press. Queen, Stuart A. "The Function of Social Stratificatio n: A Critique." Sociology and Social Research: 412-415. Schwartz, Richard D. 1955. "Functional Alternatives to Inequality." American Sociological Review 20: 424-

430. Simpson, Richard L. 1956. "A Modification of the Functional Theory of Social Stratification." Social Forces

35: 132-137. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1963. "Some Empirical Consequences of the Davis-Moore Theory." American Socio-

logicalReview 28: 805-808. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. andT. Robert Harris. 1969. "Interdependence and Inequality: A Specification of the

Davis-Moore Theory." 32: 12-21. Tumin, Melvin E. 1953. "Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis." American SociologicalReview

18: 387-394. Tumin, Melvin E. 1953. "Reply to Kingsley Davis." American Sociological Review 18: 672-673. Tumin, Melvin E. 1963. "On Inequality." American Sociological Review 28: 19-28. Vanfossen, Beth E. and Robert I. Rhodes. 1974. '71 Critique of Abrahamson's Assessment." American Journal

of Sociology 80: 727-732. Warner, W. Lloyd and Paul S. Lund. 1941. The Status System of a Modern Community. (New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press). Wesolowski, Wlodzimierz. 1962. "Some Notes on the Functional Theory of Stratification." Polish Sociological

Bulletin 5-6: 28-38. Wrong, Dennis H. 1959. "The Functional Theory of Stratification: Some Neglected Considerations." Ameri-

can Sociological Review 24: 772-782.


Documents

The Davis–Moore theory of stratification: The life course ... · theory of stratification that was intended to account for what they contended was the "universal necessity" for