In modern Western sociology, Marxism is opposed by the theory of social stratification.

Classification or stratification? Representatives of the theory of stratification argue that the concept of class is not applicable to modern post-industrial society. This is due to the uncertainty of the concept of “private property”: due to widespread corporatization, as well as the exclusion of the main shareholders from the sphere of production management and their replacement by hired managers, property relations were blurred and lost their definition. Therefore, the concept of “class” should be replaced by the concept of “stratum” or the concept of social group, and the theory of social class structure of society should be replaced by theories of social stratification. However, classification and stratification are not mutually exclusive approaches. The concept of “class,” which is convenient and appropriate in a macro approach, turns out to be clearly insufficient when we try to consider the structure that interests us in more detail. With a deep and comprehensive study of the structure of society, the economic dimension alone, which the Marxist class approach offers, is clearly not enough. Stratification dimension– this is a fairly fine gradation of layers within a class, allowing for a more in-depth detailed analysis of the social structure.

Most researchers believe that social stratification- a hierarchically organized structure of social (status) inequality that exists in a certain society, in a certain historical period of time. The hierarchically organized structure of social inequality can be imagined as a division of the entire society into strata. A layered, multi-level society in this case can be compared to geological layers of soil. In modern sociology there are four main criteria of social inequality:

ü Income measured in rubles or dollars that an individual or family receives over a certain period of time, say one month or year.

ü Education measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university.

ü Power measured by the number of people who are affected by the decision you make (power - the ability to impose your will or decisions on other people, regardless of their desire).

ü Prestige- respect for status established in public opinion.

The criteria for social stratification listed above are the most universal for all modern societies. However, a person’s social position in society is also influenced by some other criteria that determine, first of all, his “ starting opportunities." These include:

ü Social background. The family introduces an individual into the social system, largely determining his education, profession and income. Poor parents produce potentially poor children, which is determined by their health, education, and qualifications obtained. Children from poor families are 3 times more likely to die due to neglect, disease, accidents and violence in the first years of life than children from rich families.

ü Gender. Today in Russia there is an intensive process of feminization of poverty. Despite the fact that men and women live in families belonging to different social levels, the income, wealth of women and the prestige of their professions are usually lower than those of men.

ü Race and ethnicity. Thus, in the United States, white people receive better education and have higher professional status than African Americans. Ethnicity also influences social status.

ü Religion. In American society, the highest social positions are occupied by members of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, as well as Jews. Lutherans and Baptists occupy a lower position.

Pitirim Sorokin made a significant contribution to the study of status inequality. To determine the totality of all social statuses of society, he introduced the concept social space.

In his work “Social Mobility” of 1927, P. Sorokin, first of all, emphasized the impossibility of combining or even comparing such concepts as “geometric space” and “social space”. According to him, a person of a lower class may come into physical contact with a noble person, but this circumstance will not in any way reduce the economic, prestige or power differences between them, i.e. will not reduce existing social distance. Thus, two people between whom there are significant property, family, official or other social differences cannot be in the same social space, even if they are hugging each other.

According to Sorokin, social space is three-dimensional. It is described by three coordinate axes - economic status, political status, professional status. Thus, the social position (general or integral status) of each individual who is an integral part of a given social space is described using three coordinates ( x, y, z). Note that this coordinate system describes exclusively the social, and not the personal, status of the individual.

The situation when an individual, having a high status along one of the coordinate axes, at the same time has a low status level along the other axis, is called status incompatibility.

For example, individuals with a high level of acquired education, which provides high social status along the occupational dimension of stratification, may occupy poorly paid positions and therefore have low economic status. Most sociologists rightly believe that the presence of status incompatibility contributes to the growth of resentment among such people, and they will support radical social changes aimed at changing stratification. And vice versa, in the example of “new Russians” who strive to get into politics: they clearly realize that the high economic level they have achieved is unreliable without compatibility with an equally high political status. Similarly, a poor person who has received a fairly high political status as a State Duma deputy inevitably begins to use his acquired position to correspondingly “pull up” his economic status.

1. INTRODUCTION

Social stratification is a central theme in sociology. It explains social stratification into the poor, the prosperous and the rich.

Considering the subject of sociology, we discovered a close connection between three fundamental concepts of sociology - social structure, social composition and social stratification. We expressed the structure through a set of statuses and likened it to the empty cells of a honeycomb. It is located, as it were, in a horizontal plane, and is created by the social division of labor. In a primitive society there are few statuses and a low level of division of labor; in a modern society there are many statuses and a high level of organization of the division of labor.

But no matter how many statuses there are, in the social structure they are equal and functionally related to each other. But now we have filled the empty cells with people, each status has turned into a large social group. The totality of statuses gave us a new concept - the social composition of the population. And here the groups are equal to each other, they are also located horizontally. Indeed, from the point of view of social composition, all Russians, women, engineers, non-partisans and housewives are equal.

However, we know that in real life, human inequality plays a huge role. Inequality is the criterion by which we can place some groups above or below others. Social composition turns into social stratification - a set of vertically arranged social layers, in particular, the poor, the wealthy, the rich. If we resort to a physical analogy, then the social composition is a disorderly collection of iron filings. But then they put a magnet in, and they all lined up in a clear order. Stratification is a certain “oriented” composition of the population.

What “orients” large social groups? It turns out that society has an unequal assessment of the meaning and role of each status or group. A plumber or a janitor is valued lower than a lawyer and a minister. Consequently, high statuses and the people who occupy them are better rewarded, have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should be higher. That's what we got four main dimensions of stratification - income, power, education, prestige. And that's it, there are no others. Why? But because they exhaust the range of social benefits that people strive for. More precisely, not the benefits themselves (there may just be a lot of them), but access channels to them. A house abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a holiday in the Canary Islands, etc. - social benefits that are always in short supply (i.e. highly respected and inaccessible to the majority) and are acquired through access to money and power, which in turn are achieved through high education and personal qualities.

Thus, social structure arises from the social division of labor, and social stratification arises from the social distribution of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits.

And it is always unequal. This is how social strata are arranged according to the criterion of unequal access to power, wealth, education and prestige.

2. MEASURING STRATIFICATION

Let us imagine a social space in which The vertical and horizontal distances are not equal. This or roughly this is how P. Sorokin thought about social stratification - the man who was the first in the world to give a complete theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, and confirmed his theory with the help of a huge empirical material extending over the entire human history.

Points in space are social statuses. The distance between the turner and the milling machine is one, it is horizontal, and the distance between the worker and the foreman is different, it is vertical. The master is the boss, the worker is the subordinate. They have different social ranks. Although the matter can be imagined in such a way that the master and the worker will be located at an equal distance from each other. This will happen if we consider both of them not as a boss and a subordinate, but only as workers performing different labor functions. But then we will move from the vertical to the horizontal plane.

Interesting fact

Among the Alans, the deformation of the skull served as a true indicator of the social differentiation of society: among tribal leaders, elders of clans and priesthood, it was elongated.

Inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. She has four measuring rulers, or axes coordinates All of them arranged vertically and next to each other:

income,

power,

education,

prestige.

Income is measured in rubles or dollars that an individual receives (individual income) or family (family income) over a period of time, say one month or year.

On the coordinate axis we plot equal intervals, for example, up to $5,000, from $5,001 to $10,000, from $10,001 to $15,000, etc. up to $75,000 and above.

Education is measured by the number of years of education in a public or private school or university.

Let's say primary school means 4 years, junior high - 9 years, high school - 11, college - 4 years, university - 5 years, graduate school - 3 years, doctorate - 3 years. Thus, a professor has more than 20 years of formal education behind him, while a plumber may not have eight.

power is measured by the number of people affected by the decisions you make (power- opportunity

Rice. Four dimensions of social stratification. People occupying the same positions on all dimensions constitute one stratum (the figure shows an example of one of the strata).

impose your will or decisions on other people regardless of their wishes).

The decisions of the President of Russia apply to 150 million people (whether they are implemented is another question, although it also concerns the issue of power), and the decisions of the foreman - to 7-10 people. Three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars, years, people. Prestige stands outside this series, since it is a subjective indicator.

Prestige is respect for status established in public opinion.

Since 1947, the US National Opinion Research Center has periodically conducted surveys of ordinary Americans selected from a national sample to determine the social prestige of various professions. Respondents are asked to rate each of 90 professions (occupations) on a 5-point scale: excellent (best),

Note: The scale ranges from 100 (highest score) to 1 (lowest score). The second column "scores" shows the average score received by this type of activity in the sample.

good, average, slightly worse than average, worst activity. List II includes almost all occupations from the chief judge, minister and doctor to plumber and janitor. By calculating the average for each occupation, sociologists obtained a public assessment of the prestige of each type of work in points. Arranging them in hierarchical order from the most respected to the least prestigious, they received a rating, or scale of professional prestige. Unfortunately, in our country, periodic representative surveys of the population on professional prestige have never been conducted. Therefore, you will have to use American data (see table).

Comparison of data for different years (1949, 1964, 1972, 1982) shows the stability of the prestige scale. The same types of occupations enjoyed the greatest, average, and least prestige during these years. Lawyer, doctor, teacher, scientist, banker, pilot, engineer received consistently high marks. Their position on the scale changed slightly: the doctor was in second place in 1964, and in first in 1982, the minister was in 10th and 11th places, respectively.

If the upper part of the scale is occupied by representatives of creative, intellectual labor, then the lower part is occupied by representatives of predominantly physical unskilled workers: driver, welder, carpenter, plumber, janitor. They have the least status respect. People occupying the same positions along the four dimensions of stratification constitute one stratum.

For each status or individual one can find a place on any scale.

A classic example is the comparison between a police officer and a college professor. On the education and prestige scales, the professor ranks above the policeman, and on the income and power scales, the policeman ranks above the professor. Indeed, the professor has less power, the income is somewhat lower than that of the policeman, but the professor has more prestige and years of training. By marking both with dots on each scale and connecting their lines, we get a stratification profile.

Each scale can be considered separately and designated as an independent concept.

In sociology there are three basic types of stratification:

economic (income),

political (power),

professional (prestige)

and many non-basic, for example, cultural-speech and age.

Rice. Stratification profile of a college professor and a police officer.

3. BELONGING TO THE STRATE

Affiliation measured by subjective and objective indicators:

subjective indicator - a feeling of belonging to a given group, identification with it;

objective indicators - income, power, education, prestige.

Thus, a large fortune, high education, great power and high professional prestige are necessary conditions for you to be classified as one of the highest stratum of society.

Stratum is a social stratum of people who have similar objective indicators on four stratification scales.

Concept stratification (stratum - layer, facio- I do) came to sociology from geology, where it denotes the vertical arrangement of layers of various rocks. If you cut the earth's crust at a certain distance, you will find that under the layer of chernozem there is a layer of clay, then sand, etc. Each layer consists of homogeneous elements. The same goes for a stratum - it includes people who have the same income, education, power and prestige. There is no stratum that includes highly educated people with power and powerless poor people engaged in unprestigious work. The rich are included in the same stratum with the rich, and the middle ones with the average.

In a civilized country, a major mafioso cannot belong to the highest stratum. Although he has very high incomes, perhaps high education and strong power, his occupation does not enjoy high prestige among citizens. It is condemned. Subjectively, he may consider himself a member of the upper class and even qualify according to objective indicators. However, he lacks the main thing - recognition of "significant others".

“Significant others” refer to two large social groups: members of the upper class and the general population. The higher stratum will never recognize him as “one of their own” because he compromises the entire group as a whole. The population will never recognize mafia activity as a socially approved activity, since it contradicts the morals, traditions and ideals of a given society.

Let's conclude: belonging to a stratum has two components - subjective (psychological identification with a certain stratum) and objective (social entry into a certain stratum).

Social entry has undergone a certain historical evolution. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. With the advent of slavery, it unexpectedly intensified. slavery- a form of the most rigid consolidation of people in unprivileged strata. Castes-lifelong assignment of an individual to his (but not necessarily unprivileged) stratum. In medieval Europe, lifelong affiliation was weakened. Estates imply legal attachment to a stratum. Traders who became rich bought titles of nobility and thereby moved to a higher class. Estates were replaced by classes - open to all strata, not implying any legitimate (legal) way of being assigned to one stratum.

4. HISTORICAL TYPES OF STRATIFICATION

Well known in sociology four main types of stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes. The first three characterize closed societies, and the last type is open.

Closed is a society where social movements from lower to higher strata are either completely prohibited, or substantially limited.

Open called a society where movement from one stratum to another is not officially limited in any way.

Slavery- an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality.

Slavery has evolved historically. There are two forms of it.

At patriarchal slavery (primitive form) a slave had all the rights of a junior member of the family: he lived in the same house with his owners, participated in public life, married free people, and inherited the owner’s property. It was forbidden to kill him.

At classic slavery (mature form) the slave was completely enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and had no family. It was allowed to kill him. He did not own property, but was himself considered the property of the owner (a “talking instrument”).

Ancient slavery in Ancient Greece and plantation slavery in the USA before 1865 are closer to the second form, and servitude in Gusi of the 10th-12th centuries is closer to the first. The sources of slavery differ: the ancient one was replenished mainly through conquest, and servitude was debt slavery, or indentured servitude. The third source is criminals. In medieval China and the Soviet Gulag (extra-legal slavery), criminals found themselves in the position of slaves.

At the mature stage slavery turns into slavery. When they talk about slavery as a historical type of stratification, they mean its highest stage. Slavery - the only form of social relations in history when one person acts as the property of another, and when the lower layer is deprived of all rights and freedoms. This does not exist in castes and estates, not to mention classes.

Caste system not as ancient as the slave system, and less widespread. While almost all countries went through slavery, of course to varying degrees, castes were found only in India and partly in Africa. India is a classic example of a caste society. It arose on the ruins of the slaveholding in the first centuries of the new era.

Castecalled a social group (stratum), membership in which a person owes solely to his birth.

He cannot move from his caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. The caste position is enshrined in the Hindu religion (it is now clear why castes are not very common). According to its canons, people live more than one life. Each person falls into the appropriate caste depending on what his behavior was in his previous life. If he is bad, then after his next birth he must fall into a lower caste, and vice versa.

In India 4 main castes: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), Shudras (workers and peasants) and about 5 thousand minor castes and sub-castes. The untouchables are special - they do not belong to any caste and occupy the lowest position. During industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is increasingly becoming class-based, but the village, in which 7/10 of the population lives, remains caste-based.

Estates precede classes and characterize the feudal societies that existed in Europe from the 4th to the 14th centuries.

Estate- a social group that has rights and obligations that are fixed by custom or legal law and are inheritable.

A class system that includes several strata is characterized by hierarchy, expressed in inequality of position and privileges. The classic example of class organization was Europe, where at the turn of the 14th-15th centuries society was divided into upper classes(nobility and clergy) and unprivileged third estate(artisans, merchants, peasants). In the X-XIII centuries there were three main classes: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia, from the second half of the 18th century, the class division into nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistines (middle urban strata) was established. Estates were based on land ownership.

The rights and duties of each class were determined by legal law and sanctified by religious doctrine. Membership in the class was determined inheritance. Social barriers between classes were quite strict, so social mobility existed not so much between, but within classes. Each estate included many strata, ranks, levels, professions, and ranks. Thus, only nobles could engage in public service. The aristocracy was considered a military class (knighthood).

The higher a class stood in the social hierarchy, the higher its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were fully tolerated. Individual mobility was sometimes allowed. A simple person could become a knight by purchasing a special permit from the ruler. As a relic, this practice has survived in modern England.

5. Social stratification and prospects for civil society in Russia

In its history, Russia has experienced more than one wave of restructuring of the social space, when the previous social structure collapsed, the world of values ​​changed, guidelines, patterns and norms of behavior were formed, entire strata perished, and new communities were born. On the threshold of the 21st century. Russia is once again going through a complex and contradictory process of renewal.

In order to understand the changes taking place, it is first necessary to consider the foundations on which the social structure of Soviet society was built before the reforms of the second half of the 80s.

The nature of the social structure of Soviet Russia can be revealed by analyzing Russian society as a combination of various stratification systems.

In the stratification of Soviet society, permeated with administrative and political control, the ethacratic system played a key role. The place of social groups in the party-state hierarchy predetermined the volume of distributive rights, the level of decision-making and the scope of opportunities in all areas. The stability of the political system was ensured by the stability of the position of the power elite (“nomenklatura”), the key positions in which were occupied by the political and military elites, and the economic and cultural elites occupied a subordinate place.

An ethacratic society is characterized by a fusion of power and property; predominance of state ownership; state-monopoly mode of production; dominance of centralized distribution; militarization of the economy; class-stratified stratification of a hierarchical type, in which the positions of individuals and social groups are determined by their place in the structure of state power, which extends to the overwhelming majority of material, labor, and information resources; social mobility in the form of selection, organized from above, of the most obedient and loyal people to the system.

A distinctive characteristic of the social structure of a Soviet-type society was that it was not class-based, although in terms of the parameters of the professional structure and economic differentiation it remained superficially similar to the stratification of Western societies. Due to the elimination of the basis of class division - private ownership of the means of production - classes were gradually destructured.

A monopoly of state property, in principle, cannot produce a class society, since all citizens are hired workers of the state, differing only in the amount of powers delegated to them. The distinctive features of social groups in the USSR were special functions, formalized as the legal inequality of these groups. Such inequality led to the isolation of these groups and the destruction of “social elevators” that served for upward social mobility. Accordingly, the life and consumption of elite groups became increasingly iconic, reminiscent of the phenomenon called “prestigious consumption.” All these features make up a picture of a class society.

Class stratification is inherent in a society in which economic relations are rudimentary and do not play a differentiating role, and the main mechanism of social regulation is the state, dividing people into legally unequal classes.

From the first years of Soviet power, for example, the peasantry was formalized into a special class: its political rights were limited until 1936. The inequality of rights of workers and peasants manifested itself for many years (attachment to collective farms through the system of a passport-free regime, privileges for workers in receiving education and promotion, registration system, etc.). In fact, employees of the party and state apparatus have become a special class with a whole range of special rights and privileges. The social status of the massive and heterogeneous class of prisoners was secured in the legal and administrative order.

In the 60-70s. in conditions of chronic shortages and limited purchasing power of money, the process of leveling wages is intensifying, with a parallel fragmentation of the consumer market into closed “special sectors” and an increasing role of privileges. The material and social situation of groups involved in distribution processes in the spheres of trade, supply, and transport has improved. The social influence of these groups increased as shortages of goods and services worsened. During this period, shadow socio-economic ties and associations arise and develop. A more open type of social relations is being formed: in the economy, the bureaucracy acquires the opportunity to achieve the most favorable results for itself; The spirit of entrepreneurship also embraces the lower social strata - numerous groups of private traders, manufacturers of “leftist” products, and builders of “shabat” are formed. Thus, a doubling of the social structure occurs, when fundamentally different social groups bizarrely coexist within its framework.

Important social changes that occurred in the Soviet Union in 1965 - 1985 are associated with the development of the scientific and technological revolution, urbanization and, accordingly, an increase in the general level of education.

From the early 60s to the mid 80s. More than 35 million residents migrated to the city. However, urbanization in our country was clearly deformed: the massive movements of rural migrants to the city were not accompanied by a corresponding development of social infrastructure. A huge mass of extra people, social outsiders, has appeared. Having lost touch with the rural subculture and unable to join the urban one, migrants created a typically marginal subculture.

The figure of a migrant from village to city is a classic model of the marginal: no longer a peasant, not yet a worker; the norms of the rural subculture have been undermined, the urban subculture has not yet been assimilated. The main sign of marginalization is the severance of social, economic, and spiritual ties.

The economic reasons for marginalization were the extensive development of the Soviet economy, the dominance of outdated technologies and primitive forms of labor, the inconsistency of the education system with the real needs of production, etc. Closely related to this are the social causes of marginalization - hypertrophy of the accumulation fund to the detriment of the consumption fund, which gave rise to an extremely low standard of living and commodity shortages. Among the political and legal reasons for the marginalization of society, the main one is that during the Soviet period in the country there was a destruction of any social ties “horizontally”. The state sought global dominance over all spheres of public life, deforming civil society, minimizing the autonomy and independence of individuals and social groups.

In the 60-80s. an increase in the general level of education and the development of an urban subculture gave rise to a more complex and differentiated social structure. In the early 80s. specialists who received higher or secondary specialized education already accounted for 40% of the urban population.

By the beginning of the 90s. In terms of its educational level and professional positions, the Soviet middle class was not inferior to the Western “new middle class.” In this regard, the English political scientist R. Sakwa noted: “The communist regime gave rise to a peculiar paradox: millions of people were bourgeois in their culture and aspirations, but were included in a socio-economic system that denied these aspirations.”

Under the influence of socio-economic and political reforms in the second half of the 80s. Great changes have taken place in Russia. Compared to Soviet times, the structure of Russian society has undergone significant changes, although it retains many of the same features. The transformation of the institutions of Russian society has seriously affected its social structure: relations of property and power have changed and continue to change, new social groups are emerging, the level and quality of life of each social group is changing, and the mechanism of social stratification is being rebuilt.

As an initial model of multidimensional stratification of modern Russia, we will take four main parameters: power, prestige of professions, income level and level of education.

Power is the most important dimension of social stratification. Power is necessary for the sustainable existence of any socio-political system; it combines the most important public interests. The system of government bodies in post-Soviet Russia has been significantly restructured - some of them have been liquidated, others have just been organized, some have changed their functions, and their personnel have been updated. The previously closed upper stratum of society opened up to people from other groups.

The place of the monolith of the nomenklatura pyramid was taken by numerous elite groups that were in a competitive relationship with each other. The elite has lost much of the leverage of the old ruling class. This led to a gradual transition from political and ideological methods of management to economic ones. Instead of a stable ruling class with strong vertical ties between its levels, many elite groups were created, between which horizontal ties intensified.

An area of ​​management activity where the role of political power has increased is the redistribution of accumulated wealth. Direct or indirect involvement in the redistribution of state property in modern Russia is the most important factor determining the social status of management groups.

The social structure of modern Russia retains the features of the former étacratic society, built on power hierarchies. However, at the same time, the revival of economic classes on the basis of privatized state property begins. There is a transition from stratification according to the basis of power (appropriation through privileges, distribution in accordance with the place of the individual in the party-state hierarchy) to stratification of the proprietary type (appropriation according to the size of profit and market-valued labor). Next to the power hierarchies, an “entrepreneurial structure” appears, which includes the following main groups: 1) large and medium-sized entrepreneurs; 2) small entrepreneurs (owners and managers of firms with minimal use of hired labor); 3) independent workers; 4) hired workers.

There is a tendency to form new social groups that claim high places in the hierarchy of social prestige.

The prestige of professions is the second important dimension of social stratification. We can talk about a number of fundamentally new trends in the professional structure associated with the emergence of new prestigious social roles. The range of professions is becoming more complex, and their comparative attractiveness is changing in favor of those that provide more substantial and quicker material rewards. In this regard, assessments of the social prestige of different types of activity change, when physically or ethically “dirty” work is still considered attractive from the point of view of monetary reward.

The newly emerged and therefore “scarce” in terms of personnel, the financial sphere, business, and commerce are filled with a large number of semi- and non-professionals. Entire professional strata have been relegated to the “bottom” of social rating scales - their special training turned out to be unclaimed and the income from it is negligible.

The role of the intelligentsia in society has changed. As a result of the reduction in state support for science, education, culture and art, there was a decline in the prestige and social status of knowledge workers.

In modern conditions in Russia there has been a tendency to form a number of social strata belonging to the middle class - these are entrepreneurs, managers, certain categories of the intelligentsia, and highly qualified workers. But this trend is contradictory, since the common interests of the various social strata that potentially form the middle class are not supported by the processes of their convergence according to such important criteria as the prestige of the profession and income level.

The income level of various groups is the third significant parameter of social stratification. Economic status is the most important indicator of social stratification, because the level of income influences such aspects of social status as the type of consumption and lifestyle, the opportunity to start a business, advance in career, give children a good education, etc.

In 1997, the income received by the top 10% of Russians was almost 27 times higher than the income of the bottom 10%. The wealthiest 20% accounted for 47.5% of total cash income, while the poorest 20% received only 5.4%. 4% of Russians are super wealthy - their income is approximately 300 times higher than the income of the bulk of the population.

The most acute problem in the social sphere at present is the problem of mass poverty - almost 1/3 of the country's population continues to live in poverty. Of particular concern is the change in the composition of the poor: today they include not only the traditionally low-income (disabled people, pensioners, people with many children), the ranks of the poor have been joined by the unemployed and the employed whose wages (and this is a quarter of all employees in enterprises) are below the subsistence level. Almost 64% of the population have incomes below the average level (average income is considered to be 8-10 times the minimum wage per person) (see: Zaslavskaya T.I. Social structure of modern and certain society // Social sciences and modernity. 1997 No. 2. P. 17).

One of the manifestations of the declining standard of living of a significant part of the population is the growing need for secondary employment. However, it is not possible to determine the real scale of secondary employment and additional jobs (bringing even higher income than the main job). The criteria used today in Russia provide only a conditional description of the income structure of the population; the data obtained are often limited and incomplete. Nevertheless, social stratification on an economic basis indicates that the process of restructuring of Russian society continues with great intensity. It was artificially limited in Soviet times and is being developed openly

The deepening processes of social differentiation of groups by income level is beginning to have a noticeable impact on the education system.

The level of education is another important criterion for stratification; education is one of the main channels of vertical mobility. During the Soviet period, higher education was accessible to many segments of the population, and secondary education was compulsory. However, such an education system was ineffective; higher schools trained specialists without taking into account the real needs of society.

In modern Russia, the breadth of educational offerings is becoming a new differentiating factor.

In new high-status groups, obtaining a scarce and high-quality education is considered not only prestigious, but also functionally important.

Newly emerging professions require more qualifications and better training and are better paid. As a consequence, education is becoming an increasingly important factor at the entrance to the professional hierarchy. As a result, social mobility increases. It depends less and less on the social characteristics of the family and is more determined by the personal qualities and education of the individual.

An analysis of the changes taking place in the system of social stratification according to four main parameters speaks of the depth and inconsistency of the transformation process that Russia is experiencing and allows us to conclude that today it continues to retain the old pyramidal shape (characteristic of pre-industrial society), although the substantive characteristics of its constituent layers have changed significantly.

In the social structure of modern Russia, six layers can be distinguished: 1) the upper one - the economic, political and security elite; 2) upper middle - medium and large entrepreneurs; 3) middle - small entrepreneurs, managers of the production sector, the highest intelligentsia, the working elite, military personnel; 4) basic - the mass intelligentsia, the bulk of the working class, peasants, trade and service workers; 5) lower - unskilled workers, long-term unemployed, single pensioners; 6) “social bottom” - homeless people released from prison, etc.

At the same time, a number of significant clarifications should be made related to the processes of changing the stratification system during the reform process:

Most social formations are mutually transitional in nature and have fuzzy, vague boundaries;

There is no internal unity of newly emerging social groups;

There is a total marginalization of almost all social groups;

The new Russian state does not ensure the security of citizens and does not alleviate their economic situation. In turn, these dysfunctions of the state deform the social structure of society and give it a criminal character;

The criminal nature of class formation gives rise to growing property polarization of society;

The current level of income cannot stimulate labor and business activity of the bulk of the economically active population;

In Russia there remains a layer of the population that can be called a potential resource of the middle class. Today, about 15% of those employed in the national economy can be classified as belonging to this layer, but its maturation to a “critical mass” will take a lot of time. So far in Russia, the socio-economic priorities characteristic of the “classical” middle class can only be observed in the upper layers of the social hierarchy.

A significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, which requires a transformation of the institutions of property and power, is a long process. Meanwhile, the stratification of society will continue to lose rigidity and unambiguity, taking the form of a blurred system in which layer and class structures are intertwined.

Of course, the formation of a civil society should be the guarantor of the process of renewal of Russia.

The problem of civil society in our country is of particular theoretical and practical interest. In terms of the nature of the dominant role of the state, Russia was initially closer to the eastern type of society, but in our country this role was expressed even more clearly. As A. Gramsci put it, “in Russia the state represents everything, and civil society is primitive and vague.”

Unlike the West, a different type of social system has developed in Russia, which is based on the efficiency of power, rather than the efficiency of property. One should also take into account the fact that for a long time in Russia there were practically no public organizations and such values ​​as the inviolability of the individual and private property, legal thinking, which constitute the context of civil society in the West, remained undeveloped; social initiative belonged not to associations of private individuals, but to the bureaucratic apparatus.

From the second half of the 19th century. the problem of civil society began to be developed in Russian social and scientific thought (B.N. Chicherin, E.N. Trubetskoy, S.L. Frank, etc.). The formation of civil society in Russia begins during the reign of Alexander I. It was at this time that separate spheres of civil life emerged that were not associated with military and court officials - salons, clubs, etc. As a result of the reforms of Alexander II, zemstvos, various unions of entrepreneurs, charitable institutions, and cultural societies emerged. However, the process of formation of civil society was interrupted by the revolution of 1917. Totalitarianism blocked the very possibility of the emergence and development of civil society.

The era of totalitarianism led to the grandiose leveling of all members of society before the all-powerful state, the washing out of any groups pursuing private interests. The totalitarian state significantly narrowed the autonomy of sociality and civil society, securing control over all spheres of public life.

The peculiarity of the current situation in Russia is that the elements of civil society will have to be created largely anew. Let us highlight the most fundamental directions in the formation of civil society in modern Russia:

Formation and development of new economic relations, including pluralism of forms of ownership and the market, as well as the open social structure of society determined by them;

The emergence of a system of real interests adequate to this structure, uniting individuals, social groups and strata into a single community;

The emergence of various forms of labor associations, social and cultural associations, socio-political movements that make up the main institutions of civil society;

Renewing relationships between social groups and communities (national, professional, regional, gender, age, etc.);

Creation of economic, social and spiritual prerequisites for creative self-realization of the individual;

Formation and deployment of mechanisms of social self-regulation and self-government at all levels of the social body.

The ideas of civil society found themselves in post-communist Russia in a unique context that distinguishes our country both from Western states (with their strongest mechanisms of rational legal relations) and from Eastern countries (with their specificity of traditional primary groups). Unlike Western countries, the modern Russian state does not deal with a structured society, but, on the one hand, with rapidly forming elite groups, and on the other, with an amorphous, atomized society in which individual consumer interests predominate. Today in Russia, civil society is not developed, many of its elements are crowded out or “blocked”, although over the years of reform there have been significant changes in the direction of its formation.

Modern Russian society is quasi-civil; its structures and institutions have many of the formal characteristics of civil society formations. There are up to 50 thousand voluntary associations in the country - consumer associations, trade unions, environmental groups, political clubs, etc. However, many of them, having survived at the turn of the 80-90s. a short period of rapid growth, in recent years they have become bureaucratic, weakened, and lost activity. The average Russian underestimates group self-organization, and the most common social type has become the individual, closed in his aspirations to himself and his family. Overcoming this state, caused by the process of transformation, is the specificity of the current stage of development.

1. Social stratification is a system of social inequality, consisting of a set of interconnected and hierarchically organized social layers (strata). The stratification system is formed on the basis of such characteristics as the prestige of professions, the amount of power, income level and level of education.

2. The theory of stratification allows you to model the political pyramid of society, identify and take into account the interests of individual social groups, determine the level of their political activity, the degree of influence on political decision-making.

3. The main purpose of civil society is to achieve consensus between various social groups and interests. Civil society is a set of social entities united specifically by economic, ethnic, cultural, etc. interests realized outside the sphere of state activity.

4. The formation of civil society in Russia is associated with significant changes in the social structure. The new social hierarchy differs in many ways from the one that existed during Soviet times and is characterized by extreme instability. Stratification mechanisms are being restructured, social mobility is increasing, and many marginal groups with an uncertain status are emerging. Objective opportunities for the formation of a middle class are beginning to emerge. For a significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, it is necessary to transform the institutions of property and power, accompanied by a blurring of boundaries between groups, changes in group interests and social interactions.

Literature

1. Sorokin P. A. Man, civilization, society. - M., 1992.

2. Zharova L.N., Mishina I.A. History of the Fatherland. - M., 1992.

3. HessIN., Markgon E., Stein P. Sociology. V.4., 1991.

4. Vselensky M. S. Nomenclature. - M., 1991.

5. Ilyin V. I. The main contours of the system of social stratification of society // Rubezh. 1991. No. 1. P.96-108.

6. Smelser N. Sociology. - M., 1994.

7. Komarov M. S. Social stratification and social structure // Sociol. research 1992. No. 7.

8. Giddens E. Stratification and class structure // Sociol. research 1992. No. 11.

9. Political Science, ed. Prof. M.A. Vasilika M., 1999

9. A.I. Kravchenko Sociology - Ekaterinburg, 2000.

The concept " stratification» ( stratification) translated from Latin means “layer” or “layer”. Thus, stratification should clarify the vertical sequence of the position of social strata, as well as strata in society. Sociologists agree that the basis of stratification is the social inequality of people. However, the way in which inequality is organized may vary. Currently, sociologists are making repeated attempts to expand the number of criteria. For example, by including educational level. So, society reproduces and also organizes inequality, taking into account several reasons:

1. Income and wealth level.
2. Level of political power.
3. Level of social prestige and so on.

These types of hierarchies are important to society because they can regulate social relationships as well as direct personal aspirations. Let us consider a vertical section of the bases of stratification. Researchers face a problem - division on the scale of social hierarchy. In other words, how many social layers need to be identified. Of course, it is possible to distinguish a huge number of segments of the population with different levels of well-being. Stratification structure became similar to a socio-professional structure. It was divided into:

1. Administrators are the highest class of professionals.
2. Mid-level specialists.
3. Commercial class.
4. Petty bourgeoisie.
5. Skilled and unskilled workers.

And this is not the entire list of social strata of society. When developing a general idea of ​​the social hierarchy of society, it is enough to distinguish three levels - the highest, middle, and lowest. The entire population can be distributed into these stratifications, taking into account values ​​and norms. For example, in Western society, the degree of freedom is determined not only by legal and political acts, but also by the size of the budget, which should provide wide access to education. Therefore, in order to be in a prestigious status group, you need to take into account criteria that provide high income and financial independence. To reach the top of the social hierarchy in the totalitarian society of the Soviet period, one only had to participate in political decisions and also get closer to the power structures.

How can the specific gravity of each stratum be determined? First of all, the measurement technique depends on statistical methods that make it possible to determine the hierarchy of income of the population. It cannot be measured mathematically. After all, here you need to study all the norms that have developed in a given society. You can use other methods for determining the social profile of society. It is necessary to emphasize the main thing - it is impossible to say with accuracy what social stratification is if we take into account only statistical data or are based only on the data of a sociological survey. We need to use an integrated approach. First of all, social inequality is the first cause of hierarchical structure. Every society should strive for inequality. Initially, society had its own laws in order to maintain social hierarchy. Thus, a child in a slave’s family must be a slave, in a serf’s family a serf, and in a noble’s family a representative of the upper class.

The system of social institutions consisted of the army, court, and church. They always monitored compliance with the rules of the hierarchical structure of society. For example, in India, a hierarchical system was created in the form of castes. Such a hierarchical system was supported only by force: either through weapons or through religion. In modern society, the hierarchical system is devoid of such cruelty. After all, all citizens have the same rights. Moreover, they are able to occupy different positions in social space.

Thus, the vertical profile of society has never been constant. Karl Marx assumed that the configuration of the vertical section of society would change due to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. But Sorokin rejected Marx’s thesis and believed that the top of the social pyramid rises above the rest. The stability of society is related to the profile of social stratification. The main thing is that the stratification process should be carried out not due to natural disasters, but through state policy. Stability is maintained in the social hierarchy due to the powerful middle class. Although recently the number of the poorest strata has been increasing. But even this does not prevent the middle class from developing. For example, E. Giddens described the middle class of Great Britain. He noted not only its large number, but also its heterogeneity. Giddens identified the "old middle class," which includes small business owners as well as small business owners. In addition to this class, he identified the “lower middle class,” which included teachers, office workers and doctors. The middle class demonstrates the way of life to the lower stratum with some effort. Thus, the discontent of the lower strata is neutralized when they realize that they can achieve a better position in society. During economic crises, the erosion of the middle class leads to serious upheaval. For example, in Russia, the majority of people became poor under conditions of price liberalization. And this led to the destruction of social balance in society.

At the end of the article we can summarize - the vertical cross-section of society is mobile. After all, its main layers can not only decrease, but also increase. First of all, this is due to the structural restructuring of the economy, declines in production and the nature of the political regime. Note that the stratification profile can never extend indefinitely. After all, a special mechanism for redistributing the national wealth of power is being triggered, which is presented in the form of spontaneous uprisings of the masses. To avoid this, you need to regulate this process. The main thing is to take care of the middle layer of society. In this case, the sustainability of society will be ensured!

Different sociologists explain the causes of social inequality and, consequently, social stratification in different ways. Yes, according to Marxist school of sociology, inequality is based on property relations, the nature, degree and form of ownership of the means of production. According to functionalists (K. Davis, W. Moore), the distribution of individuals among social strata depends on the importance of their professional activities and contributions which they contribute through their labor to achieving the goals of society. Supporters exchange theory(J. Homans) believe that inequality in society arises due to unequal exchange of the results of human activity.

A number of classics of sociology took a broader view of the problem of stratification. For example, M. Weber, in addition to economic (attitude towards property and income level), proposed in addition such criteria as social prestige(inherited and acquired status) and belonging to certain political circles, hence - power, authority and influence.

One of creatorsstratification theories P. Sorokin identified three types of stratification structures:

economic(based on income and wealth criteria);

political(according to the criteria of influence and power);

professional(according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).

Founder structural functionalism T. Parsons proposed three groups of differentiating characteristics:

qualitative characteristics of people that they possess from birth (ethnicity, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities and abilities);

role characteristics determined by the set of roles performed by an individual in society (education, position, various types of professional and labor activities);

characteristics determined by the possession of material and spiritual values ​​(wealth, property, privileges, the ability to influence and manage other people, etc.).

In modern sociology, it is customary to distinguish the following main social stratification criteria:

income - the amount of cash receipts for a certain period (month, year);

wealth - accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or embodied money (in the second case they act in the form of movable or immovable property);

power - the ability and opportunity to exercise one’s will, to exert a decisive influence on the activities of other people through various means (authority, law, violence, etc.). Power is measured by the number of people it extends to;

education - a set of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the learning process. Educational attainment is measured by the number of years of schooling;

prestige- public assessment of the attractiveness, significance of a particular profession, position, or certain type of occupation.

Despite the variety of different models of social stratification that currently exist in sociology, most scientists distinguish three main classes: high, middle and low. Moreover, the share of the upper class in industrialized societies is approximately 5-7%; middle - 60-80% and low - 13-35%.

In a number of cases, sociologists make a certain division within each class. So, American sociologist W.L. Warner(1898-1970) in his famous study "Yankee City" identified six classes:

upper-highest class(representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties with significant resources of power, wealth and prestige);

lower-upper class(“new rich” - bankers, politicians who do not have a noble origin and did not have time to create powerful role-playing clans);

upper-middle class(successful businessmen, lawyers, entrepreneurs, scientists, managers, doctors, engineers, journalists, cultural and artistic figures);

lower-middle class(hired workers - engineers, clerks, secretaries, office workers and other categories, which are usually called “white collar”);

upper-lower class(workers engaged primarily in manual labor);

lower-lower class(beggars, unemployed, homeless, foreign workers, declassed elements).

There are other schemes of social stratification. But they all boil down to the following: non-main classes arise through the addition of strata and layers located within one of the main classes - rich, wealthy and poor.

Thus, the basis of social stratification is natural and social inequality between people, which manifests itself in their social life and is hierarchical in nature. It is steadily supported and regulated by various social institutions, constantly reproduced and modified, which is an important condition for the functioning and development of any society.

Social stratification (og lat. stratum - layer + facere - to do) call the differentiation of people in society depending on access to power, profession, income and some other socially significant characteristics. The concept of “stratification” was proposed by a sociologist Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin(1889-1968), who borrowed it from the natural sciences, where it, in particular, denotes the distribution of geological strata.

Rice. 1. Main types of social stratification (differentiation)

The distribution of social groups and people by strata (layers) allows us to identify relatively stable elements of the structure of society (Fig. 1) in terms of access to power (politics), professional functions performed and income received (economics). History presents three main types of stratification - castes, estates and classes (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Main historical types of social stratification

Castes(from Portuguese casta - clan, generation, origin) - closed social groups connected by common origin and legal status. Caste membership is determined solely by birth, and marriages between members of different castes are prohibited. The best known is the caste system of India (Table 1), originally based on the division of the population into four varnas (in Sanskrit this word means “species, gens, color”). According to legend, varnas were formed from different parts of the body of the primordial man sacrificed.

Table 1. Caste system in Ancient India

Estates - social groups whose rights and obligations, enshrined in law and traditions, are inherited. Below are the main classes characteristic of Europe in the 18th-19th centuries:

nobility - a privileged class from among large landowners and distinguished officials. An indicator of nobility is usually a title: prince, duke, count, marquis, viscount, baron, etc.;

clergy - ministers of worship and church with the exception of priests. In Orthodoxy, there are black clergy (monastic) and white (non-monastic);

merchants - a trading class that included owners of private enterprises;

peasantry - a class of farmers engaged in agricultural labor as their main profession;

philistinism - an urban class consisting of artisans, small traders and low-level employees.

In some countries, a military class was distinguished (for example, knighthood). In the Russian Empire, the Cossacks were sometimes classified as a special class. Unlike the caste system, marriages between representatives of different classes are permissible. It is possible (although difficult) to move from one class to another (for example, the purchase of nobility by a merchant).

Classes(from Latin classis - rank) - large groups of people that differ in their attitude towards property. The German philosopher Karl Marx (1818-1883), who proposed the historical classification of classes, pointed out that an important criterion for identifying classes is the position of their members - oppressed or oppressed:

in a slave society, these were slaves and slave owners;

in feudal society - feudal lords and dependent peasants;

in a capitalist society - capitalists (bourgeoisie) and workers (proletariat);

There will be no classes in a communist society.

In modern sociology, we often talk about classes in the most general sense - as collections of people who have similar life chances, mediated by income, prestige and power:

upper class: divided into upper upper (rich people from "old families") and lower upper (newly rich people);

middle class: divided into upper middle (professionals) and

lower middle (skilled workers and employees); o The lower class is divided into upper lower (unskilled workers) and lower lower (lumpen and marginalized).

The lower lower class is a population group that, for various reasons, does not fit into the structure of society. In fact, their representatives are excluded from the social class structure, which is why they are also called declassed elements.

The declassed elements include the lumpen - tramps, beggars, beggars, as well as the marginalized - those who have lost their social characteristics and have not acquired a new system of norms and values ​​in return, for example, former factory workers who lost their jobs due to the economic crisis, or peasants, driven from the land during industrialization.

Strata - groups of people sharing similar characteristics in a social space. This is the most universal and broad concept, which allows us to identify any fractional elements in the structure of society according to a set of various socially significant criteria. For example, strata such as elite specialists, professional entrepreneurs, government officials, office workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers, etc. are distinguished. Classes, estates and castes can be considered types of strata.

Social stratification reflects the presence inequalities in society. It shows that strata exist in different conditions and people have unequal opportunities to satisfy their needs. Inequality is a source of stratification in society. Thus, inequality reflects differences in the access of representatives of each layer to social benefits, and stratification is a sociological characteristic of the structure of society as a set of layers.

The term “stratification” comes from “stratum” (Latin) - layer and “facio” (Latin) - do. Stratification- this is not just differentiation, a listing of differences between individual layers, strata in society. The task of stratification is to identify the vertical sequence of positions of social layers, their hierarchy.

The theory of social stratification is one of the most developed parts of social theory. Its foundations were laid by M. Weber, K. Marx, P. Sorokin, T. Parsons. The basis of the stratification structure is the natural and social inequality of people.

In the English Dictionary of Social Sciences, stratification is understood as a process as a result of which families and individuals are not equal to each other and are grouped into hierarchically located strata with different prestige, property and power.

All criteria for social stratification must comply with the following principles (according to M. Weber and E. Durkheim):

• 1) all social strata of a given society should be studied without exception;
• 2) it is necessary to compare and compare groups using the same criteria;
• 3) there should be no fewer criteria than are required for a sufficiently complete description of each layer.

P. Sorokin defined social stratification as “the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community”?5?. Stratification model of society ( pyramid divided into strata) was borrowed by P. Sorokin from geology. However, unlike the structure of rocks, in society:

the lower layers are always much wider than the higher ones,

the number of layers is not strictly defined: it all depends on how many stratification criteria are taken into account,

the thickness of the layer is not constant, since people can move from one layer to another (social mobility processes).

There are two main ways to stratify society, depending on the number of underlying characteristics:

• 1. Univariate stratification. It is based on one-dimensional strata, that is, strata distinguished according to any one social characteristic. This approach assumes the stratification of society according to the following groups of characteristics:
• 1) gender and age;
• 2) national-linguistic;
• 3) professional;
• 4) educational;
• 5) religious;
• 6) by settlement.

Some researchers also use other characteristics as the basis for classification.

2. Multivariate stratification. At the same time, stratification is based on several characteristics.

The second method of stratification involves dividing society into:

• 1) socio-territorial communities (population of a city, village, region);
• 2) ethnic communities (tribe, nationality, nation);
• 3) the system of slavery (an economic, social and legal form of securing people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality);
• 4) castes (social groups to which a person is obliged to belong by birth);
• 5) estates (social groups supported by established customs or laws, and in which rights and responsibilities are inherited);
• 6) public classes.

Modern English researcher E. Giddens offers a number of differences between the class system and the slave, caste and estate system:

• 1. Classes are not formed on the basis of religious beliefs. Belonging to a class is not determined by adherence to certain customs, traditions and mores. The class system is more fluid than other types of stratification. The basis of class division is labor.
• 2. A person’s belonging to a particular class is often achieved by himself, and is not given from birth.
• 3. Economic characteristics are the basis for assigning an individual to a particular class.
• 4. In other types of social structure, inequality expresses mainly the personal dependence of one individual on another. The class structure of society, on the contrary, is characterized by the personal independence of individuals from each other?6?.

In sociology, there are several main approaches to stratification structure.

• 1. Economic approach, whose supporters (K. Marx, E. Durkheim, etc.) considered the division of labor as the main cause of social differentiation. K. Marx was the first to develop the theory of the economic basis of classes. He associated the existence of classes only with certain historical forms of development of production, where ownership of the means of production is distributed evenly between different layers of the population, as a result of which some exploit others, and struggle between them is inevitable.
• 2. Political approach to stratification. Its founders are L. Gumplowicz, G. Mosca, V. Pareto, M. Weber. Political stratification is the differences between politically dominant groups and masses, in which the very vertical of the political hierarchy is built through the prism of belonging to certain political forces, and the main criterion for identifying a particular political stratum is the level of possession of political power. L. Gumplowicz believed that the nature of class differences is a reflection of differences in power, which also determine the subsequent division of labor and the distribution of social responsibilities. G. Mosca and V. Pareto considered inequality and mobility as related aspects of the same phenomenon, the movement of people between the ruling class, the elite and the lower class - passive subordinates.
• 3. Functionalist concept social stratification, which is based on the ideas of T. Parsons, K. Davis, W. Moore. T. Parsons considers stratification an aspect of any social system. He proceeds from the fact that any action is inevitably associated with choice and evaluation. Commonly accepted rating standards allow positions to be ranked as superior or inferior. Since the desired positions are not enough, the preservation of the system requires the institutionalization of inequality, allowing interactions to proceed without conflict. The generality and generally accepted nature of the rating scale implies coverage of all types of rewards, of which “respect” is considered the most important.

Each given person, according to Parsons, actually enjoys respect correlated with a graded hierarchy; his relative respect in an ordered total system of differentiated evaluation is prestige, which means comparative evaluation. In turn, differentiated prestige is the basis of stratification.

Davis and Moore rightly believe that some positions in the social system are more functionally important than others and require special skills for their implementation. However, the number of individuals with these abilities is limited. Therefore, these positions should be given stimulus in the form of differential access to society's limited and desirable rewards, in order to force talented individuals to make sacrifices and acquire the necessary training. These differentiated rewards lead to differentiation of the prestige of the strata and, consequently, to social stratification.

Modern studies of social stratification use the theoretical basis of the above approaches, and also proceed from the principle of multidimensionality of stratification measurements. The foundations of this approach were already laid in the works of M. Weber, who studied the interdependence between various stratification criteria. Weber believed that class affiliation is determined not only by the nature of the relationship to the means of production, but also by economic differences that are not directly related to property: for example, qualifications, skills, education.

Other criteria for stratification, according to Weber, are status and party affiliation (groups of individuals having a common origin, goals, interests).

American sociologist B. Barber, based on the multidimensionality and interconnectedness of dimensions, proposed the following concept of the structure of social stratification.

• 1. The prestige of a profession, occupation, position, assessed by its functional contribution to social development.
• 2. Power, viewed as the institutionally defined right to influence the actions of other people, contrary to or independent of their wishes.
• 3. Income or wealth. Different occupational statuses in society have different abilities to earn income and accumulate wealth in the form of capital; there are different chances of inheriting wealth.
• 4. Education. Uneven access to education determines the ability of individuals to occupy a particular position in society.
• 5. Religious or ritual purity. In some societies, religious affiliation is crucial.
• 6. Ranking by kinship and ethnic groups.

Thus, income, power, prestige and education determine the overall socio-economic status, that is, the position and place of a person in society.

In modern sociological science, various approaches to the analysis of social stratification coexist (activity approach, the concept of “emergence” of the emergence of unexpected criteria of social inequality, etc.).

From the point of view of the activity-activist approach to the analysis of social inequalities (T.I. Zaslavskaya), the social hierarchy of modern Russian society can be presented as follows?7?:

elite – ruling political and economic – up to 0.5%;

upper layer - large and medium-sized entrepreneurs, directors of large and medium-sized privatized enterprises, other sub-elite groups - 6.5%;

middle layer - representatives of small businesses, qualified professionals, middle management, officers - 20%;

base layer – ordinary specialists, assistant specialists, workers, peasants, trade and service workers – 60%;

bottom layer – low-skilled and unskilled workers, temporarily unemployed – 7%;

social bottom – up to 5%.