Introduction……………………………………………………………….….3

1. The essence of social stratification……………………….……….5

2. social stratification society in Russia………………………….6

2.1. The position of the social lower classes……………………………………….6

2.2.Large owners - rent-seeking business elite……..…9

2.3.Russian bureaucracy………………………………………….11

2.4. Middle layers…………………………….…………………….…….13

Conclusion……………………………………………………………….18

List of used literature…………..……………………….20

Introduction

At the heart of the approach proposed in this work to the problem social inequality in post-Soviet society lies the concept that the social structure modern Russia is considered as a direct continuation of the etacratic system that existed in the USSR. Its fundamental principle was relations of the “power-property” type, social differentiation was of a non-class nature and was determined by ranks in the power hierarchy. Unlike most Eastern European countries, Russia has not undergone a radical turn towards a competitive privately owned economy. The merged relations “power-property” inherent in a statist society received a private-property shell, but essentially remained unchanged. During the reforms, the administrative-command nomenklatura, the only social group in Soviet society that had conscious interests and self-identification, retained control positions in power, secured the predominant part of state property during privatization, and transformed into a large quasi-bourgeoisie. All attempts to carry out non-nomenklatura privatization, that is, privatization that was not controlled by the politically ruling groups, were frustrated. To the benefit of policy-forming business, small and medium businesses were pushed to the periphery of the economy and stagnated throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, and the relationship of incomplete privatization and non-transparency of property turned out to be mothballed.

Thus, in post-Soviet Russia, statism has been preserved in a transformed form, which has acquired the form of state-monopoly corporatist (nomenklatura-bureaucratic) quasi-capitalism, and not democratic, socially oriented capitalism, as, say, in the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia. In this socio-economic system, a peculiar type of social stratification has developed in the form of an interweaving of the estate hierarchy and elements of class differentiation, which has been steadily reproducing in recent years.

In connection with the foregoing, the purpose of this work is to consider the social stratification of society in Russia.

Tasks: to reveal the essence of social stratification, to consider the social stratification of society in Russia.

1. The essence of social stratification

social stratification is the same as social stratification. The term "stratification" literally means the division of the whole society into layers, i.e. groups of the rich, prosperous, wealthy, poor and very poor, or beggars.

Social stratification is the process of formation of layers among the population and its result. The starting point of this process is a socially homogeneous society, that is, a society in which people do not differ in property and social status. In Latin, it corresponds to two terms accepted in the modern science of sociology - differentiation And stratification.

The term "stratification" is accepted in science, and the word "stratification" is used more in everyday language and only sometimes in science. The fact is that "stratification" is most often used for one phenomenon - the division of society into poor and rich. The numerous middle class is not covered by this concept. Therefore, stratification reflects reality more fully. It captures not only the process of polarization of the population into poor and rich, but also the end result of stratification, when a middle class appears in society.

Stratification describes social inequality in society, the division into rich and poor, privileged and unprivileged.

Each layer (stratum) includes only those people who have approximately the same income, power, education and prestige. From top to bottom in society are the strata of the rich, wealthy (middle class) and poor people.

Large social strata are also called the masses within which we can find smaller subdivisions, which, in fact, are called layers, or strata.

The rich class is divided into upper (very rich, billionaires) and lower (just rich, millionaires) layers. The middle class is made up of three strata, and the lower, or poor, class is made up of two. Sociologists call its lowest layer the underclass, or the social bottom.

So, social stratification- a set of vertically arranged social strata: poor, prosperous, rich Social strata are located here according to the criterion of unequal access to power, wealth, education and prestige. Strata- the social stratum of people with similar objective indicators on four scales of stratification.

2. Social stratification of society in Russia

2.1.The position of the social classes

The emerging (perhaps already established) society in the industrial countries is characterized by an unprecedented gap between poverty and wealth. M. Goldman, professor at Harvard University, noting that “the system that has taken shape in Russia has absorbed all the worst of capitalism and communism”, expressed particular concern about the “extremely uneven distribution of income between the rich “new Russians” and the rest of the population.”

The property stratification of the population sharply increased, and significant sections of the so-called new poor appeared. Real average monthly wages (in 1991 prices) in 1991-1998 decreased from 548 rubles. up to 193 rubles, that is, almost three times. At the same time, the ratio of the average wages to the subsistence minimum, respectively, fell from 3.16 to 1.7, i.e., almost twice. After the 1998 financial crisis, wages fell again. In terms of real consumption, the population additionally lost about a third. Such data are summarized by Academician D. Lvov. According to the State Statistics Committee, the real accrued wages per worker in July 1999 amounted to 64.5% of July of the previous year (that is, before the August 1998 crisis). I will add to this the following commentary by analysts from the Russian-European Center economic policy: "In the first quarter of 1999, real accrued wages (estimated using the consumer spending deflator) reached their lowest level for the entire 1990s and amounted to about 50% of the 1990 level, i.e. 30% lower the level of 1997. Even in 2001, after a two-year economic recovery, wages only slightly exceeded two-thirds of the miserable level of 1990, which at one time caused the just indignation of future reformers. wages continued and approached the level of 1990. However, it should be borne in mind that the total volume of wages is still about 30% of GDP, while in developed capitalist countries it reaches at least 60% of it. wages Russian worker produces 4.6 dollars of products, and the American - 1.7 dollars.

If we take into account the differentiation of the population in terms of living standards, which increased in the same years, it is not difficult to imagine the situation not only of the social lower classes, but also of the so-called middle strata. It can be noted that the dynamics of income under consideration developed favorably for the population during the period of the parliament’s struggle with executive branch(1992-1994) and acquired a positive character after the stabilization of Putin's presidency.

The reasons for these phenomena are not limited to miscalculations in the development of the economy. There has been a huge contraction in the country of militaristic spending, the cost of maintaining "friendly" regimes abroad, subventions to the former Soviet republics, and so on, that is, most of the costs of the past. Why do the expenditure items of the federal and regional budgets look so pitiful? social goals Why has the standard of living of the majority of the population fallen so much? After all, Russia is a country with a unique volume natural resources included in economic life.

It is important to take into account that the post-Soviet elite is not capable and does not seek to represent national interests. This is due, on the one hand, to its continuity in relation to the Soviet nomenklatura, and on the other hand, to the absence in the country (unlike, for example, of Poland or Hungary) of traditions of mass opposition activity and the formation of counter-elite groups in society. The underdevelopment of civil society and the legal protection of citizens have led to the fact that the Russian elite is not yet characterized by citizenship and state thinking; it can only solve its short-term problems. Her lack of interest in resolving the situation with the tragic impoverishment of the majority of fellow citizens is explained by the syndrome of people who quickly got rich, who care only about themselves and their environment. This set of values ​​largely predetermines not only the essence, but the form and methods of implementing social policy.

At this stage of Russia's existence, only the state can ensure a fair and socially acceptable distribution of benefits from market economy. For this, first of all, we need: the implementation of the law on living wage eliminating mass impoverishment of the population; preventing the increase in pensions from lagging behind inflation rates; a sharp increase in state appropriations for education, science, and health care; state regulation prices and quality of medical services and medicines.

bundle- Russian conceptual analogue of the term recognized in world sociology " stratification"- reflects the process of development of social inequality and hierarchical grouping of people at social levels that differ from each other prestige, property and power.

Evaluation, attribution of people to certain social strata is carried out according to the following main criteria:

• qualitative characteristics of members of society, which are determined by genetic traits and prescribed statuses (origin, family ties, personal qualities and abilities);
• role characteristics, which are determined by the set of roles that an individual performs in society (position, level of professionalism, level of knowledge, etc.);
• characteristics of possession of material and spiritual values ​​(money, means of production, works of art, opportunities for spiritual and ideological influence on other strata of society, etc.).

The listed reasons constitute, as it were, a series of homogeneous foundations of social stratification:

Firstly, the growth in the number of people in contact requires a specific organization and coordination of joint activities.

Secondly, the diversity and heterogeneity of united people stimulate social inequality and increase stratification.

Third, the very stability of social associations necessitates differentiation, because maintaining the stability of a group requires energy and narrowly focused activity.

Fourth, the unification of people into a community gives rise to their spontaneous self-differentiation as an inevitable way to maintain the organization.

Fifth, inequality and stratification are generated by the functional distribution of activities in the community.

Social inequality are the conditions under which people have unequal access to social goods such as money, power and prestige. Differences between people, due to their physiological and mental characteristics, are called natural. Natural differences can become the basis for the emergence of unequal relationships between individuals. The strong coerce the weak, who triumph over the simpletons. Inequality resulting from natural differences is the first form of inequality. However, the main feature of society is social inequality, inextricably linked with social differences.

Those differences are called social, which are generated social factors: division of labor(mental and physical labor), way of life(urban and rural population), social roles(father, enemy, politician), etc. Social differences can be superimposed on natural ones, when, for example, a smart person becomes a scientist, talented person. There are exceptions when physically weak people gain strength through weapons.

Inequality in society is viewed from two sides. Firstly as a property of society. Written history knows no societies without social inequality. The struggle of people, parties, groups, classes is a struggle for the possession of greater opportunities, rights, advantages and privileges. If inequality is an inherent property of society, then it carries a positive functional load. And society reproduces inequality because it needs it as a source of development. Secondly, inequality is always perceived as an unequal relationship between people, groups, so it becomes natural to seek to find the origins of this unequal position in the peculiarities of a person’s position in society: professional status in the possession of property, power, in the personal qualities of individuals. This approach has now become widespread primarily because of its focus on real actions, interests that are amenable to observation and analysis.

Inequality has many faces and manifests itself in various parts of a single social organism: in the family, in an institution, in small and large social groups Oh. It is a necessary condition for the organization of social life.

1. INTRODUCTION

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

Considering the subject of sociology, we found a close connection between the three fundamental concepts of sociology - social structure, social composition and social stratification. We expressed the structure in terms of a set of statuses and likened it to empty cells of a honeycomb. It is located, as it were, in a horizontal plane, but 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, in terms of social composition, all Russians, women, engineers, non-party people 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 strata, 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, and they all lined up in a clear order. Stratification is a certain way "oriented" composition of the population.

What "orients" large social groups? It turns out that there is an unequal assessment by society of the meaning and role of each status or group. A plumber or a janitor is valued below a lawyer and a minister. Consequently, high statuses and people occupying them are better rewarded, they have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should also be higher. Here 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 goods themselves (there may just be many of them), but access channels to them. A home abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a vacation 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's always uneven. So there is an arrangement of social strata according to the criterion of unequal access to power, wealth, education and prestige.

2. MEASURING STRATIFICATION

Imagine a social space in which vertical and horizontal distances are not equal. P. Sorokin, the man who was the first in the world to give a complete theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, and who confirmed his theory with the help of a huge empirical material stretching throughout human history, thought this way or something like this.

Points in space are social statuses. The distance between the turner and the miller is one, it is horizontal, and the distance between the worker and the master is different, it is vertical. The master is the boss, the worker is the subordinate. They have different social ranks. Although the case can be presented in such a way that the master and 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.

Curious fact

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

The 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 specified period of time, say one month or one 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, and so on. up to $75,000 and above.

Education is measured by the number of years of study at a public or private school or university.

Let's say Primary School means 4 years, incomplete secondary - 9 years, complete secondary - 11, college - 4 years, university - 5 years, graduate school - 3 years, doctoral studies - 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 decision you make (power- opportunity

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

impose their will or decisions on other people, regardless of their desire).

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 brigadier - to 7-10 people. Three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars, years, people. Prestige is outside this range, as it is a subjective indicator.

Prestige - respect for status, prevailing in public opinion.

Since 1947 National Research Center public opinion The United States periodically conducts a survey of ordinary Americans, selected in a national sample, in order 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 has from 100 (the highest score) to 1 (the lowest score) points. The second column "points" shows the average score received by this type of occupation in the sample.

good, average, slightly worse than average, the worst occupation. List II included almost all occupations from the supreme judge, minister and doctor to plumber and janitor. Having calculated the average for each occupation, the sociologists obtained a public assessment of the prestige of each type of work in points. Arranging them in a hierarchical order from the most respected to the most unprestigious, they received a rating, or a scale of professional prestige. Unfortunately, periodic representative surveys of the population about professional prestige have never been conducted in our country. Therefore, we 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 in these years. Lawyer, doctor, teacher, scientist, banker, pilot, engineer received invariably high marks. Their position on the scale changed slightly: in 1964 the doctor was in second place, and in 1982 - in first place, the minister, respectively, occupied 10th and 11th places.

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: a driver, a welder, a carpenter, a plumber, a janitor. They have the least status respect. People occupying the same positions on the four dimensions of stratification constitute one stratum.

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

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

Each scale can be considered separately and denoted by 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 and speech and age.

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

3. BELONGING TO A STRATE

Affiliation measured by subjective and objective indicators:

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

objective indicators - income, power, education, prestige.

So, a large fortune, high education, great power and high professional prestige - the necessary conditions so that you can be attributed to the highest stratum of society.

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

concept stratification (stratum- layer, facio- do) came to sociology from geology, where it denotes the vertical arrangement of layers of various rocks. If we make a cut of the earth's crust at a certain distance, it will be found that under the layer of chernozem there is a layer of clay, then sand, etc. Each layer consists of homogeneous elements. So is the stratum - it includes people with the same income, education, power and prestige. There is no stratum that includes highly educated people in power and powerless poor people in low-prestige jobs. The rich are in the same stratum with the rich, and the average with the average.

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

Under "significant others" are two large social groups: members of the upper class and the general population. The highest stratum will never recognize him as "their" because he compromises the entire group as a whole. The population will never recognize mafia activity as a socially approved occupation, as it contradicts the mores, traditions and ideals of this society.

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

Social entry has undergone a certain historical evolution. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. With the emergence of slavery, it suddenly intensified. slavery- a form of the most rigid fixing of people in unprivileged strata. castes- lifelong assignment of an individual to his (but not necessarily unprivileged) stratum. In medieval Europe, lifelong ownership is weakening. Estates imply legal attachment to the stratum. Rich merchants bought noble titles and thus moved to a higher class. Estates were replaced by classes - open to all strata, not implying any legitimate (legal) way of securing one stratum.

4. HISTORICAL TYPES OF STRATIFICATION

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, either significantly limited.

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

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

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

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

At classic bondage (mature form) the slave was finally enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and had no family. He was allowed to be killed. He did not own property, but he himself was considered the property of the owner ("talking tool").

Antique slavery in ancient Greece and plantation slavery in the United States before 1865 is closer to the second form, and servitude to the Geese of the 10th-12th centuries is closer to the first. The sources of slavery differ: the ancient was replenished mainly through conquests, and servitude was debt, or bonded slavery. The third source is criminals. In medieval China and in the Soviet GULAG (non-legal slavery), criminals were in the position of slaves.

At a mature stage slavery turns into slavery. When people 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 stratum is deprived of all rights and freedoms. There is no such thing in castes and estates, not to mention classes.

caste system not as ancient as the slave system, and less common. If almost all countries went through slavery, of course, to varying degrees, then 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.

Castoycalled 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 fixed by the Hindu religion (now it is clear why castes are not widespread). According to its canons, people live more than one life. Each person falls into the appropriate caste, depending on what his behavior was in a previous life. If bad, then after the next birth he should 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 podcasts. The untouchables are especially special - they are not included in any caste and occupy the lowest position. In the course of industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is becoming more and more class-based, while 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 fixed custom or legal law and inherited rights and obligations.

The estate system, which includes several strata, is characterized by a hierarchy, expressed in the inequality of position and privileges. Europe was a classic example of a class organization, 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 estates: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia, from the second half of the 18th century, a class division into nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistinism (middle urban strata) was established. Estates were based on landed property.

The rights and obligations of each estate were determined by legal law and consecrated by religious doctrine. Membership in the estate was determined inheritance. Social barriers between classes were quite rigid, therefore social mobility existed not so much between as within the estates. Each estate included many layers, ranks, levels, professions, ranks. So, public service could only be done by the nobility. The aristocracy was considered a military estate (chivalry).

The higher in the social hierarchy an estate stood, the higher was its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were quite allowed. Sometimes individual mobility was 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

Russia in its history has experienced more than one wave of restructuring of the social space, when the old social structure collapsed, the world of values ​​changed, guidelines, patterns and norms of behavior were formed, entire layers perished, new communities were born. On the threshold of the XXI century. Russia is once again going through a complex and controversial 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 1980s.

It is possible to reveal the nature of the social structure of Soviet Russia by analyzing Russian society as combinations of different stratification systems.

In the stratification of Soviet society, permeated with administrative and political control, the etacratic 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 ruling elite (“the nomenklatura”), in which the key positions were occupied by the political and military elites, and the economic and cultural elite occupied a subordinate place.

A etacratic society is characterized by a fusion of power and property; the predominance of state property; state-monopoly mode of production; dominance of centralized distribution; militarization of the economy; class-layer stratification 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 vast majority of material, labor, information resources; social mobility in the form of organized from above selection 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 professional structure and economic differentiation it remained outwardly similar to the stratification of Western societies. As a result of the elimination of the basis of class division - private ownership of the means of production - the classes gradually destructured.

The monopoly of state property, in principle, cannot give a class society, since all citizens are wage-earners states, differing only in the amount of powers delegated to them. The distinguishing features of social groups in the USSR were special functions, formalized as a legal inequality of these groups. Such inequality led to the isolation of these groups, the destruction of the "social lifts" that serve for the ascending social mobility. Accordingly, the life and consumption of elite groups acquired an increasingly significant character, reminiscent of a phenomenon called “prestigious consumption”. All these signs form 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, which divides people into legally unequal estates.

From the first years of Soviet power, for example, the peasantry was formed into a special estate: its political rights were limited until 1936. The inequality of the rights of workers and peasants manifested itself for many years (attachment to collective farms through the system of a passportless regime, privileges for workers in obtaining education and promotion, propiska 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 mass and heterogeneous class of prisoners was fixed 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 splitting of the consumer market into closed “special sectors” and an increase in the role of privileges. The material and social situation of groups involved in distribution processes in the sphere of trade, supply, and transport has improved. The social influence of these groups increased as the shortage 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 ability to achieve the most favorable results for itself; the spirit of entrepreneurship also covers the lower social strata - numerous groups of private traders, manufacturers of "left" products, builders - "shabashniks" are being formed. Thus, there is a doubling of the social structure, when fundamentally different social groups coexist in a bizarre way within its framework.

Important social change that occurred in the Soviet Union in 1965 - 1985 are associated with the development 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 people migrated to the city. However, urbanization in our country had a clearly deformed character: mass movements of rural migrants to the city were not accompanied by a corresponding deployment of social infrastructure. A huge mass of superfluous people, social outsiders, has appeared. Having lost contact with the rural subculture and unable to join the urban one, the migrants created a typically marginal subculture.

The figure of a migrant from the countryside to the 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. main feature marginalization - the rupture of social, economic, 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 discrepancy between the education system and the real needs of production, etc. This is closely related to the social causes of marginalization - the hypertrophy of the accumulation fund to the detriment of the consumption fund, which gave rise to an extremely low standard of living and a shortage of goods. 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 kind of social ties “horizontally”. The state strove for 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, 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 their educational level and professional positions, the Soviet middle stratum 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 kind of paradox: millions of people were bourgeois in their culture and aspirations, but were included in the socio-economic system that denied these aspirations.”

Under the influence of socio-economic and political reforms in the second half of the 80s. big changes have taken place in Russia. Compared to Soviet times, the structure of Russian society has undergone significant changes, although it retains many of its former features. The transformation of the institutions of Russian society has seriously affected its social structure: property and power relations 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 original model multidimensional stratification of modern Russia, let's 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 intersects the most important public interest. The system of power bodies of post-Soviet Russia has been substantially restructured - some of them have been liquidated, others have only been organized, some have changed their functions, their personal composition has 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 occupied by numerous elite groupings that are in competition with each other. The elite has lost a significant part of the levers of power inherent in the old ruling class. This led to a gradual transition from political and ideological methods of management to economic ones. Instead of stable ruling class with strong vertical ties between its floors, many elite groups have been created, between which horizontal ties have intensified.

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

In the social structure of modern Russia, the features of the former etacratic society, built on power hierarchies, are preserved. However, at the same time, the revival of economic classes on the basis of privatized state property begins. There is a transition from stratification based on 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 by 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) employees.

There is a tendency for the formation of new social groups claiming 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 set of professions is becoming more complex, their comparative attractiveness is changing in favor of those that provide more substantial and faster material rewards. As a result, assessments of social prestige are changing. different types activities where physically or ethically "dirty" work is still considered attractive in terms of monetary reward.

The newly emerged and therefore "deficient" in terms of personnel, the financial sector, business, and commerce are filled with a large number of semi- and non-professionals. Entire professional strata are lowered 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 state support science, education, culture and art, there was a drop in prestige and social status 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 skilled workers. But this trend is contradictory, since the common interests of various social strata, potentially forming the middle class, are not supported by the processes of their convergence on such important criteria as the prestige of the profession and the level of income.

The level of income of various groups is the third essential parameter of social stratification. Economic status is the most important indicator of social stratification, because the level of income affects such aspects of social status as the type of consumption and lifestyle, the opportunity to do business, advance in the service, 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 20% of the wealthiest strata accounted for 47.5% of total cash income, while the 20% of the poorest 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 at present social sphere is the problem of mass poverty - there is a conservation of the miserable existence of almost 1/3 of the country's population. Of particular concern is the change in the composition of the poor: today they include not only the traditionally low-income (disabled, pensioners, large families), the ranks of the poor have been joined by the unemployed and employed, whose wages (and this is a quarter of all those employed in enterprises) are below the subsistence level. Almost 64% of the population has incomes below the average (average income is considered to be 8-10 times the minimum wage per person) (see: Zaslavskaya T.I. social structure modern and some society // Social sciences and modernity. 1997 No. 2. S. 17).

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

Process deepening social differentiation income groups are starting 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 education 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 the new high-status groups, receiving 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 more and more an important factor at the entrance to the professional hierarchy. The result is increased social mobility. It is less and less dependent on social characteristics families and is more determined 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 experienced by Russia and allows us to conclude that today it continues to retain the old pyramidal form (characteristic of pre-industrial society), although the content 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 power elite; 2) upper middle - medium and large entrepreneurs; 3) medium - small entrepreneurs, managers of the production sector, the highest intelligentsia, the working elite, military personnel; 4) basic - the mass intelligentsia, the main part of the working class, peasants, trade and service workers; 5) lower - unskilled workers, long-term unemployed, single pensioners; 6) "social bottom" - the homeless, released from places of detention, etc.

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

Majority social formations has a mutually transitional character, has fuzzy, vague boundaries;

There is no internal unity of the newly emerging social groups;

There is a total marginalization of almost all social groups;

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

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

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

Russia retains a stratum of the population that can be called a potential resource for the middle class. Today, about 15% of those employed in national economy can be attributed to this layer, but its maturation to the "critical mass" will require 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 strata of the social hierarchy.

A significant transformation of the structure of Russian society, which requires the 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.

Undoubtedly, the formation of a civil society should become the guarantor of the 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 societies, but in our country this role was even more pronounced. According to A. Gramsci, "in Russia, the state represents everything, and civil society is primitive and vague."

In contrast to the West, a different type of social system has developed in Russia, based on the efficiency of power, and not 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, the social initiative belonged not to associations of individuals, but to the bureaucracy.

From the second half of the XIX 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 appeared that were not related to military and court officials - salons, clubs, etc. As a result of the reforms of Alexander II, zemstvos, various unions of entrepreneurs, charity institutions, and cultural societies arose. 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 a grandiose leveling of all members of society before the all-powerful state, washing out 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 single out the most fundamental directions of 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 caused 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 diverse different forms labor associations, social and cultural associations, social and political movements that make up the main institutions of civil society;

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

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

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

The ideas of civil society found themselves in post-communist Russia in that peculiar context that distinguishes our country both from Western states (with their strongest mechanisms of rational legal relations) and from Eastern countries (with their specifics 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 emerging elite groups, and on the other, with an amorphous, atomized society dominated by individual consumer interests. Today, civil society in Russia is not developed, many of its elements have been forced out or "blocked", although during 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 formal features 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 last years bureaucratized, weakened, lost activity. An ordinary Russian underestimates group self-organization, and the most common social type has become an individual, closed in his aspirations for himself and his family. In overcoming such a state, due to the process of transformation, lies the specificity of modern stage development.

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

2. The theory of stratification makes it possible 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 reach consensus among various social groups and interests. Civil society is a set of social formations 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 in the Soviet era and is characterized by extreme instability. The mechanisms of stratification are being rebuilt, social mobility is increasing, and many marginal groups with an indefinite status are emerging. Objective possibilities for the formation of a middle class are beginning to take shape. 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 the boundaries between groups, a change in group interests and social interactions.

Literature

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

2. Zharova L. N., Mishina I. A. The history of homeland. - 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 / / Frontier. 1991. No. 1. P. 96-108.

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

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

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

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

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

Social inequality- a form of differentiation, in which individual individuals, social groups, strata, classes are at different levels of the vertical social hierarchy and have unequal life chances and opportunities to meet needs. In the very general view inequality means that people live in conditions in which they have unequal access to limited resources of material and spiritual consumption. As of 2006, the richest 1% own more than 40% of the world's wealth. According to other estimates, the top 2% own more than 50% of the world's wealth.

The most dangerous is the grassroots inequality of opportunities, not associated with the personal efforts of members of society, when talented people from birth cannot realize their talents due to unfavorable socio-economic conditions in childhood and adolescence. For example, talented children from poor families do not have the opportunity to receive a good education and, as a result, find themselves in the "poverty trap" .

Social inequality is perceived and experienced by many people (primarily the unemployed, economic migrants, those who are at or below the poverty line) as a manifestation of injustice. Social inequality, property stratification of society, as a rule, lead to an increase in social tension, especially in the transition period.

The main principles of social policy implementation are:

1. protection of living standards by introducing various forms of compensation for price increases and indexation;
2. providing assistance to the poorest families;
3. issuance of assistance in case of unemployment;
4. ensuring social insurance policies, establishing a minimum wage for workers;
5. development of education, health protection, environment mainly at the expense of the state;
6. pursuing an active policy aimed at ensuring qualifications.

Causes of inequality

From the point of view of the theory of conflict, the cause of inequality is the protection of the privileges of power, who controls society and power, he has the opportunity to benefit personally for himself, inequality is the result of tricks of influential groups seeking to maintain their status. Robert Michels deduced the iron law of the oligarchy: an oligarchy always develops when the size of the organization exceeds a certain value, because 10 thousand people cannot discuss the issue before each case, they entrust the discussion of the issue to the leaders.

Changing the degree of social inequality in the process of history

Gerard Lensky compared the stages of development of society in terms of inequality and found:

Inequality criteria

Max Weber

Max Weber identified three criteria for inequality:

The first criterion can be used to measure the degree of inequality in terms of income differences. With the help of the second criterion - by the difference in honor and respect. With the help of the third criterion - by the number of subordinates. Sometimes there is a contradiction between the criteria, for example, a professor and a priest today have a low income, but enjoy great prestige. The leader of the mafia is rich, but his prestige in society is minimal. Rich people statistically live longer and get sick less. A person's career is influenced by wealth, race, education, parental occupation, and personal ability to lead people. Higher education makes it easier to move up the career ladder in large companies than in small ones.

Figures of inequality

The horizontal width of the figure indicates the number of people with a given amount of income. At the top of the figure is the elite. Over the past hundred years, Western society has evolved from a pyramidal structure to a diamond-shaped one. In the pyramidal structure, there is a vast majority of the poor and a small handful of oligarchs. The diamond-shaped structure has a large share of the middle class. The diamond-shaped structure is more preferable than the pyramidal one, since the large middle class will not allow a handful of poor people to arrange civil war. And in the first case, the vast majority, consisting of the poor, can easily overturn the social system.

see also

Notes

1. Guardian 6 December 2006 World’s richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers
2. BBC , 5 December 2006 Richest 2% own "half the wealth"
3. Arnold Khachaturov. Country of Inequality // Novaya Gazeta. - 2018. - No. 107. - S. 8-9.
4. Carnegie Moscow Center September 19-20, 2018 Russian Economic Challenge 2018 Sergey Guriev on economic inequality
5. Smelser Neil Sociology. - M., 1994 p. 278

Social stratification: concept, criteria, types

To get started, watch the video tutorial on social stratification:

The concept of social stratification

Social stratification is the process of arranging individuals and social groups in horizontal layers (strata). This process is associated primarily with both economic and human causes. The economic reasons for social stratification is that resources are limited. And because of this, they must be rationally disposed of. That is why the ruling class stands out - it owns the resources, and the exploited class - it obeys the ruling class.

Among the universal causes of social stratification are:

psychological reasons. People are not equal in their inclinations and abilities. Some people can concentrate on something for long hours: reading, watching movies, creating something new. Others do not need anything and are not interested. Some can go to the goal through all obstacles, and failures only spur them on. Others give up at the first opportunity - it's easier for them to moan and whine that everything is bad.

biological reasons. People are also not equal from birth: some are born with two arms and legs, others are disabled from birth. It is clear that it is extremely difficult to achieve something if you are disabled, especially in Russia.

Objective causes of social stratification. These include, for example, place of birth. If you were born in a more or less normal country, where you will be taught to read and write for free and there are at least some social guarantees- This is good. You have a good chance of being successful. So, if you were born in Russia even in the most remote village and you are a kid, at least you can join the army, and then stay to serve under the contract. Then you may be sent to a military school. It's better than drinking moonshine with your fellow villagers, and by the age of 30 to die in a drunken brawl.

Well, if you were born in some country in which statehood does not really exist, and local princes come to your village with machine guns at the ready and kill anyone at random, and whoever they hit are taken into slavery, then write your life is gone, and together with her and your future.

Criteria of social stratification

The criteria of social stratification include: power, education, income and prestige. Let's analyze each criterion separately.

Power. People are not equal in terms of power. The level of power is measured by (1) the number of people who are under your control, and also (2) the amount of your authority. But the presence of this criterion alone (even the greatest power) does not mean that you are in the highest stratum. For example, a teacher, a teacher of power is more than enough, but the income is lame.

Education. The higher the level of education, the more opportunities. If you have a higher education, this opens up certain horizons for your development. At first glance, it seems that in Russia this is not the case. But that's just how it seems. Because the majority of graduates are dependent - they should be hired. They do not understand that with their higher education they may well open their own business and increase their third criterion of social stratification - income.

Income is the third criterion of social stratification. It is thanks to this defining criterion that one can judge which social class a person belongs to. If the income is from 500 thousand rubles per capita and more per month - then to the highest; if from 50 thousand to 500 thousand rubles (per capita), then you belong to the middle class. If from 2000 rubles to 30 thousand then your class is basic. And also further.

Prestige is the subjective perception people have of your , is a criterion of social stratification. Previously, it was believed that prestige is expressed solely in income, because if you have enough money, you can dress more beautifully and better, and in society, as you know, they are met by clothes ... But even 100 years ago, sociologists realized that prestige can be expressed in the prestige of the profession (professional status).

Types of social stratification

Types of social stratification can be distinguished, for example, by spheres of society. A person in his life can make a career in (become a famous politician), in the cultural (become a recognizable cultural figure), in the social sphere (become, for example, an honorary citizen).

In addition, types of social stratification can be distinguished on the basis of one or another type of stratification systems. The criterion for singling out such systems is the presence or absence of social mobility.

There are several such systems: caste, clan, slave, estate, class, etc. Some of them are discussed above in the video on social stratification.

You must understand that this topic is extremely large, and it is impossible to cover it in one video tutorial and in one article. Therefore, we suggest that you purchase a video course that already contains all the nuances on the topic of social stratification, social mobility and other related topics:

Sincerely, Andrey Puchkov