Breaking down the question

This is an evaluative question — does the perspective promote a status quo, and give reasons. It expects a clear position defended with argument, not a neutral description of functionalist theory. The most rewarded answers take a stance while acknowledging the counter-view.

Structural-functionalist perspective on social stratification refers principally to the Davis–Moore thesis, which holds that stratification is a functional necessity — an inevitable and useful device by which societies motivate the ablest individuals to fill the most important positions through differential rewards. Promote a status quo means to justify, legitimise and stabilise existing inequality rather than to question or challenge it.

The argument, therefore, turns on whether treating inequality as necessary and beneficial amounts to defending the existing order. At ten marks, present the thesis, argue the case that it is status-quoist, note the functionalist self-defence, and conclude.

How to approach it

  • State the Davis–Moore thesis crisply.
  • Argue yes — the perspective does tend to legitimise the status quo — with specific reasons.
  • Reinforce with the conflict critique, especially Melvin Tumin.
  • Concede the qualification — functionalists claim to explain, not endorse, and allow for meritocratic mobility.
  • Deliver a reasoned verdict.

Draw on the theories of social stratification notes.

Model answer

The structural-functionalist view of stratification is set out classically in the Davis–Moore thesis (1945). Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore argue that social stratification is universal and functionally necessary: because some positions are more important and require scarce talent and long training, society must attach differential rewards — income, status, power — to induce the most able to occupy them. Inequality, on this view, is the mechanism by which a society ensures its key roles are competently filled.

On balance, this perspective does tend to promote a status quo, for several reasons.

First, by presenting inequality as inevitable and necessary, it discourages any effort to reduce it — if stratification is functional, challenging it appears dysfunctional. Second, it legitimises existing rewards as deserved returns to importance and talent, implying that the privileged occupy their positions by merit and the disadvantaged by lesser contribution. Third, it assumes a working meritocracy in which talent is freely recognised, thereby obscuring how ascriptive advantages of class, caste, race and gender actually distribute rewards.

The conflict critique, above all Melvin Tumin's (1953), sharpens the point. Tumin argued that stratification is often dysfunctional — it wastes talent by denying opportunity to the disadvantaged, entrenches privilege across generations, and generates hostility rather than social integration. It is difficult, he noted, to establish objectively which positions are functionally most important. Marxists go further, treating the functionalist account as ideology that masks class exploitation. In these terms the perspective serves to conserve the prevailing order.

In fairness, functionalists reply that they explain rather than endorse stratification, and that differential reward is compatible with upward mobility for the talented. Yet even this defence, by naturalising inequality as functional, blunts the impulse to reform it.

The reasoned verdict is therefore yes — the structural-functionalist perspective, whatever its analytical intent, tends in effect to promote and legitimise the status quo, which is precisely why conflict theorists reject it.

Examiner's perspective

This question rewards a clear position, since the command is does it and give reasons. Fence-sitting answers that merely describe Davis and Moore without adjudicating the status-quo charge underperform; the examiner wants a defended verdict.

The strongest scripts pair the Davis–Moore thesis accurately with Tumin's rebuttal and the Marxist charge of ideology, and they concede the functionalist distinction between explaining and endorsing before overriding it. Precise attribution, the explicit list of reasons, and a confident concluding judgement are what earn full marks in a compact ten-marker.