Introduction: The Functionalist Lens on Inequality

Functionalism views society as a system made up of interdependent parts—institutions like the family, education, the economy and religion—all working together to maintain stability and order. Functionalists argue that social harmony depends on a general agreement about values and goals (value consensus). Individuals are socialised into these shared norms, which helps society function smoothly.

From this perspective, inequality is not necessarily a problem. Instead, functionalists often see it as:

• Natural: People have different abilities, talents, and levels of motivation.
• Inevitable: Complex societies need a wide variety of roles, each requiring different levels of skill, training, and responsibility.
• Functional: Inequality motivates people to work hard, train, compete, and strive for achievement.
• Meritocratic: Rewards—such as pay, status, and power—should go to those who earn them through ability and effort.

This belief in meritocracy underpins much of the functionalist explanation. According to this view, if people achieve different outcomes, it is because they have made different levels of effort, taken different opportunities, or possess different talents—not because society is unfair.

The rest of this blog explores how specific functionalist sociologists expand on these ideas to explain the role and purpose of inequality in society.

---

1. Davis and Moore: Inequality as a Functional Necessity

Their argument

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945) suggested that inequality performs key functions:

• Some roles are more important for society’s survival.
• High-level roles require special skills and long periods of training.
• Greater rewards are needed to encourage the best people to compete for these positions.
• Stratification is therefore inevitable and beneficial.

In practice

• High salaries for medical specialists or engineers are said to encourage highly capable people to invest years of training.
• Selective education and competitive interviews assume the “best” individuals should rise to the top.

Criticisms

• Hard to measure which roles are “important.” Low-paid care workers keep society running but receive little reward.
• Circular arguments: Jobs are said to be important because they are well paid, and well paid because they are important.
• Ignores structural inequalities: Social class, ethnicity and gender still shape life chances, challenging the idea of an open meritocracy.
• Doesn’t consider power: Those in privileged positions may use their influence to secure higher rewards, not because their roles are more functional.

---

2. Talcott Parsons: Inequality as a Product of Value Consensus

Parsons’ view

Parsons linked inequality to shared social values. According to him:

• Society agrees on values such as achievement, hard work and competition.
• Individuals are rewarded based on how well they perform according to these values.
• The education system and workplace allocate individuals to roles that fit their abilities.
• People in higher positions are seen as more deserving of rewards.

In practice

• Schools reward academic success through exams and qualifications.
• Promotion systems in workplaces reflect the idea that those who work harder should progress.

Criticisms

• Assumes everyone shares the same values. In reality, societies are diverse and groups often disagree.
• Overlooks discrimination and social barriers. Not everyone starts from the same position.
• Idealises meritocracy. Research consistently shows persistent class and ethnic attainment gaps.

---

3. Herbert Gans: The Functions of Poverty

Gans’ argument

Gans argued that even poverty has “functions” for society’s smooth running:

• Poor communities take on low-paid, insecure work others avoid.
• Their presence keeps labour costs down and benefits businesses and consumers.
• Their poverty creates employment for others (e.g., social workers, charity staff).
• Their situation acts as a warning to others to work hard.

In practice

• The growth of gig-economy jobs relies on a pool of low-paid, flexible workers.
• Wealthy households depend on cleaners, carers, and delivery workers who are often poorly rewarded.

Criticisms

• Ethically questionable: Suggesting poverty is useful ignores the harm it causes.
• Benefits the powerful more than society as a whole.
• Not inevitable: Countries with strong welfare states maintain social order without extreme inequality.
• Romanticises the exploitation of the poor.

---

4. Other Functionalist Contributions

Peter Blau & Otis Duncan

Their research on status attainment suggests inequality is fair when it reflects achievement. Education is seen as the engine of meritocracy.

Criticism:
Class origin still strongly influences outcomes, challenging the claim of fair competition.

Émile Durkheim

Durkheim’s early functionalist ideas suggested that a well-organised division of labour increases social cohesion and efficiency. If inequality is based on genuine talent differences, it remains legitimate.

Criticism:
Modern evidence suggests many inequalities are based on inherited privilege, not natural ability.

---

5. Contemporary Evidence Supporting and Challenging Functionalism

Evidence sometimes supporting functionalist claims

• Shortages in sectors like healthcare and software engineering show training and skill scarcity can influence rewards.
• Expansion of higher education can increase opportunities for mobility.

Evidence challenging functionalist assumptions

• COVID-19 highlighted that key workers (often low-paid) are essential, contradicting reward-based notions of job importance.
• Strong evidence of structural inequality:
  • Private school advantage in university admissions
  • Racial hiring discrimination
  • Persisting gender pay gaps
• Wealth concentration grows independently of talent or effort.

---

6. How These Ideas Appear in Real Life

• Selective schooling systems aim to allocate “talent” efficiently.
• Professional licensing in medicine or law limits who can enter high-status roles but may also reinforce privilege.
• Pay differentials are justified using the language of skill shortages, responsibility, and motivation.

---

Final Thoughts

Functionalism sees inequality as natural, necessary and beneficial for social order, stemming from differences in talent and the need to motivate people into essential roles. While this perspective highlights how rewards can encourage achievement, critics argue it overlooks structural inequalities, power imbalances and the lived realities of those at the bottom of the stratification system.

For OCR A-Level Sociology, understanding these debates offers a strong foundation for explaining and evaluating functionalist approaches in exam essays.