社會階層化理論 當代理論

美國階層化理論的發展 雖然歐洲社會學很早就注意到社會階層化的議題，美國的社會學早期發展對於階層化的議題並沒有特別的興趣。 由於美國沒有像歐洲一樣嚴峻的階級界線，且其價值強調機會均等，早期美國社會學認為美國是一個沒有階級的社會classless view of American society 這種觀點直到大蕭條時才開始產生變化，但階層化的研究經過很長的時間才破除美國沒有階級的神話。

美國階層化理論的發展 1929, Robert and Helen Lynd Middletown, Middletown in Transition (1937) 最早的階層化研究，以美國社區的權力及經濟不平等為核心議題，破除美國為機會均等社會的神話。 不過大蕭條過後，這些作品很快就被人遺忘。

美國階層化理論的發展 Lloyd Warner, Yankee City與Lynd有幾個不同處： Warner school 以地位不平等來界定階層化，忽略經濟及權力不平等所引起的衝突。 沒有分析機會不平等的實際狀況，仍然強調有才能及有野心者必可以成功的理想社會流動。 強調社會階層化為一個複雜社會中具有功能性且必要的。

美國階層化理論的發展 早期的美國社會學發展中，階層化理論被刻意忽略，彷彿階級衝突、財產繼承、種族剝削都不存在於這個無階級的社會中。 儘管大蕭條喚醒了美國人對於社會不平等的注意，但這各注意力並沒有持續太久。 即使在後來社會階層議題逐漸被討論，美國人還是將注意的焦點置於「地位」不平等，很多人仍然持續相信美國是一個無階級的社會。

美國階層化理論的發展 衝突理論的觀點直到最近才受到應有的尊重。社會流動的研究仍然以個人為焦點，而非財富權力不平等的結構性因素。例如美國研究貧窮問題仍然無法跳脫貧窮文化(culture of poverty)的解釋，將問題的本質置於窮人到底出了什麼問題(what is wrong with the poor)。 儘管如此，Warner的研究仍然有很大的影響，帶動了階層化的研究。

1950年代的階層化研究，主要還是以功能論為主。理論的取向接近涂爾幹而非韋伯或馬克思。 與功能論的分家來自於Floyd Hunter的社區權力研究及C. W. Mills對於菁英階層的研究。

功能論 主要分成： Davis & Moore Parsons

Davis & Moore功能論 …consider society as something like an organism, the theory argued that this organism has needs that must be met if it is to remain healthy. Among these needs is for the most important positions or jobs in the society to be staffed by the most qualified and competent people. Social stratification is considered a mechanism that ensures that the need is met.

The functionalist theory of Davis and Moore (1945) 1) Certain positions in any society are functionally more important than others, and require special skills to fill them. 社會中的某些職位在功能上較為重要，且需要「特殊技能」才能勝任這些職位。 2) 社會中只有少數的「可造之才」可以被訓練而取得擔任這些職位所需的技能Only a limited number of people in any society have the talents that can be trained into the skills appropriate to these positions.

The functionalist theory of Davis and Moore (1945) 3)這些「可造之才」需透過一段時期的訓練，才能將「才能」轉為「技能」。接受訓練期間需負擔某種程度的犧牲及成本The conversion of talents into skills involves a training period during which sacrifices of one kind or another are made by those undergoing the training.

The functionalist theory of Davis and Moore (1945) 4) 為了使有「才能」的人願意接受訓練，這些職位必須提供某種程度的「差別誘因」--可以取得稀少及人人想要的報酬的特權或特殊管道In order to induce the talented people to undergo these sacrifices and acquire the training, their future positions must carry an inducement value in the form of a differential—that is, privileged and disproportionate access to the scarce and desired rewards the society has to offer.

The functionalist theory of Davis and Moore (1945) 5) 這些稀少及人人想要的「貨品」包含依附於職位的權力及特權，一般可以分成：（a) 生活舒適（b)娛樂消遣（c) 自尊及自我拓展These scarce and desired goods consist of the rights and prerequisites attached to, or built into, the positions, and can be classified into those things that contribute to (a) sustenance and comfort, (b) humor and diversion, and (c) self‑respect and ego expansion.

The functionalist theory of Davis and Moore (1945) 6) 由於取得基本報酬的能力及管道不同，造成各個社會層級在聲望及自尊上的分化。以致於形成體制化的社會不平等，及社會階層化。This differential access to the basic rewards of the society has as a consequence the differentiation of the prestige and esteem various strata acquire. It may be said to constitute, along with the rights and prerequisites, institutionalized social inequality; that is, stratification.

The functionalist theory of Davis and Moore (1945) 7) 因此，不同社會層級之間在資源、報酬、社會聲望、自尊取得上的不平等狀態，對整個社會來說是具有正面功能，而且是不可避免的。Therefore, social inequality among different strata in the amounts of scarce and desired goods and the amounts of prestige and esteem they receive is both positively functional and inevitable in any society.

醫師與垃圾清潔人員的比較 Comparisons of a physician and garbage collector 1) 醫師的工作是否比清潔人員重要？It can be argued that the job performed by the physician is more important than that of a garbage collector. 在大都會中，這兩種職業對於社會正常的運作具有同等的重要性The differing importance of these two positions is somewhat questionable because in large urban areas both are important.

醫師與垃圾清潔人員的比較 Comparisons of a physician and garbage collector 2) 想當醫師必須具備特殊的「才能」，必須要是「可造之才」Davis and Moore assume the task of a physician requires special talents that are limited in the population. 醫師必須經過長期的訓練，而清潔員不需任何訓練In addition, to become a physician requires a long training period if the special talents are to be developed into the needed skills. No such talents or training period is required for a garbage collector.

醫師與垃圾清潔人員的比較 Comparisons of a physician and garbage collector 3) 接受醫師訓練必須有所犧牲，包含在醫學院中所花費的時間、金錢、努力、及承受的心理壓力等。清潔員不需如此的犧牲。It is further assumed that some sacrifice is necessary to acquire the needed skills of a physician. Such sacrifice would include the time, money, effort, and psychological pressure involved in medical school. The position of garbage collector requires no such sacrifice to obtain training.

醫師與垃圾清潔人員的比較 Comparisons of a physician and garbage collector 4) 醫師的期望報酬必須夠高，才能吸引有才能的人做上述的犧牲。清潔員的工作不需提供特殊的報酬來吸引人來從事這個工作。In order to induce qualified people to undergo the sacrifice of obtaining the needed skills to perform as physicians, the future position must bring expected rewards appropriate to the required sacrifice. No such special rewards are seen as necessary to fill the position of garbage collector.

醫師與垃圾清潔人員的比較 Comparisons of a physician and garbage collector 5) 因此，社會必須賦予醫師職位較高的報酬。Thus, the rewards, of various types, must be attached to or built into the position. In other words, the rewards must not be random (only some physicians highly paid), but an expected part of a position as physician for maximum inducement to people with special talents.

醫師與垃圾清潔人員的比較 Comparisons of a physician and garbage collector 6) 由於取得報酬的管道有別，這兩個職位反映出不同的聲望及自尊。A result is that the physician and garbage collector have differing access to the basic rewards of the society, and the two positions reflect differing amounts of prestige and esteem.

醫師與垃圾清潔人員的比較 Comparisons of a physician and garbage collector 7) 因此，為了確保醫生的職位能夠吸引最有才能的人來擔任，不平等對於社會的運作而言，不但是具有正面的功能，也是不可避免的。Therefore, social inequality with respect to the positions of physician and garbage collector is both positively functional and inevitable to ensure that the position of physician is filled by the most qualified people.

勞動市場的供需模型 A labor market model in disguise? Davis-Moore的模型與經濟學的勞動市場的供需模型沒有太大的區別It is a labor market model analyzing the supply and demand of labor as it relates to rewards for labor. 其基本運作邏輯為：當社會對於某一類職位的需求高於供給量時，社會必須提供更高的報酬來吸引人來就職。When the supply of skilled labor is low in relation to the amount of labor needed, the employer (in Davis and Moore's perspective, the society) will be required to pay more for this labor.

對於Davis-Moore模型的批評Critiques of Davis-Moore hypothesis As Collins (1975:420) argues: “Following through the pure market model leads us to a startling conclusion: The system must tend toward perfect equality in the distribution of wealth.” Collins指出：「如果單純地按照經濟學的市場模型來推論，我們將得到以下的結論：整個社會在財富分配上將會逐漸的趨於完全的公平。」

對於Davis-Moore模型的批評Critiques of Davis-Moore hypothesis 假設勞動力可以自由的流動，則高薪的工作將吸引大量的人力來競標，致使薪資逐漸下降，而低薪的工作由於聘僱困難，將逐漸提高薪資以吸引人才，當市場行情薪資偏離了均衡水準，勞動力的自由移動將使的各行各業的薪資水準不至於相差太大。 Because where labor is free to move to higher paying jobs, the jobs that pay high wages will attract a surplus of workers, leading to a decline in the income for these jobs. Jobs paying low wages would tend to attract fewer workers. Without market restraints "wherever jobs pay above or below the average, processes are set in motion through labor mobility which eventually bring wages back into line with all the others" (Collins 1975:120).

The market-clearing wage 薪資水準的決定 The market-clearing wage Supply exceeds demand:工資水準過高，廠商減少雇用，造成勞動力供過於求 薪資 供給 供過於求時，求職者找工作不易，願意以較低的薪資水準來就業。 有一些人會找尋其他的工作，使得供給逐漸減少。 W2 We 廠商提高工資以吸引更多的人來應徵。 W1 需求 勞動人力數量 Demand exceeds supply: 工資水準過低，以致於需求大於供給時，廠商將面臨勞動力短缺的現象。

對於Davis-Moore模型的批評Critiques of Davis-Moore hypothesis 如果我們將工作條件、環境、及職業聲望等考慮進去，則從純粹市場及經濟邏輯的角度來分析，醫師的薪資應該少於垃圾清潔人員，因為他們的其他報酬（聲望、工作環境等）較高。 And if we consider other rewards attached to positions, such as a good working environment or the prestige that comes with greater skill, (assuming a free market model), we might find that a physician would be paid less (in income) than a garbage collector because of the other rewards (such as prestige and working environment) attached to the position of physician.

對於Davis-Moore模型的批評Critiques of Davis-Moore hypothesis Davis和Moore辯稱不是每一個人都具有擔任醫師的條件，因此完全競爭的勞動市場並不存在。 Davis and Moore argue in the original theory that not everyone is equally talented or capable of performing the tasks of some very important positions. In this sense they do not acknowledge free labor competition. Many people could collect garbage, but only a few have the talent to become physicians.

對於Davis-Moore模型的批評Critiques of Davis-Moore hypothesis Are there really so few people with the talent to make it through medical school and become physicians? 你覺得只有少數人可以完成醫學院的訓練、擔任外科醫生的工作嗎？

對於Davis-Moore模型的批評Critiques of Davis-Moore hypothesis There are limitations on who and how many people can become physicians because of the ability of the medical profession to restrict and limit access to training for the occupation. Most of the criticisms of the Davis and Moore theory evolve around their neglect of power

對於Davis-Moore模型的批評Critiques of Davis-Moore hypothesis The greater the rewards received by individuals or groups, the greater their ability to make sure they continue receiving such rewards, and even more rewards, no matter what function they serve for the society. 個人獲得的報酬越多，他們越有能力能確保自己可以持續不斷地獲利，即使是他們所執行的任務對於社會以毫無價值或功能可言。

對於Davis-Moore模型的批評Critiques of Davis-Moore hypothesis 哪些職位對社會而言較為重要？誰來界定職位的重要性？There is also the question of what, in fact, the most important positions in the society are. 擁有權力的人可以影響職位價值的界定Those with power are able to influence which positions are defined as most important

對於Davis-Moore模型的批評Critiques of Davis-Moore hypothesis And some criticism questions the degree of inequality necessary among positions in our society. 即使不平等可以提供必要的誘因，究竟社會當中需要多大程度的不平等才足夠？

對於Davis-Moore模型的批評Critiques of Davis-Moore hypothesis 就算醫生比垃圾需要更高的技能及訓練，如果醫師的薪資為垃圾清潔員的二十倍，我們可不可以說醫師職位對於社會的重要性為垃圾清潔人員的二十倍？還是因為某些職業對於報酬的決定擁有較多的控制權及影響力。One may grant the assumption that a physician is more important than a garbage collector, or at least that the position of physician requires more training and skill. But, for example, if we find that the physician earns twenty times more income than the garbage collector, can we say that the physician is twenty times more important than the garbage collector? Or do some occupations provide greater control and influence that allow them to demand greater pay?

階層化及不平等的負功能 dysfunctions of stratification and inequality (1) Social stratification systems function to limit the possibility of discovery of the full range of talent available in a society because of unequal access to appropriate motivation, channels of recruitment, and centers of training. 由於社會提供給每一個人的誘因、就業管道、及訓練機會是不平等的，因此階層化的系統使得個人的才能是否能發揮受到很大的侷限。

階層化及不平等的負功能 dysfunctions of stratification and inequality (2) In foreshortening the range of available talent, social stratification systems function to set limits upon the possibility of expanding the productive resources of the society, at least relative to what might be accomplished under conditions of greater equality of opportunity. 在機會不平等的情況下，由於人才無法充分被發掘或個人無法發揮其才能，階層化系統限制了社會資源擴張的可能性。

階層化及不平等的負功能 dysfunctions of stratification and inequality (3) Social stratification systems function to provide the elite with the political power necessary to procure acceptance and dominance of an ideology that rationalizes the status quo, whatever it may be, as logical, natural, and morally right. 社會階層化系統使得既得利益的菁英階層可以透過政治權利來確保合理化現狀的意識型態獲得認同及接受，是現狀變成一種邏輯上、自然的、及道德上的合理狀態。

階層化及不平等的負功能 dysfunctions of stratification and inequality (4) Social stratification systems function to distribute favorable self‑images unequally throughout the population. To the extent that such favorable self-images are requisite to the development of the creative potential inherent in people, stratification systems function to limit the development of this creative potential. 階層化系統使得社會中每一個人對於「自我形象」有不同的認知，由於這種「優越感」為創造潛力能否發展的先決條件，使得缺乏優越感者的創造力受到很大的侷限。

階層化及不平等的負功能 dysfunctions of stratification and inequality (5) To the extent that inequalities in social rewards cannot be made fully acceptable to the less privileged in a society, social stratification systems function to encourage hostility, suspicion, and distrust among the various segments of a society and thus to limit the possibilities of extensive social integration. 在社會報酬的不平等情形無法為弱勢團體完全接受的情況下，社會階層系統會使得各個階層間產生敵意、猜忌、及不信任，限制了社會整合的可能。

階層化及不平等的負功能 dysfunctions of stratification and inequality (6)To the extent that the sense of significant membership in a society depends on one's place on the prestige ladder of the society, social stratification systems function to distribute unequally the sense of significant membership in the population. 個人是否覺得自己為社會中的重要成員，決定於個人在聲望階梯中的位置，社會階層化系統會使得不同階層的人對於自己是否為社會的重要成員有不同的觀感。

階層化及不平等的負功能 dysfunctions of stratification and inequality (7) To the extent that loyalty to a society depends on a sense of significant membership in the society, social stratification systems function to distribute loyalty unequally in the population. 由於對於社會的忠誠度決定於個人是否自覺為社會的重要成員，因此不同得社會階層對於社會的忠誠度也有很大的差異。

階層化及不平等的負功能 dysfunctions of stratification and inequality (8) To the extent that participation or apathy depend upon the sense of significant membership in the society, social stratification systems function to distribute the motivation to participate unequally in a population. 由於個人是否積極參與社會或採取冷漠的社會態度與個人是否覺得自己為社會的重要成員有關，因此不同社會階層的成員對於參與社會的動機及意願有很大的差異。

Empirical Research on the Davis and Moore Theory Abrahamson:戰爭時，軍人的待遇增加。職業棒球中，重要位置及稀有才華的選手薪水比較高。對於社會的重要性決定待遇。 Broom and Cushing (1977)發現大公司中，主管的功能重要性（有多少部屬依賴主管）及職務表現與其薪資無關。 Broom and Cushing 的研究也指出，對社會較為重要的公司（如鋼鐵、食品、藥品、紡織成衣）中的主管，其薪資報酬並沒有比對社會較不重要的公司（煙草、化妝品、飲料）的主管的薪資更高。

Empirical Research on the Davis and Moore Theory General population tends to believe that inequality and social stratification should operate in a manner generally suggested by the Davis and Moore theory. Americans are much more likely to think that there is equality of opportunity in America, thus indicating they tend to think the stratification system in America operates in a manner suggested by the functional theory of stratification.

一個人會窮是因為… （N=1800, 2002)

Parsons' Functional Theory of Social Stratification Parsons' work has been highly influential in carrying on the tradition of Durkheim and the Warner school of social stratification in American sociology

Parsons' Functional Theory of Social Stratification Parsons: status or honor is the most important dimension of social stratification. People are evaluated and ranked by others in terms of how well they live up to the dominant values in the society, whatever these values may be. This means that there will always be a hierarchy of status honor in every society.

wealth and power differences "In spite of much opinion to the contrary, it (wealth and power) is not a primary criterion, seen in terms of the common value system. . . . its primary significance is a symbol of achievement."

主流價值體系 In order to specify the placement of people in the stratification system, Parsons had to rank which roles or tasks are the most respected (to the least respected) in the society, which involved getting more specific about the dominant value system.

AGIL all societies must solve problems of (1) adaptation of the environment, (2) goal attainment, (3) integration, and (4) latent pattern maintenance (or, for short, AGIL). The primary "concrete" institutions that usually perform these functional prerequisites for a society are, in order, (1) the economy, (2) the state, (3) the legal system or sometimes religion, and (4) the family, schools, and cultural institutions.

AGIL (1) The differing tasks of these various institutions lead them to stress differing values (or pattern variables). (2) Societies differ with respect to which of the four sets of institutions (adaptive, goal attainment, integration, or latent pattern maintenance) is primary.

Parsons 1. A person's place in the status hierarchy (stratification system) is determined by the moral evaluation of others. 2. This moral evaluation is made in terms of a common value system. 3. The common value system is shaped by the institution that is given primary stress in the society (the institutional stress coming from the particular historical and environmental circumstances of the society). 4. Thus, people who best live up to these values or ideas will receive, in addition to high status, other rewards, such as a high income and wealth.

例子：美國 United States. This means that the value system in this country is weighted toward performance in the occupational structure (Parsons 1951:399), and that people who meet the performance and achievement ideals in the economic occupational structure will be rewarded with greater status, advancement in the occupational structure, and the secondary rewards of wealth and high income.

例子：共產主義下的中國 China stresses goal attainment, or political institutions, over economic institutions The values in China, following the stress on goal attainment or the polity, are weighted toward leadership ability and commitment to political ideals. The people who most typify these values would receive high status, advancement in the political bureaucracy, and secondary rewards such as wealth and high income.

依據什麼來判斷一個人在社會上的地位

Parsons對於DM理論的補充 What Parsons has done, however, is specify more clearly what the most important positions will be, given a particular institutional stress in the society.

Critiques of Parsons Why people are on top of the stratification system? One of the most prominent criticisms of Parsons' work involves his assumption of a society with needs of its own. From this perspective, people in top institutional positions are doing what they do for the interests and needs of the total society; the interests of individuals and groups within the society are secondary.

Critiques of Parsons Parsons believed that people primarily seek status, therefore striving to live up to dominant values. By striving to live up to the dominant values ( shaped by the needs of society) people are serving the needs of society. Parsons did not see people as striving primarily for power and material wealth for personal interests. 就算個人不是為了追求自私利益，而是為了共同價值而努力，Parsons也忽略了共同價值系統的塑造可能反映少數有權勢、有財富人的影響。

Critiques of Parsons Conflict theorists like Turnin (1953:393) point out that "social stratification systems function to provide the elite with the political power necessary to procure acceptance and dominance of an ideology which rationalizes the status quo, whatever this may be, as 'logical,' 'natural,' and 'morally right.' " An elite may legitimize its own high status through its influence over people's perspectives of what is to be valued. To the extent that this is the case, people may be given status and other rewards not because they meet the needs of the overall society but because they serve the interests of elites in the society.

Status, power, class Parsons只強調status, 而韋伯認為三者同樣重要。這三者的關係究竟為何？ Lenski在前面的章節中指出，原始部落的地位來自於某人所擁有的技能（打獵）對整個部落的貢獻，十分吻合功能論的看法。 隨著技術的進步，地位的基礎發生改變，一旦人取得了支配他人的工具與資源後，地位變成權利與經濟支配力量的次要結果。

Status, power, class Parsons認為權利與收入伴隨地位而來。

Status, power, class 衝突論者認為權利與經濟相互影響，且影響個人的地位高低。相反地，地位不再成為取得權利與財富的重要管道。

地位在特殊情形下仍為重要的不平等基礎 Della Fave and Hillery (1980)對於修道院中修士地位的研究。 修道院中的價值規範嚴格禁止物質上的不平等，修道院雖然有所謂的名義上的領導者，但其權力不大，院中各項決策皆由民主方式來共同決定。 在這樣沒有經濟及權利不平等的環境，仍可以看出修道士彼此之間地位的差異。地位的基礎為何？

地位在特殊情形下仍為重要的不平等基礎 地位高低與每一位修道士「修行」「道行」高低有關。 兩位學者的研究顯示Parsons的理論有很大的侷限：Status inequalities are primary dimensions of stratification only when there is a small community that is highly integrated around a strong set of moral principles.

Studies of Occupational Prestige 在工業社會中，職業結構是最為明顯的階層化形式。由於它的顯著性，使得社會大眾對於職業的地位高低評價（職業聲望地位）有很高的一致性。 很多學者在不同時間及不同社會進行職業聲望調查，發現彼此的相關性甚高。

Studies of Occupational Prestige 中國的職業聲望調查是由中研院院士林南及中國大陸的學者謝文發表在AJS期刊。 台灣的職業聲望: 文崇一，張曉春1979 蔡淑鈴，廖正宏，黃大洲1985 蔡淑鈴與瞿海源兩位學者發表在1991 “Constructing Occupational Scales for Taiwan” Research in Social Stratification and Social Mobility

Studies of Occupational Prestige Treiman (1977) 對於六十個國家的職業聲望進行比較，發現各國的職業聲望十分一致。 由於職業聲望各國差異不大，因此Ganzeboom & Treiman 兩位學者建構了 1988 International Standard of Classification of Occupations (ISCO) 的職業聲望表。

Socioeconomic Status Scales 早期的社會經濟地位指標(socioeconomic status scales)由芝加哥大學根據住宅區域來劃分residential approach 。一個人的階級地位用居住區域來代表顯然有很多問題。 North & Hatt, 1947對90個職業進行調查 Duncan’s socioeconomic Index (see Reiss et al. 1961):教育與薪資，425個職業。 Hollingshead's Two Factor Index of Social Position

Scale of occupational socioeconomic status職位地位量表 以透過調查所得的四十五種職業的「職業聲望」、「所得」、「教育程度」之高低做為基準的迴歸係數來加權： 職業聲望 平均所得 平均教育 找出迴歸係數後，將其餘職業的收入及教育程度帶入求算聲望

Critique of Occupation as a Status Hierarchy 雖然職業聲望有很高的一致性，但卻沒有直接證據說明人們對於職業的看法是基於地位及聲望而非其他與職業相關的因素。 例如衝突理論指出，人們對於職業的排序是基於職業上的收入及權威，聲望僅是次要的。 研究指出不同教育、族群、及階級背景的人對於職業的高低有很不同的看法。例如教育程度欲高，對於職業的看法愈一致，顯示對於職業的評價是學習而來的。

Critique of Occupation as a Status Hierarchy 既使職業是依照聲望來排序，人們對於職業的重要性的看法也可能是受到權力不平等的影響： (1) the ability of those high in the stratification system to obtain higher income because of their power, and reward with higher income those occupations serving elite interests (income is related to prestige judgments, remember); (2) the ability of elites to influence what we think about different occupations through their influence over the dominant values in the society

Critique of Occupation as a Status Hierarchy The status dimension can be very important in small communities. But with the occupational structure, occupational skill level, income, and power in the marketplace (as Weber described) are most important in affecting life chances.

CONFLICT THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

CONFLICT THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION Critical-conflict: 相信不平等是可以減少的，If inequality is to be reduced, it must be based on changing property or class relations, rather than on a more general conflict of interests "always found" among human beings. Uncritical-conflict: 認為某種形式的利益衝突永遠存在，these differing group interests will be reflected in organized power structures (or bureaucratic or political organizations) that are generalized means of furthering group interests of any type.

CONFLICT THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION Uncritical-order or functional theorists maintain that inequality will always be present, but they tend to stress the needs of complex human organizations as the reason for this inequality. Thus, it is the status structure that helps provide social order and results in unequal status ranking in relation to the functional division of labor (or occupational structure necessary in complex societies) that explains social stratification and inequality.

Modern Marxian Theory 馬克思主義在當代面臨的問題： (1) 社會主義革命並沒有如期的在所有工業資本社會中發生。從馬克斯以後，工人的階級意識逐漸削弱，對於資本主義也越來越沒有敵意及批判意識。資本主義並沒有產生馬克斯所預言的危機。 馬克斯預言壟斷式的資本主義及強而有力的上層階級會控制經濟及國家。但具傳統意義的、控制社會中主要生產工具的有錢家族並沒有取的絕對的優勢地位。

Modern Marxian Theory (2) 馬克斯沒有預見在現代社會中，傳統的工人階級職業愈來愈少，取而代之的是愈來愈多的中上階層。 (3) 共產主義國家的問題：中國與蘇聯都不是從資本主義的崩潰產生共產主義，實際的情形與馬克斯的理想差距甚遠。

How are these incorrect predictions dealt with? 有些馬克斯學者辯稱馬克斯不是要建立通則，而是描述歷史的趨勢，不能被視為社會的決定論模型，而是思考的指引方針。馬氏的政治意圖物質決定論被過份的強調。

How are these incorrect predictions dealt with? 為何社會主義革命沒有發生？為何資本主義社會的危機沒有產生？ (1) the growth and strength of the state (2) unforeseen influences on the working class.

function of the state in capitalist societies a strong state has developed in capitalist societies with some autonomy from upper-class interests (Weber) This strong state so far has been able to manage the collective interests of the bourgeoisie (upper class) to prevent crisis, and has managed crisis periods to prevent revolutionary changes.

function of the state in capitalist societies This is done through (1) economic planning and control of conditions (such as a failing profit rate, inflation, reduced demand for goods produced) that could produce crisis, (2) welfare spending to control and appease the poor and unemployed during hard times (3) the management of conflicts within the bourgeoisie that could result in economic crisis (such as government regulation preventing competition from getting out of hand and destroying some corporations).

institutionalization of class conflict Marxians cite other factors as reducing revolutionary class consciousness among the working class: (1) labor unions are seen as making some material gains for the workers, but at the expense of controlling the working class for long-term capitalist interests. In what is called institutionalization of class conflict, elites in big labor unions are seen as working for capitalist interests by controlling strikes and preventing workers from considering more threatening issues such as worker influence over corporate decision making.

co-opting labor thru consumption (2) the high standard of living achieved by the working class in advanced capitalist nations is seen as co-opting labor. A consumption orientation among workers, promoted by the higher standard of living and mass advertising, was never foreseen by Marx. An outcome has been a willingness on the part of workers to support the basic capitalist system and tolerate alienating working conditions as long as they can share in the material fruits of capitalism (such as cars, boats, campers, and motorcycles).

the strength of the legitimation process (3) every stratification system must convince those toward the bottom of this system that their low position is somehow justified. The effects of a mass media unimagined in Marx's day, among other factors such as education (to be described in our later chapter on this process), are cited by Marxian theorists as helping to produce acceptance of the capitalist system by the general population (Kellner 1990).

The expansion of the white-collar class The expansion of the white-collar class of technical, sales, clerical, service, and bureaucratic workers is also acknowledged by many as unforeseen by Marx. 有些學者認為這些新興的中產階級其實本質上仍為工人階級。 More recently, the prediction that the growing middle-class jobs have been "deskilled," making them like working-class jobs (Wright et al. 1982), has been refuted empirically.

The expansion of the white-collar class Wright and Martin (1987) argue that this goes against Marxian predictions but can still be explained in a Marxian framework. What Marx failed to see was that capitalism has become more international, with working-class labor growing and conditions for the working class becoming worse as these types of jobs are exported by the rich capitalist nations to poor countries.

The expansion of the white-collar class 新興的中產階級產生的另一個問題：政治保守的中產階級造成非資本階級的分裂： (1) white-collar workers generally have higher status (if not more pay), leading to status divisions; (2) white-collar workers (because of more interaction with capitalists and their managers) tend to identify more with capitalist interests; (3) the expansion of the occupational structure (more ranks from top to bottom) has promoted more social mobility. In addition to creating more divisions in the working class, the expansion of the occupational structure and the hope of social mobility have reduced class consciousness because of the possibility of escape from "alienating" and low-status blue-collar work.

共產主義國家的問題 A new class of party bureaucrats took power in the name of the working class, but rather than working for the working class, this new class was "exploitative in the exact sense that Marx gave the term-the workers and peasants were forced to surrender a surplus to the bureaucracy“. the problem with Marxian theory in this respect is that Marx failed to understand the state as a generalized power structure, a power structure that can serve the particular interests of capitalists as well as the narrow interests of some other type of elite.

Recent Empirical Work and Wright's Class Categories capitalists, managers, workers, petty bourgeoisie.

Recent Empirical Work and Wright's Class Categories Capitalists擁有生產工具（工廠、銀行）、雇用（購買）其他人的勞動力、 Managers 僅為資本家控制其他人的勞動力並出售自己的勞動力給資本家。 Workers僅能將其勞動力賣給資本家 the petty bourgeoisie 擁有少許的生產工具，但雇用少數的人力 What does this Marxian concept of class help us understand?

Recent Empirical Work and Wright's Class Categories 功能論觀點下的階層化結構以職業地位的排序為主，由於職業地位為連續的概念，因此功能論觀點不重視階級的界線(class divisions)而偏重排序的階梯。但職業地位與收入沒有單純的一對一關係，教育程度也不是完全能解釋收入的差異。

Recent Empirical Work and Wright's Class Categories 控制教育程度、職業技能、年齡、年資之後，「資本階級」仍然有較高的收入。 教育程度對於工人的收入沒有太大的幫助，但對於經理人的收入幫助較大。 在同一個階級當中，收入的種族與性別差異不大。種族與性別對於收入的影響主要是因為少數民族與女性的階級地位較低所致。

Recent Empirical Work and Wright's Class Categories Robinson and Kelley (1979) found separate mobility patterns in terms of class position and occupational status. 資產階級家庭的子女比較容易「繼承」資產階級地位，而有高教育與高職業地位父母的子女，比較容易取的較高的職業地位。

Recent Empirical Work and Wright's Class Categories 這些研究顯示個人與生產工具的關係仍然有很大的影響力。但同時也顯示馬克斯的理論無法解釋所有的變異。 馬氏理論的最大弱點為假設階級及經濟衝突為人類社會的唯一衝突，只要消除生產工具的私有就能消除不平等。歷史記訓顯示這個假設是不對的，即使在經濟完全平等的情況下，其他形式的不平等也不會消失。

Power Conflict Theories Uncritical conflict 觀點： “wherever there is life, there is conflict." ”…human beings are sociable but conflictprone animals.“ 認為我們必須要認知到不平等無所不在，要學習如何面對它，而不是杜絕。

Power Conflict Theories 一群人可以為了共同的利益而組織起來。因此瞭解社會階層化的系統比需先瞭解有組織的階級及團體利益，而不是個人的利益衝突。 it must be recognized that collectives of individuals can have common interests and work together to meet these common interests. Thus, to understand a system of social stratification, we must understand organized class or group interests, rather than random individual conflicts.

Dahrendorf's Conflict Theory 他認為馬克斯同時強調組織(顯性manifest）與缺乏組織（隱性latent）的團體利益(group interests ）是研究社會社會階層基本面的正確路徑。 社會科學家不但要研究組織性及公開性的團體衝突，更重要的是這些團體及階級利益如何分佈在社會中，及一個特定團體如何意識(recognizes)到它們的隱藏團體利益(latent group interests) 而形成一股集體力量。隱性團體利益隨時都有變成顯性團體的可能。

Dahrendorf's Conflict Theory 他不認為革命可以消彌所有的階級衝突。而認為階級衝突是所有有組織的社會所不可避免的。 Dahrendorf 不同意馬克斯認為階級衝突主要是奠基於經濟利益的看法。he accepts the managerial control thesis that control is divorced from ownership.

Dahrendorf's Conflict Theory Dahrendorf將偉伯的觀點加入馬克斯理論中，認為現代社會的運作必須仰賴某種社會組織形式，即偉伯所謂的「權威協調的組織」(imperatively coordinated associations)。 因為這些組織形式無所不在，個人及團體利益受到他們和這些組織的關係影響甚鉅。

Dahrendorf's Conflict Theory 在所有的imperatively coordinated associations中，必有支配(domination) 與服從者(subordination)的權威角色authority roles 存在。 這種權威的分佈差異(differential distribution of authority) 必然形成系統性的社會衝突，為馬克斯所謂的階級衝突的導因。

Dahrendorf's Conflict Theory Dahrendorf recognizes all kinds of individual or group interests…the main point is that the means to attaining these interests are related to authority positions within imperatively coordinated associations. In other words, the haves get what they want because they are on top in the association, while the have-nots find it in their interests to challenge the status quo that assigns them low positions and low rewards (Dahrendorf 1959: 176).

Dahrendorf's Conflict Theory

Dahrendorf's Conflict Theory Individuals have a position in many of these associations. Each of these positions represents a different set of interests in relation to the authority or lack of authority maintained. These interests are only latent interests held in common (such as manager versus worker interests) until they become recognized and acted upon by the opposed interest groups (manifest interests).

Bourdieu's conflict theory Bourdieu試圖連結微觀與宏觀的分析，特別是強調個人如何賦予意義於其所在的世界(how individuals make sense of the world in which they live) (Bourdieu 1993). 但他的理論也同時蘊含了結構主義的傳統，認為人們賦予的意義是受到社會客觀結構的侷限與影響。

Bourdieu's conflict theory Bourdieu認為個人的經濟階級地位影響他們的世界觀及文化。( economic class positions that individuals hold shape their world views and also what is usually called culture). Bourdieu企圖理解「階級次文化」(class subcultures)如何被塑造及不同階級位置的人如何具有不同的品味、生活形態、及價值偏好(1984, 1996).

Bourdieu's conflict theory 透過不同的階級次文化，人們開始區分屬於自己的階級內團體與不屬於同一階級的外團體，而在較高階級位置的成員開始界定較低階級地位的人與自己的差異，並認為這些人沒有能力可以成為階級系統中較高階級地位的成員。

Bourdieu's conflict theory Bourdieu研究佔據較高階級地位的成員以他們的「高級文化」來評估其他人，如何影響社會流動how social mobility might be restricted or enhanced by how people in higher-class positions evaluate others in terms of their knowledge of "higher culture."

Summary and Critiques of Power Conflict Theories (1) theories of social stratification must be grounded in differing individual and group interests (2) which are varied, and (3) form the basis of class conflict Most important is how groups come together within organized social structures (what Dahrendorf calls imperatively coordinated associations) that form systems of social stratification.

Critiques of Power Conflict Theories Critiques of Dahrendorf's theory cross-national and cross-historical comparisons, some imperatively coordinated associations (economic , political, religious associations) are at times more important within a nation than others (Giddens 1973:73). how do we decide who is in which of the two classes? where do we draw the line between the two classes? board of directors superordinate class, Worker  subordinate class engineers, lesser managers, line supervisors?

empirical studies --Robinson and Kelley's (1979) Robinson and Kelley's (1979) study measure three different types of class: (1) capitalist class (in a Marxian sense) was defined and measured as those who own or control the means of production, (2) Dahrendoff's class categories were measured in terms of degrees of authority (3) Occupational status and skill level

empirical studies --Robinson and Kelley's (1979) (1) that all three class/occupational measures did about equally well in explaining income differences (2) that all three class/occupational measures helped explain differing class identification in the sample (for example, whether people saw themselves in the upper class, middle class, or working class); and (3) that all three class/occupational measures were related to differing political party voting, except for class position in the United States.

empirical studies --Robinson and Kelley's (1979) their findings show that there are distinct lines of class and occupational attainment Father high class position son high class position Father high occupational position  son high class position The two processes are not strongly related: having a father with a high occupational status position will not be of much help for the son in attaining a high class position and vice versa.

empirical studies--Kalleberg and Griffin (1980) examined bureaucratic authority divisions in both capitalist sector organizations (corporations) and noncapitalist organizations (such as government agencies and educational and civic organization)

empirical studies--Kalleberg and Griffin (1980) Kalleberg and Griffin (1980:737) asked two questions of respondents in their sample: (1) Are they self-employed? (2) Do they supervise anyone as part of their job? Individuals who responded 'yes' to both were defined as employers. Individuals who responded 'no' to both were defined as workers. Managers were those who responded 'no' to the first and 'yes' to the second."

empirical studies--Kalleberg and Griffin (1980) the income difference in relation to authority divisions were significant in both capitalist and noncapitalist sectors. the higher the position in the authority structure, the greater the job fulfillment claimed.

Modern World System Theory 從1500AD 開始，國家之間互相競爭支配權，特別是經濟的支配權。 國家分成core, semiperiphery, periphery 三類。世界體系從新馬克斯主義的觀點來探究國家之間彼此的剝削與附庸關係。

構成階級地位的基礎 如何界定階級？與哪一個階層化面向較重要有關。 Dennis Wrong ：realist vs. nominalist definition Realist definition: 強調清楚的階級界線—人們自認為屬於某一階級，且多與自己階級內的成員互動。（subjective definition) Nominalist definition: 根據影響生命機會與社會報酬的相同特性將人分為各類階級，不管個人是否意識到其階級地位。(objective definition)

構成階級地位的基礎 如何界定階級？ 連續或不連續的階級排序？ 特定的階級界線存不存在？衝突論者認為階級間的區別比階級內的區別重要，而功能論者認為排序為連續的，很難清楚找到明顯的疆界。

構成階級地位的基礎 Who get what , and why? 本書認為我們可以界定objective class divisions ，主觀的階級認同十分重要，但不一定會有影響。 三個影響階級的客觀因素： Occupational structure Bureaucratic authority structure Capitalist property structure

構成階級地位的基礎 Occupational structure 個人與市場的關係。 依個人的技能水準排序，並給予相對的報酬。 不代表按照對於社會的貢獻給予報酬，而是按照技能對於控制報酬者的重要性來得到獎賞。

構成階級地位的基礎 Bureaucratic authority divisions Top position (president, chairman of the board, CEO, vice president) Staff position Supervisory positions (plant foremen, department chairperson) Workers

構成階級地位的基礎 Divisions within the property structure Capitalists Mangers Workers Petty bourgeoisie

A working definition of class

Subjective Class Identification 有關階級的兩個辯論： 階級為連續或非連續的？ 本書以三個科層結構的匯流來界定階級，認為階級同時具有連續的區別（職業及科層權力）及非連續的區別面向(生產工具的有無）。 階級的主客觀面向 客觀的力量決定個人的價值報酬及機會，無論個人有沒有意識到階級界線或認同其所屬的階級。

Subjective Class Identification 一個社會內的階級認同愈強，階級衝突愈激烈。 馬克斯認為隨著資本主義的發展，階級意識會愈強烈，階級衝突增加。階級意識的一個基本面向為主觀的階級認同。

Subjective Class Identification Richard Centers (1949)最早針對階級認同來做研究之一。當問及受訪者自己認為屬於上中下哪一個階級時，美國人大多認為自己屬於中產階級。 Centers的研究指出，當加入「工人階級」類別時： 51 percent 認為自己為 working class, 43 percent 認為自己為 middle class. 3/4的白領專業階級認為自己為中產或中上階級，4/5的勞動者認為自己為working class."

Subjective Class Identification Centers 認為「階級」對於大多數人而言是一個有意義的觀念，且主觀認同的階級與客觀的階級十分的吻合。 但Gross (1953) 發現如果問卷不提供選項，39 percent說他們不屬於任何階級或不知道自己的階級，31 percent "middle class," 11 percent "working class." 1 percent upper class, 3 percent lower class, and 15 percent some other class

Subjective Class Identification Kahl and Davis (1955) how many classes there are in the United States？ two classes (10 percent), three classes (42 percent), four classes (20 percent), five or more classes (5 percent), no concept of a class order (12 percent), class does not exist (6 percent). 僅有18%不認為或不知道有階級，顯示確切的階級數目雖然沒有共識，但大多數的人都意識到階級的存在。

Subjective Class Identification 近來的多數研究皆指出最常被接受的階級標籤(upper class, middle class, working class, lower class) 的確與客觀的階級指標如收入、教育、職業技能、藍白領等區別十分相關。 僅管歐洲人的階級意識與階級認同一般高於美國人，但兩地區的主觀階級認同並沒有太大的差異。

Subjective Class Identification 最近的研究議題： 女性的階級認同（過去附屬於男性戶長之下） Do we find that class identity of women is primarily shaped by the objective class position of their husbands? Or, when they themselves are employed, do we find that women define their class position in terms of their own job, income, and education?

Subjective Class Identification Davis and Robinson (1988) 與1970s比較，1980s女性比較會用自己的職業及教育來認同自己的階級地位。有趣的是，越來越多的男性在考慮階級認同時，也逐漸以個人為單位，而不再以家庭（配偶）為單位。

台灣社會的階級認同(2002)

台灣社會的階級認同(2002) 社會分成資本家、小資本家、中產、勞工和農民階級，您屬於哪級?

台灣社會的階級認同(2002) 社會分成上層、中上層、中層、中下層和下層階級，您屬於哪?

台灣社會的階級認同(2002)

Self-identification of Class, 1997

Self-identification of Class, 2001

2001 1997

若社會分成 1至10層，你屬於第幾層？

各面向的相關程度

台灣社會的階級認同(2002)

Subjective Class Identification 現代社會中科層區隔的複雜本質使得大多數人沒有清楚的階級概念，由於在各個面向的位置不一定一致，因此階級認同變成越來越困難的工作。 但客觀的階級區分在報酬及機會的分配上仍然扮演重要的角色。這些客觀的區分無論是單獨考量還是結合來考量都十分重要。

Subjective Class Identification 因此雖然客觀的upper class (and corporate class), middle class, working class, and lower class (or the poor)的概念模糊了很多的區分，且與主觀的階級認同沒有一對一的關連，但這些概念卻是大多數人都理解，且與職業、科層、及財富結構都十分相關，因此仍然是十分有意義的區別類別。

A Note on Sociobiology Wilson (1975) Main argument: by relating our studies of society and human behavior to certain biological tendencies within human beings, we can increase our understanding of some aspects of this behavior. Counterargument: although biology can help us understand the behavior of other animals, human behavior is much more complex and almost completely shaped by learning, culture, the social environment, and other nonbiological factors.

A Note on Sociobiology Charles Darwin認為天擇淘汰掉不適生存的人種，僅留下基因上最能與環境匹配的人種。這些生存能力最強者進一步將其基因傳遞給後代。 更重要的是 (1)基因需要很長的時間才有顯著的改變 (2) 因為99％的人類存在於與當代很不一樣的環境，早期的人類環境塑造了我們的生理行為(biologically influenced behavior)。

A Note on Sociobiology 人類初期所面對的環境如何塑造我們的行為： 初期人類基本需求尚未滿足，且競爭資源激烈。最自私及最aggressive的人得已生存。 如果自私與競爭是人類的本性，則如何解釋人類社會經常看到的利他及合作行為？

A Note on Sociobiology (1) survival of a gene pool requires altruistic behavior toward kin (2) it is argued that more general cooperation (in hunting) was also required for survival.

A Note on Sociobiology What do these selfish and cooperative tendencies in human behavior help us understand about social stratification? Under conditions of adequate resources but no surplus, we found, there was evidence of more cooperative and sharing behavior. And under conditions of surplus goods, people tend to be more selfish, while cooperating with a few to control the surplus.

A Note on Sociobiology We must recognize a selfish tendency among people, and a tendency to cooperate to exploit others under certain conditions. The task for theories of social stratification is to recognize these tendencies and specify how and when this selfish behavior will be maximized or minimized. Perhaps most importantly, stratification theories must specify how the social structure in a particular society determines which interests (attaining ownership of factories, political power, positions in imperatively coordinated associations, or others) are most important.