Social stratification, its types and historical types. Concept and types of social stratification

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 into horizontal layers (strata). This process is connected primarily with both economic and human reasons. The economic reasons for social stratification are that resources are limited. And because of this, they must be managed rationally. That is why there is a dominant class - it owns resources, and an exploited class - it is subordinate to 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 don't need anything and aren't interested. Some people can go to their 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 anything if you are disabled, especially in Russia.

Objective reasons for 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, that’s good. You have a good chance of succeeding. So, if you were born in Russia, even in the most remote village, and you are a boy, at least you can join the army, and then remain to serve under a contract. Then you may be sent to a military school. This is better than drinking moonshine with your fellow villagers, and then dying in a drunken fight by the age of 30.

Well, if you were born in some country in which there really is no statehood, and the local princelings show up in your village with machine guns at the ready and kill anyone, and take anyone into slavery - then your life is lost, and together your future is with her.

Criteria for social stratification

The criteria for social stratification include: power, education, income and prestige. Let's look at 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 subordinate to you, and also (2) the extent of your authority. But the presence of this one criterion (even the greatest power) does not mean that you are in the highest stratum. For example, a teacher has more than enough power, but his income is limping.

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 this is not the case in Russia. But that's just how it seems. Because the majority of graduates are dependent - they must be hired. They do not understand that with their higher education they can very 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 what social class a person belongs to. If the income is from 500 thousand rubles per capita and above per month - then to the highest level; 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 people's subjective perception of your , is a criterion of social stratification. Previously, it was believed that prestige was expressed solely in income, since if you have enough money, you can dress more beautifully and with better quality, and in society, as you know, people are greeted by their clothes... But 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. Over the course of his life, a person can make a career in (become a famous politician), in the cultural sphere (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 system. The criterion for identifying 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 lesson 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:

Best regards, Andrey Puchkov

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

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

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

Rice. 2. Main historical types of social stratification

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

Table 1. Caste system in Ancient India

	Representatives	Associated body part
Brahmins	Scientists and priests
	Warriors and rulers
	Peasants and traders
	"Untouchables", dependent persons

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

nobility - a privileged class consisting of large landowners and distinguished officials. An indicator of nobility is usually a title: prince, duke, count, marquis, viscount, baron, etc.;
clergy - ministers of worship and church with the exception of priests. In Orthodoxy, there are black clergy (monastic) and white (non-monastic);
merchant class - a trading class that included owners of private enterprises;
peasantry - a class of farmers engaged in agricultural labor as their main profession;
philistinism - an urban class consisting of artisans, small traders and low-level employees.

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

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

in a slave society, these were slaves and slave owners;
in feudal society - feudal lords and dependent peasants;
in a capitalist society - capitalists (bourgeoisie) and workers (proletariat);
There will be no classes in a communist society.

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

upper class: divided into upper upper (rich people from "old families") and lower upper (newly rich people);
middle class: divided into upper middle (professionals) and
lower middle (skilled workers and employees); o The lower class is divided into upper lower (unskilled workers) and lower lower (lumpen and marginalized).

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

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

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

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

Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus

Educational institution

"BELARUSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY

COMPUTER SCIENCE AND RADIO ELECTRONICS"

Department of Humanities

Test

in Sociology

on the topic: “SOCIAL STRATIFICATION”

Completed by: student gr. 802402 Boyko E.N.

Option 19

The concept of social stratification. Sociological theories of social stratification.

Sources and factors of social stratification.

Historical types of social stratification. The role and significance of the middle class in modern society.

1. The concept of social stratification. Sociological theories of social stratification

The term “social stratification” itself was borrowed from geology, where it means the successive change of rock layers of different ages. But the first ideas about social stratification are found in Plato (he distinguishes three classes: philosophers, guards, farmers and artisans) and Aristotle (also three classes: “very wealthy”, “extremely poor”, “middle layer”). 1 The ideas of the theory of social stratification finally took shape at the end of the 18th century. thanks to the emergence of the method of sociological analysis.

Let us consider various definitions of the concept of “social stratification” and highlight its characteristic features.

Social stratification:

this is social differentiation and structuring of inequality between different social strata and population groups based on various criteria (social prestige, self-identification, profession, education, level and source of income, etc.); 2

these are hierarchically organized structures of social inequality that exist in any society; 3

these are social differences that become stratification when people are hierarchically located along some dimension of inequality; 4

a set of social strata arranged in a vertical order: poor-rich. 5

Thus, the essential features of social stratification are the concepts of “social inequality”, “hierarchy”, “system organization”, “vertical structure”, “layer, stratum”.

The basis of stratification in sociology is inequality, i.e. uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, power and influence.

Inequality and poverty are concepts closely related to social stratification. Inequality characterizes the uneven distribution of society's scarce resources - income, power, education and prestige - between different strata or segments of the population. The main measure of inequality is the amount of liquid assets. This function is usually performed by money (in primitive societies, inequality was expressed in the number of small and large livestock, shells, etc.).

Poverty is not only a minimum income, but a special way of life and lifestyle, norms of behavior, stereotypes of perception and psychology passed down from generation to generation. Therefore, sociologists talk about poverty as a special subculture.

The essence of social inequality lies in the unequal access of different categories of the population to socially significant benefits, scarce resources, and liquid values. The essence of economic inequality is that a minority always owns the majority of national wealth, in other words, receives the highest incomes

The first to try to explain the nature of social stratification were K. Marx and M. Weber.

The first saw the cause of social stratification in the separation of those who own and manage the means of production and those who sell their labor. These two classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat) have different interests and oppose each other, the antagonistic relationship between them is built on exploitation. The basis for distinguishing classes is the economic system (the nature and method of production). With such a bipolar approach, there is no place for the middle class. It is interesting that the founder of the class approach, K. Marx, never gave a clear definition of the concept of “class”. The first definition of class in Marxist sociology was given by V.I. Lenin. Subsequently, this theory had a huge impact on the study of the social structure of Soviet society: the presence first of a system of two opposing classes, in which there was no place for the middle class with its function of coordinating interests, and then the “destruction” of the exploiting class and the “striving for universal equality” and, as follows from the definition of stratification, a classless society. However, in reality, equality was formal, and in Soviet society there were various social groups (nomenklatura, workers, intelligentsia).

M. Weber proposed a multidimensional approach, highlighting three dimensions to characterize classes: class (economic status), status (prestige) and party (power). It is these interrelated factors (through income, profession, education, etc.) that, according to Weber, underlie the stratification of society. Unlike K. Marx, for M. Weber class is an indicator only of economic stratification; it appears only where market relations arise. For Marx, the concept of class is historically universal.

Yet in modern sociology, the question of the existence and significance of social inequality, and, therefore, social stratification, occupies a central place. There are two main points of view: conservative and radical. Theories based on the conservative tradition (“inequality is a tool for solving the main problems of society”) are called functionalist. 6 Radical theories view social inequality as a mechanism of exploitation. The most developed is the conflict theory. 7

The functionalist theory of stratification was formulated in 1945 by K. Davis and W. Moore. Stratification exists due to its universality and necessity; society cannot do without stratification. Social order and integration require a certain degree of stratification. The stratification system makes it possible to fill all the statuses that form the social structure and develops incentives for the individual to perform the duties associated with their position. The distribution of material wealth, power functions and social prestige (inequality) depends on the functional significance of the position (status) of the individual. In any society there are positions that require specific abilities and training. Society must have certain benefits that are used as incentives for people to take positions and perform their respective roles. And also certain ways of unevenly distributing these benefits depending on the positions occupied. Functionally important positions should be rewarded accordingly. Inequality acts as an emotional stimulus. Benefits are built into the social system, so stratification is a structural feature of all societies. Universal equality would deprive people of the incentive to advance, the desire to make every effort to fulfill their duties. If incentives are insufficient and statuses are left unfilled, society falls apart. This theory has a number of shortcomings (it does not take into account the influence of culture, traditions, family, etc.), but is one of the most developed.

The theory of conflict is based on the ideas of K. Marx. Stratification of society exists because it benefits individuals or groups who have power over other groups. However, conflict is a common characteristic of human life that is not limited to economic relations. R. Dahrendorf 8 believed that group conflict is an inevitable aspect of social life. R. Collins, within the framework of his concept, proceeded from the belief that all people are characterized by conflict due to the antagonistic nature of their interests. 9 The concept is based on three basic principles: 1) people live in subjective worlds constructed by them; 2) people can have the power to influence or control an individual's subjective experience; 3) people often try to control the individual who opposes them.

The process and result of social stratification was also considered within the framework of the following theories:

distributive theory of classes (J. Meslier, F. Voltaire, J.-J. Rouseau, D. Diderot, etc.);

theory of production classes (R. Cantillon, J. Necker, A. Turgot);

theories of utopian socialists (A. Saint-Simon, C. Fourier, L. Blanc, etc.);

theory of classes based on social ranks (E. Tord, R. Worms, etc.);

racial theory (L. Gumplowicz);

multicriteria class theory (G. Schmoller);

theory of historical layers by W. Sombart;

organizational theory (A. Bogdanov, V. Shulyatikov);

multidimensional stratification model of A.I. Stronin;

One of the creators of the modern theory of stratification is P.A. Sorokin. He introduces the concept of “social space” as the totality of all social statuses of a given society, filled with social connections and relationships. The way of organizing this space is stratification. Social space is three-dimensional: each dimension corresponds to one of the three main forms (criteria) of stratification. Social space is described by three axes: economic, political and professional status. Accordingly, the position of an individual or group is described in this space using three coordinates. A set of individuals with similar social coordinates form a stratum. The basis of stratification is the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, power and influence.

T.I. Zaslavskaya made a great contribution to solving practical and theoretical problems of stratification of Russian society. 10 In her opinion, the social structure of society is the people themselves, organized into various types of groups (layers, strata) and fulfilling in the system of economic relations all the social roles that the economy gives rise to and that it requires. It is these people and their groups that implement certain social policies, organize the development of the country, and make decisions. Thus, in turn, the social and economic position of these groups, their interests, the nature of their activities and relationships with each other influence the development of the economy.

2.Sources and factors of social stratification

What “orients” large social groups? It turns out that society has an unequal assessment of the meaning and role of each status or group. A plumber or a janitor is valued lower than a lawyer and a minister. Consequently, high statuses and the people who occupy them are better rewarded, have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should be higher. We get four main dimensions of stratification - income, power, education, prestige. These four dimensions exhaust the range of social benefits that people strive for. More precisely, not the benefits themselves (there may be many of them), but the channels of access to them. A house abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a holiday in the Canary Islands, etc. - social benefits that are always in short supply (i.e. highly respected and inaccessible to the majority) and are acquired through access to money and power, which, in turn, are achieved through high education and personal qualities.

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

The distribution is always unequal. This is how the arrangement of social strata arises according to the criterion of unequal access to power, wealth, education and prestige.

Let's imagine a social space in which the vertical and horizontal distances are not equal. This or roughly this is how P. Sorokin 11 thought about social stratification, 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 enormous empirical material extending over the entire human history. Points in space are social statuses. The distance between the turner and the milling machine is one, it is horizontal, and the distance between the worker and the foreman is different, it is vertical. The master is the boss, the worker is the subordinate. They have different social ranks. Although the matter can be imagined in such a way that the master and the worker will be located at an equal distance from each other. This will happen if we consider both of them not as a boss and a subordinate, but only as workers performing different labor functions. But then we will move from the vertical to the horizontal plane.

Inequality of distances between statuses is the main property of stratification. It has four measuring rulers, or coordinate axes. All of them are located vertically and next to each other:

Education,

Prestige.

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

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

Power is not measured by the number of people affected by the decision you make (power is the ability to impose your will or decisions on other people regardless of their wishes). The decisions of the President of Russia apply to 147 million people, and the decisions of the foreman - to 7-10 people.

Three scales of stratification - income, education and power - have completely objective units of measurement: dollars, years, people. Prestige stands outside this series, since it is a subjective indicator. Prestige is respect for status established in public opinion.

Belonging to a stratum is measured by subjective and objective indicators:

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

objective indicators - income, power, education, prestige.

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

3. Historical types of social stratification. The role and significance of the middle class in modern society.

The ascribed status characterizes a rigidly fixed system of stratification, that is, a closed society in which the transition from one stratum to another is practically prohibited. Such systems include slavery, caste and class systems. The achieved status characterizes a flexible system of stratification, or an open society, where free transitions of people down and up the social ladder are allowed. Such a system includes classes (capitalist society). These are the historical types of stratification.

Stratification, that is, inequality in income, power, prestige and education, arose with the emergence of human society. It was found in its rudimentary form already in simple (primitive) society. With the advent of the early state - eastern despotism - stratification became stricter, and with the development of European society and the liberalization of morals, stratification softened. The class system is freer than caste and slavery, and the class system that replaced the class system has become even more liberal.

Slavery is historically the first system of social stratification. Slavery arose in ancient times in Egypt, Babylon, China, Greece, Rome and survived in a number of regions almost to the present day. It existed in the USA back in the 19th century. Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality. It has evolved historically. The primitive form, or patriarchal slavery, and the developed form, or classical slavery, differ significantly. In the first case, the slave had all the rights of a junior member of the family: he lived in the same house with his owners, participated in public life, married free people, and inherited the owner’s property. It was forbidden to kill him. At the mature stage, the slave was completely enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and had no family. It was allowed to kill him. He did not own property, but was himself considered the property of the owner (<говорящим орудием>).

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

Caste is a social group (stratum) in which a person owes membership solely by birth. He cannot move from one caste to another during his lifetime. To do this, he needs to be born again. The caste position of a person is enshrined in the Hindu religion (it is now clear why castes are not very common). According to its canons, people live more than one life. A person's previous life determines the nature of his new birth and the caste into which he falls - lower or vice versa.

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

The form of stratification that precedes classes is estates. In the feudal societies that existed in Europe from the 4th to the 14th centuries, people were divided into classes.

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

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

Belonging to a social stratum in slave-owning, caste and class-feudal societies was recorded officially - by legal or religious norms. In a class society, the situation is different: no legal documents regulate the individual’s place in the social structure. Every person is free to move, if he has ability, education or income, from one class to another.

Today sociologists offer different typologies of classes. One has seven, another has six, the third has five, etc. social strata. The first typology of US classes was proposed in the 40s of the 20th century by the American sociologist Lloyd Warner. It included six classes. Today it has been replenished with another layer and in its final form it represents a seven-point scale.

Upper-high class includes<аристократов по крови>who immigrated to America 200 years ago and over the course of many generations accumulated untold wealth. They are distinguished by a special way of life, high society manners, impeccable taste and behavior.

The lower-upper class consists mainly of<новых богатых>, who had not yet managed to create powerful clans that seized the highest positions in industry, business, and politics. Typical representatives are a professional basketball player or a pop star, who receive tens of millions, but have no family history<аристократов по крови>.

The upper-middle class consists of the petty bourgeoisie and highly paid professionals: large lawyers, famous doctors, actors or television commentators. Their lifestyle is approaching high society, but they still cannot afford a fashionable villa in the most expensive resorts in the world and a rare collection of artistic rarities.

The middle-middle class represents the most massive stratum of a developed industrial society. It includes all well-paid employees, moderately paid professionals, in a word, people of intelligent professions, including teachers, teachers, and middle managers. This is the backbone of the information society and the service sector.

The lower-middle class consisted of low-level employees and skilled workers, who, by the nature and content of their work, gravitated toward mental rather than physical labor. A distinctive feature is a decent lifestyle.

The upper-lower class includes medium- and low-skilled workers employed in mass production, in local factories, living in relative prosperity, but with a behavior pattern significantly different from the upper and middle classes. Distinctive features: low education (usually complete and incomplete secondary, specialized secondary), passive leisure (watching TV, playing cards, etc.), primitive entertainment, often excessive consumption of alcohol and non-literary language.

The lower-lowest class consists of inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places unsuitable for habitation. They have no or only primary education, most often survive by doing odd jobs or begging, and constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and constant humiliation. They are usually called<социальным дном>, or underclass. Most often, their ranks are recruited from chronic alcoholics, former prisoners, homeless people, etc.

Term<верхний-высший класс>means the upper stratum of the upper class. In all two-part words, the first word denotes a stratum or layer, and the second - the class to which this layer belongs.<Верхний-низший класс>sometimes they call it what it is, and sometimes they designate it as the working class. In sociology, the criterion for classifying a person into a particular stratum is not only income, but also the amount of power, level of education and prestige of the occupation, which presuppose a specific lifestyle and style of behavior. You can earn a lot, but spend all the money ineptly or drink it away. It is not only the income of money that is important, but also its expenditure, and this is already a way of life.

The working class in modern post-industrial society includes two layers: lower-middle and upper-lower. All intellectual workers, no matter how little they earn, are never classified in the lower class.

The middle class (with its inherent layers) is always distinguished from the working class. But the working class is also distinguished from the lower class, which may include the unemployed, the unemployed, the homeless, the poor, etc. As a rule, highly skilled workers are included not in the working class, but in the middle, but in its lowest stratum, which is filled mainly by low-skilled mental workers - office workers.

The middle class is a unique phenomenon in world history. Let's put it this way: it has not existed throughout human history. It appeared only in the 20th century. In society it performs a specific function. The middle class is the stabilizer of society. The greater it is, the less likely it is that society will be shaken by revolutions, ethnic conflicts, and social cataclysms. The middle class separates two opposite poles, poor and rich, and does not allow them to collide. The thinner the middle class, the closer the polar points of stratification are to each other, the more likely they are to collide. And vice versa.

The middle class is the widest consumer market for small and medium-sized businesses. The more numerous this class is, the more confidently a small business stands on its feet. As a rule, the middle class includes those who have economic independence, that is, they own an enterprise, firm, office, private practice, their own business, scientists, priests, doctors, lawyers, middle managers, the petty bourgeoisie - the social “backbone” of society .

What is the middle class? From the term itself it follows that it has a middle position in society, but its other characteristics are important, primarily qualitative. Let us note that the middle class itself is internally heterogeneous; it is divided into such layers as the upper middle class (it includes managers, lawyers, doctors, and representatives of medium-sized businesses who have high prestige and large incomes), the middle middle class (small business owners , farmers), lower middle class (office staff, teachers, nurses, salesmen). The main thing is that the numerous layers that make up the middle class and are characterized by a fairly high standard of living have a very strong and sometimes decisive influence on the adoption of certain economic and political decisions, in general on the policies of the ruling elite, which cannot but listen to "voice" of the majority. The middle class largely, if not completely, shapes the ideology of Western society, its morality, and typical way of life. Let us note that a complex criterion is applied to the middle class: its involvement in power structures and influence on them, income, prestige of the profession, level of education. It is important to emphasize the last of the terms of this multidimensional criterion. Due to the high level of education of numerous representatives of the middle class of modern Western society, their inclusion in power structures at various levels, high incomes and the prestige of the profession are ensured.

There is a part of the social system that acts as a collection of the most stable elements and their connections that ensure the functioning and reproduction of the system. It expresses the objective division of society into classes, layers, indicating the different positions of people in relation to each other. Social structure forms the framework of the social system and largely determines the stability of society and its qualitative characteristics as a social organism.

The concept of stratification (from lat. stratum- layer, layer) denotes the stratification of society, differences in the social status of its members. Social stratificationis a system of social inequality consisting of hierarchically located social layers (strata). All people included in a particular stratum occupy approximately the same position and have common status characteristics.

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

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

One of creators P. Sorokin identified three types of stratification structures:

economic(based on income and wealth criteria);
political(according to the criteria of influence and power);
professional(according to the criteria of mastery, professional skills, successful performance of social roles).

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

qualitative characteristics of people that they possess from birth (ethnicity, family ties, gender and age characteristics, personal qualities and abilities);
role characteristics determined by the set of roles performed by an individual in society (education, position, various types of professional and labor activities);
characteristics determined by the possession of material and spiritual values (wealth, property, privileges, the ability to influence and manage other people, etc.).

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

income - the amount of cash receipts for a certain period (month, year);
wealth - accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or embodied money (in the second case they act in the form of movable or immovable property);
power - the ability and opportunity to exercise one’s will, to exert a decisive influence on the activities of other people through various means (authority, law, violence, etc.). Power is measured by the number of people it extends to;
education - a set of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the learning process. Educational attainment is measured by the number of years of schooling;
prestige- public assessment of the attractiveness and significance of a particular profession, position, or certain type of occupation.

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

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

upper-highest class(representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties with significant resources of power, wealth and prestige);
lower-upper class(“new rich” - bankers, politicians who do not have a noble origin and have not managed to create powerful role-playing clans);
upper-middle class(successful businessmen, lawyers, entrepreneurs, scientists, managers, doctors, engineers, journalists, cultural and artistic figures);
lower-middle class(hired workers - engineers, clerks, secretaries, office workers and other categories, which are usually called “white collar”);
upper-lower class(workers engaged primarily in manual labor);
lower-lower class(beggars, unemployed, homeless, foreign workers, declassed elements).

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

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

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

Social stratification is a central theme of sociology. It describes social inequality in society, the division of social strata by income level and lifestyle, by the presence or absence of privileges. In primitive society, inequality was insignificant, so stratification was almost absent there. In complex societies, inequality is very strong; it divides people according to income, level of education, and power. Castes arose, then estates, and later classes. In some societies, transition from one social layer (stratum) to another is prohibited; There are societies where such a transition is limited, and there are societies where it is completely permitted. Freedom of social movement (mobility) determines whether a society is closed or open.

1. Components of stratification

The term “stratification” comes from geology, where it refers to the vertical arrangement of the Earth’s layers. Sociology has likened the structure of society to the structure of the Earth and placed social layers (strata) also vertically. The basis is income ladder: The poor occupy the bottom rung, the wealthy groups occupy the middle rung, and the rich occupy the top rung.

The rich occupy the most privileged positions and have the most prestigious professions. As a rule, they are better paid and involve mental work and management functions. Leaders, kings, czars, presidents, political leaders, big businessmen, scientists and artists make up the elite of society. The middle class in modern society includes doctors, lawyers, teachers, qualified employees, the middle and petty bourgeoisie. The lower strata include unskilled workers, the unemployed, and the poor. The working class, according to modern ideas, constitutes an independent group that occupies an intermediate position between the middle and lower classes.

The wealthy upper class have higher levels of education and greater amounts of power. The lower class poor have little power, income, or education. Thus, the prestige of the profession (occupation), the amount of power and the level of education are added to income as the main criterion of stratification.

Income- the amount of cash receipts of an individual or family for a certain period of time (month, year). Income is the amount of money received in the form of wages, pensions, benefits, alimony, fees, and deductions from profits. Income is most often spent on maintaining life, but if it is very high, it accumulates and turns into wealth.

Wealth- accumulated income, i.e. the amount of cash or materialized money. In the second case they are called movable(car, yacht, securities, etc.) and immovable(house, works of art, treasures) property. Usually wealth is transferred by inheritance. Both working and non-working people can receive inheritance, but only working people can receive income. In addition to them, pensioners and the unemployed have income, but the poor do not. The rich can work or not work. In both cases they are owners, because they have wealth. The main asset of the upper class is not income, but accumulated property. The salary share is small. For the middle and lower classes, the main source of existence is income, since the first, if there is wealth, is insignificant, and the second does not have it at all. Wealth allows you not to work, but its absence forces you to work for a salary.

The essence authorities- the ability to impose one’s will against the wishes of other people. In a complex society, power institutionalized those. protected by laws and tradition, surrounded by privileges and wide access to social benefits, allows decisions vital for society to be made, including laws that usually benefit the upper class. In all societies, people who have some form of power - political, economic or religious - constitute an institutionalized elite. It determines the domestic and foreign policy of the state, directing it in a direction beneficial to itself, which other classes are deprived of.

Prestige- the respect that a particular profession, position, or occupation enjoys in public opinion. The profession of a lawyer is more prestigious than the profession of a steelmaker or plumber. The position of president of a commercial bank is more prestigious than the position of cashier. All professions, occupations and positions existing in a given society can be arranged from top to bottom on ladder of professional prestige. We define professional prestige intuitively, approximately. But in some countries, primarily in the USA, sociologists measure it using special methods. They study public opinion, compare different professions, analyze statistics and ultimately get an accurate prestige scale. American sociologists conducted the first such study in 1947. Since then, they have regularly measured this phenomenon and monitored how the prestige of the main professions in society changes over time. In other words, they build a dynamic picture.

Income, power, prestige and education determine aggregate socioeconomic status, i.e., the position and place of a person in society. In this case, status acts as a general indicator of stratification. Previously, its key role in the social structure was noted. It now turns out that it plays a vital role in sociology as a whole. The ascribed status characterizes a rigidly fixed system of stratification, i.e. closed society, in which the transition from one stratum to another is practically prohibited. Such systems include slavery and the caste system. The achieved status characterizes the mobile stratification system, or open society, where people are allowed to move freely up and down the social ladder. Such a system includes classes (capitalist society). Finally, feudal society with its inherent class structure should be considered intermediate type i.e. to a relatively closed system. Here transitions are legally prohibited, but in practice they are not excluded. These are the historical types of stratification.

2. Historical types of stratification

Slavery- historically the first system of social stratification. Slavery arose in ancient times in Egypt, Babylon, China, Greece, Rome and survived in a number of regions almost to the present day. It existed in the USA back in the 19th century.

Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality. It has evolved historically. The primitive form, or patriarchal slavery, and the developed form, or classical slavery, differ significantly. In the first case, the slave had all the rights of a junior member of the family:

lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free people, and inherited the owner’s property. It was forbidden to kill him. At the mature stage, the slave was completely enslaved: he lived in a separate room, did not participate in anything, did not inherit anything, did not marry and had no family. It was allowed to kill him. He did not own property, but was himself considered the property of the owner (“a talking instrument”).

This is how slavery turns into slavery. When they talk about slavery as a historical type of stratification, they mean its highest stage.

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

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

In total, there are 4 main castes in India: Brahmans (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), Shudras (workers and peasants) and about 5 thousand non-main castes and subcastes. The untouchables (outcasts) stand out especially - they do not belong to any caste and occupy the lowest position. During industrialization, castes are replaced by classes. The Indian city is increasingly becoming class-based, while the village, where 7/10 of the population lives, remains caste-based.

Estates. The form of stratification that precedes classes is estates. In the feudal societies that existed in Europe from the 4th to the 14th centuries, people were divided into classes.

Estate - a social group that has rights and obligations that are fixed by custom or legal law and are inheritable. A class system that includes several strata is characterized by a hierarchy expressed in the inequality of their position and privileges. The classic example of class organization was Europe, where at the turn of the XIV-XV centuries. society was divided into the upper classes (nobility and clergy) and the unprivileged third class (artisans, merchants, peasants). And in the X-XIII centuries. There were three main classes: the clergy, the nobility and the peasantry. In Russia from the second half of the 18th century. The class division into nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and petty bourgeoisie (middle urban strata) was established. Estates were based on land ownership.

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

The higher a class stood in the social hierarchy, the higher its status. In contrast to castes, inter-class marriages were fully tolerated, and individual mobility was also allowed. A simple person could become a knight by purchasing a special permit from the ruler. Merchants acquired noble titles for money. As a relic, this practice has partially survived in modern England.
Russian nobility
A characteristic feature of classes is the presence of social symbols and signs: titles, uniforms, orders, titles. Classes and castes did not have state distinctive signs, although they were distinguished by clothing, jewelry, norms and rules of behavior, and ritual of address. In feudal society, the state assigned distinctive symbols to the main class - the nobility. What exactly did this mean?

Titles are verbal designations established by law for the official and class-clan status of their owners, which briefly define the legal status. In Russia in the 19th century. there were such titles as “general”, “state councilor”, “chamberlain”, “count”, “adjutant”, “secretary of state”, “excellency” and “lordship”.

Uniforms were official uniforms that corresponded to titles and visually expressed them.

Orders are material insignia, honorary awards that complement titles and uniforms. The rank of order (commander of the order) was a special case of a uniform, and the order badge itself was a common addition to any uniform.

The core of the system of titles, orders and uniforms was the rank - the rank of each civil servant (military, civilian or courtier). Before Peter I, the concept of “rank” meant any position, honorary title, or social position of a person. On January 24, 1722, Peter I introduced a new system of titles in Russia, the legal basis of which was the “Table of Ranks.” Since then, “rank” has acquired a narrower meaning, relating only to public service. The report card provided for three main types of service: military, civilian and court. Each was divided into 14 ranks, or classes.

The civil service was built on the principle that an employee had to go through the entire hierarchy from bottom to top, starting with the service of the lowest class rank. In each class it was necessary to serve a certain minimum of years (in the lowest 3-4 years). There were fewer senior positions than lower ones. Class denoted the rank of a position, which was called class rank. The title “official” was assigned to its owner.

Only the nobility—local and service nobility—were allowed to participate in public service. Both were hereditary: the title of nobility was passed on to the wife, children and distant descendants in the male line. Daughters who married acquired the class status of their husband. Noble status was usually formalized in the form of genealogy, family coat of arms, portraits of ancestors, legends, titles and orders. Thus, a sense of continuity of generations, pride in one’s family and the desire to preserve its good name gradually formed in the mind. Taken together, they constituted the concept of “noble honor,” an important component of which was the respect and trust of others in an untarnished name. The total number of the noble class and class officials (with family members) was equal in the middle of the 19th century. 1 million

The noble origin of a hereditary nobleman was determined by the merits of his family to the Fatherland. Official recognition of such merits was expressed by the common title of all nobles - “your honor.” The private title “nobleman” was not used in everyday life. Its replacement was the predicate “master,” which over time began to refer to any other free class. In Europe, other replacements were used: “von” for German surnames, “don” for Spanish ones, “de” for French ones. In Russia, this formula was transformed into indicating the first name, patronymic and last name. The nominal three-part formula was used only when addressing the noble class: using the full name was the prerogative of the nobles, and the half name was considered a sign of belonging to the ignoble classes.

In the class hierarchy of Russia, the titles achieved and ascribed were very intricately intertwined. The presence of a pedigree indicated the ascribed status, and its absence indicated the achieved one. In the second generation, the achieved (granted) status turned into ascribed (inherited).

Adapted from the source: Shepelev L. E. Titles, uniforms, orders. - M., 1991.

3. Class system

Belonging to a social stratum in slave-owning, caste and class-feudal societies was fixed by official legal or religious norms. In pre-revolutionary Russia, every person knew what class he belonged to. People were, as they say, assigned to one or another social stratum.

In a class society the situation is different. The state does not deal with issues of social security of its citizens. The only controller is the public opinion of people, which is guided by customs, established practices, income, lifestyle and standards of behavior. Therefore, it is very difficult to accurately and unambiguously determine the number of classes in a particular country, the number of strata or layers into which they are divided, and the belonging of people to strata. Criteria are needed that are chosen quite arbitrarily. This is why, in a country as sociologically developed as the United States, different sociologists offer different typologies of classes. In one there are seven, in another there are six, in the third there are five, etc., social strata. The first typology of US classes was proposed in the 40s. XX century American sociologist L. Warner.

Upper-high class included the so-called old families. They consisted of the most successful businessmen and those who were called professionals. They lived in privileged parts of the city.

Low-high class in terms of material well-being it was not inferior to the upper - upper class, but did not include old tribal families.

Upper-middle class consisted of property owners and professionals who had less material wealth compared to people from the two upper classes, but they actively participated in the public life of the city and lived in fairly comfortable areas.

Lower-middle class consisted of low-level employees and skilled workers.

Upper-lower class included low-skilled workers employed in local factories and living in relative prosperity.

Lower-low class consisted of those who are commonly called the “social bottom”. These are the inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places unsuitable for living. They constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and constant humiliation.

In all two-part words, the first word denotes the stratum, or layer, and the second - the class to which this layer belongs.

Other schemes are also proposed, for example: upper-higher, upper-lower, upper-middle, middle-middle, lower-middle, working, lower classes. Or: upper class, upper-middle class, middle and lower-middle class, upper working class and lower working class, underclass. There are many options, but it is important to understand two fundamental points:

there are only three main classes, whatever they may be called: rich, wealthy and poor;

non-primary classes arise from the addition of strata, or layers, lying within one of the major classes.

More than half a century has passed since L. Warner developed his concept of classes. Today it has been replenished with another layer and in its final form it represents a seven-point scale.

Upper-high class includes "aristocrats by blood" who emigrated to America 200 years ago and over many generations amassed untold wealth. They are distinguished by a special way of life, high society manners, impeccable taste and behavior.

Lower-upper class consists mainly of the “new rich” who have not yet managed to create powerful clans that have seized the highest positions in industry, business, and politics.

Typical representatives are a professional basketball player or a pop star, who receive tens of millions, but who have no “aristocrats by blood” in their family.

Upper-middle class consists of the petty bourgeoisie and highly paid professionals - large lawyers, famous doctors, actors or television commentators. Their lifestyle is approaching high society, but they cannot afford a fashionable villa in the most expensive resorts in the world or a rare collection of artistic rarities.

Middle-middle class represents the most massive stratum of a developed industrial society. It includes all well-paid employees, moderately paid professionals, in a word, people of intelligent professions, including teachers, teachers, and middle managers. This is the backbone of the information society and the service sector.
Half an hour before work starts
Barbara and Colin Williams are an average English family. They live in a suburb of London, the town of Watford Junction, which can be reached from central London in 20 minutes in a comfortable, clean train carriage. They are over 40 and both work in an optical center. Colin grinds the lenses and puts them into frames, and Barbara sells the finished glasses. So to speak, it’s a family contract, although they are hired workers and not the owners of an enterprise with about 70 optical workshops.

It should not be surprising that the correspondent did not choose to visit the family of factory workers who for many years personified the largest class - the workers. The situation has changed. Of the total number of Britons who have a job (28.5 million people), the majority are employed in the service sector, only 19% are industrial workers. Unskilled workers in the UK receive an average of £908 per month, while skilled workers receive £1,308.

The minimum basic salary Barbara can expect to earn is £530 per month. Everything else depends on her diligence. Barbara admits that she also had “black” weeks when she did not receive bonuses at all, but sometimes she managed to receive bonuses of more than 200 pounds a week. So on average it comes out to about £1,200 a month, plus “the thirteenth salary.” On average, Colin receives about 1,660 pounds a month.

It is clear that the Williamses value their work, although it takes 45-50 minutes to get there by car during rush hour. My question about whether they were often late seemed strange to Barbara: “My husband and I prefer to arrive half an hour before work starts.” The couple regularly pays taxes, income and social security, which is about a quarter of their income.

Barbara is not afraid that she might lose her job. Perhaps this is due to the fact that she was lucky before, she was never unemployed. But Colin had to sit idle for several months at a time, and he recalls how he once applied for a vacant position that had 80 other people applying for it.

As someone who has worked her entire life, Barbara speaks with undisguised disapproval of people taking the dole without making an effort to find a job. “Do you know how many cases there are when people receive benefits, do not pay taxes and secretly earn extra money somewhere,” she is indignant. Barbara herself chose to work even after the divorce, when, having two children, she could live on an allowance that was higher than her salary. In addition, she refused alimony, having agreed with her ex-husband that he would leave the house to her and the children.

The registered unemployed in the UK are about 6%. Unemployment benefit depends on the number of dependents, averaging around £60 per week.

The Williams family spends around £200 a month on food, which is just below the average English household's spending on groceries (9.1%). Barbara buys food for the family at a local supermarket, cooks at home, although 1-2 times a week she and her husband go to a traditional English “pub” (beerhouse), where you can not only drink good beer, but also have an inexpensive dinner, and even play cards .

What distinguishes the Williams family from others is primarily their house, but not in size (5 rooms plus a kitchen), but in its low rent (20 pounds per week), while the “average” family spends 10 times more.

Lower-middle class are made up of low-level employees and skilled workers, who, by the nature and content of their work, gravitate toward mental rather than physical labor. A distinctive feature is a decent lifestyle.
The budget of a Russian miner's family
The street Graudenzerstrasse in the Ruhr city of Recklinghausen (Germany) is located near the General Blumenthal mine. Here, in a three-story, outwardly nondescript house, at number 12 lives the family of the hereditary German miner Peter Scharf.

Peter Scharf, his wife Ulrika and two children - Katrin and Stefanie - occupy a four-room apartment with a total living area of 92 m2.

Peter earns 4,382 marks per month from the mine. However, in the printout of his earnings there is a fairly decent deduction column: 291 marks for medical care, 409 marks for a contribution to the pension fund, 95 marks for the unemployment benefit fund.

So, a total of 1253 marks were withheld. Seems like a lot. However, according to Peter, these are contributions to the right cause. For example, health insurance provides preferential treatment not only for him, but also for his family members. This means that they will receive many medications for free. He will pay a minimum for the operation, the rest will be covered by the health insurance fund. For example:

Removing the appendix costs the patient six thousand marks. For a member of the cash register - two hundred marks. Free dental treatment.

Having received 3 thousand marks in his hands, Peter pays 650 marks monthly for the apartment, plus 80 for electricity. His expenses would have been even greater if the mine had not provided each miner with seven tons of coal free of charge each year in terms of social assistance. Including pensioners. Those who do not need coal, its cost is recalculated to pay for heating and hot water. Therefore, for the Scharf family, heating and hot water are free.

In total, 2250 marks remain on hand. The family does not deny itself food and clothing. Children eat fruits and vegetables all year round, and they are not cheap in winter. They also spend a lot on children's clothing. To this we must add another 50 marks for a telephone, 120 for life insurance for adult family members, 100 for insurance for children, 300 per quarter for car insurance. And by the way, they don’t have a new one - a Volkswagen Passat made in 1981.

1,500 marks are spent monthly on food and clothing. Other expenses, including rent and electricity, are 1150 marks. If you subtract this from the three thousand that Peter receives in his hands at the mine, then a couple of hundred marks remain.

The children go to the gymnasium, Katrin is in the third grade, Stefanie is in the fifth. Parents do not pay anything for education. Only notebooks and textbooks are paid. There are no school breakfasts at the gymnasium. Children bring their own sandwiches. The only thing they are given is cocoa. It costs two marks a week for each person.

His wife Ulrika works three times a week for four hours as a saleswoman in a grocery store. He receives 480 marks, which, of course, is a good help for the family budget.

— Do you put anything in the bank?

“Not always, and if it weren’t for my wife’s salary, we would be breaking even.”

The tariff agreement for miners for this year states that each miner will receive so-called Christmas money at the end of the year. And this is neither more nor less than 3898 marks.

Source: Arguments and Facts. - 1991. - No. 8.

Upper-lower class includes medium- and low-skilled workers employed in mass production, in local factories, living in relative prosperity, but in a manner of behavior significantly different from the upper and middle classes. Distinctive features: low education (usually complete and incomplete secondary, specialized secondary), passive leisure (watching TV, playing cards or dominoes), primitive entertainment, often excessive consumption of alcohol and non-literary language.

Lower-low class are the inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places unsuitable for living. They either do not have any education, or have only a primary education, most often survive by doing odd jobs, begging, and constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and humiliation. They are usually called the “social bottom”, or underclass. Most often, their ranks are recruited from chronic alcoholics, former prisoners, homeless people, etc.

The middle class (with its inherent layers) is always distinguished from the working class. But the working class is also distinguished from the lower class, which may include the unemployed, the unemployed, the homeless, the poor, etc. As a rule, highly qualified workers are not included in the working class, but in the middle one, but in its lowest stratum, which is filled mainly by low-skilled workers mental labor - employees.

Another option is possible: skilled workers are not included in the middle class, but they constitute two layers in the general working class. Specialists are part of the next layer of the middle class, because the very concept of “specialist” presupposes at least a college-level education.

Between the two poles of the class stratification of American society - the very rich (wealth - $200 million or more) and the very poor (income less than $6.5 thousand per year), who make up approximately the same share of the total population, namely 5% , there is a part of the population that is commonly called the middle class. In industrialized countries it makes up the majority of the population - from 60 to 80%.

The middle class usually includes doctors, teachers and teachers, engineering and technical intelligentsia (including all employees), the middle and petty bourgeoisie (entrepreneurs), highly qualified workers, and executives (managers).

Comparing Western and Russian society, many scientists (and not only them) are inclined to believe that in Russia there is no middle class in the generally accepted sense of the word, or it is extremely small. The basis is two criteria: 1) scientific and technical (Russia has not yet moved to the stage of post-industrial development and therefore the layer of managers, programmers, engineers and workers associated with knowledge-intensive production is smaller here than in England, Japan or the USA); 2) material (the income of the Russian population is immeasurably lower than in Western European society, so a representative of the middle class in the West will turn out to be rich, and our middle class ekes out an existence at the level of the European poor).

The author is convinced that every culture and every society should have its own middle class model, reflecting national specifics. The point is not in the amount of money earned (more precisely, not only in them alone), but in the quality of its spending. In the USSR, most workers received more than the intelligentsia. But what was the money spent on? For cultural leisure, increased education, expansion and enrichment of spiritual needs? Sociological research shows that money was spent on maintaining physical existence, including the cost of alcohol and tobacco. The intelligentsia earned less, but the composition of budget expenditure items did not differ from what the educated part of the population of Western countries spent money on.

The criterion for a country to belong to a post-industrial society is also questionable. Such a society is also called an information society. The main feature and main resource in it is cultural, or intellectual, capital. In a post-industrial society, it is not the working class that rules the roost, but the intelligentsia. It can live modestly, even very modestly, but if it is numerous enough to set living standards for all segments of the population, if it has made the values, ideals and needs it shares become prestigious for other segments, if the majority strives to join its ranks population, there is reason to say that a strong middle class has formed in such a society.

By the end of the existence of the USSR there was such a class. Its boundaries still need to be clarified - it was 10-15%, as most sociologists think, or still 30-40%, as one might assume based on the criteria stated above, this still needs to be talked about and this issue still needs to be studied. After Russia’s transition to the extensive construction of capitalism (which one exactly is still a debatable question), the standard of living of the entire population and especially the former middle class fell sharply. But has the intelligentsia ceased to be such? Hardly. A temporary deterioration in one indicator (income) does not mean a deterioration in another (level of education and cultural capital).

It can be assumed that the Russian intelligentsia, as the basis of the middle class, did not disappear in connection with economic reforms, but rather lay low and wait in the wings. With the improvement of material conditions, its intellectual capital will not only be restored, but also increased. He will be in demand by time and society.

4. Stratification of Russian society

This is perhaps the most controversial and unexplored issue. Domestic sociologists have been studying the problems of the social structure of our society for many years, but all this time their results have been influenced by ideology. Only recently have conditions emerged to objectively and impartially understand the essence of the matter. In the late 80s - early 90s. Sociologists such as T. Zaslavskaya, V. Radaev, V. Ilyin and others proposed approaches to the analysis of the social stratification of Russian society. Despite the fact that these approaches do not agree in many ways, they still make it possible to describe the social structure of our society and consider its dynamics.

From estates to classes

Before the revolution in Russia, the official division of the population was estate, not class. It was divided into two main classes - taxes(peasants, burghers) and tax-exempt(nobility, clergy). Within each class there were smaller classes and layers. The state provided them with certain rights enshrined in law. The rights themselves were guaranteed to the estates only insofar as they performed certain duties in favor of the state (they grew grain, engaged in crafts, served, paid taxes). The state apparatus and officials regulated relations between classes. This was the benefit of bureaucracy. Naturally, the class system was inseparable from the state system. That is why we can define estates as socio-legal groups that differ in the scope of rights and obligations in relation to the state.

According to the 1897 census, the entire population of the country, which is 125 million Russians, was distributed into the following classes: nobles - 1.5% of the entire population, clergy - 0,5%, merchants - 0,3%, philistines - 10,6%, peasants - 77,1%, Cossacks - 2.3%. The first privileged class in Russia was considered the nobility, the second - the clergy. The remaining classes were not privileged. The nobles were hereditary and personal. Not all of them were landowners; many were in government service, which was the main source of subsistence. But those nobles who were landowners constituted a special group - the class of landowners (among the hereditary nobles there were no more than 30% of landowners).

Gradually, classes appeared within other classes. At the turn of the century, the once united peasantry was stratified into poor people (34,7%), middle peasants (15%), wealthy (12,9%), kulaks(1.4%), as well as small and landless peasants, who together made up one third. The bourgeoisie were a heterogeneous formation - the middle urban strata, which included small employees, artisans, handicraftsmen, domestic servants, postal and telegraph employees, students, etc. From their midst and from the peasantry came Russian industrialists, the petty, middle and large bourgeoisie. True, the latter was dominated by yesterday's merchants. The Cossacks were a privileged military class that served on the border.

By 1917 the process of class formation not completed he was at the very beginning. The main reason was the lack of an adequate economic base: commodity-money relations were in their infancy, as was the country’s internal market. They did not cover the main productive force of society - the peasants, who, even after the Stolypin reform, never became free farmers. The working class, numbering about 10 million people, did not consist of hereditary workers; many were half-workers, half-peasants. By the end of the 19th century. The industrial revolution was not completely completed. Manual labor was never replaced by machines, even in the 80s. XX V. it accounted for 40%. The bourgeoisie and proletariat did not become the main classes of society. The government created enormous privileges for domestic entrepreneurs, limiting free competition. The lack of competition strengthened the monopoly and hampered the development of capitalism, which never moved from the early to the mature stage. The low material level of the population and the limited capacity of the domestic market did not allow the working masses to become full-fledged consumers. Thus, the per capita income in Russia in 1900 was 63 rubles per year, and in England - 273, in the USA - 346. The population density was 32 times less than in Belgium. 14% of the population lived in cities, while in England - 78%, in the USA - 42%. Objective conditions for the emergence of a middle class, acting as a stabilizer of society, did not exist in Russia.

Classless society

The October Revolution, carried out by non-class and non-class strata of the urban and rural poor, led by the militant Bolshevik Party, easily destroyed the old social structure of Russian society. On its ruins it was necessary to create a new one. It was officially named classless. So it was in fact, since the objective and only basis for the emergence of classes was destroyed - private property. The process of class formation that had begun was eliminated in the bud. The official ideology of Marxism, which officially equalized everyone in rights and financial status, did not allow the restoration of the class system.

In history, within one country, a unique situation arose when all known types of social stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes - were destroyed and not recognized as legitimate. However, as we already know, society cannot exist without social hierarchy and social inequality, even the simplest and most primitive. Russia was not one of them.

The arrangement of the social organization of society was undertaken by the Bolshevik Party, which acted as a representative of the interests of the proletariat - the most active, but far from the largest group of the population. This is the only class that survived the devastating revolution and bloody civil war. As a class, it was solidary, united and organized, which could not be said about the peasant class, whose interests were limited to land ownership and the protection of local traditions. The proletariat is the only class of the old society deprived of any form of property. This is exactly what suited the Bolsheviks most of all, who planned for the first time in history to build a society where there would be no property, inequality, or exploitation.

New class

It is known that no social group of any size can spontaneously organize itself, no matter how much it might want to. Administrative functions were taken over by a relatively small group - the Bolshevik political party, which had accumulated the necessary experience over many years of underground activity. Having nationalized land and enterprises, the party appropriated all state property, and with it power in the state. Gradually formed new class party bureaucracy, which appointed ideologically committed personnel - primarily members of the Communist Party - to key positions in the national economy, culture and science. Since the new class acted as the owner of the means of production, it was an exploiting class that exercised control over the entire society.

The basis of the new class was nomenclature - the highest layer of party functionaries. The nomenclature denotes a list of management positions, the replacement of which occurs by decision of a higher authority. The ruling class includes only those who are members of the regular nomenklatura of party organs - from the nomenklatura of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee to the main nomenclature of the district party committees. None of the nomenklatura could be popularly elected or replaced. In addition, the nomenclature included heads of enterprises, construction, transport, agriculture, defense, science, culture, ministries and departments. The total number is about 750 thousand people, and with family members, the number of the ruling class of the nomenklatura in the USSR reached 3 million people, i.e. 1.5% of the total population.

Stratification of Soviet society

In 1950, the American sociologist A. Inkels, analyzing the social stratification of Soviet society, discovered 4 large groups in it - the ruling elite, the intelligentsia, the working class and the peasantry. With the exception of the ruling elite, each group, in turn, split into several layers. Yes, in the group intelligentsia 3 subgroups were found:

the upper stratum, the mass intelligentsia (professionals, middle officials and managers, junior officers and technicians), “white collar workers” (ordinary employees - accountants, cashiers, lower managers). Working class included the “aristocracy” (the most skilled workers), ordinary workers of average skill and lagging, low-skilled workers. Peasantry consisted of 2 subgroups - successful and average collective farmers. In addition to them, A. Inkels especially singled out the so-called residual group, where he included prisoners held in labor camps and correctional colonies. This part of the population, like the outcasts in the Indian caste system, was outside the formal class structure.

The differences in income of these groups turned out to be greater than in the United States and Western Europe. In addition to high salaries, the elite of Soviet society received additional benefits: a personal driver and a company car, a comfortable apartment and a country house, closed shops and clinics, boarding houses, and special rations. Lifestyle, clothing style and behavior patterns also differed significantly. True, social inequality was leveled to a certain extent thanks to free education and healthcare, pension and social insurance, as well as low prices for public transport and low rent.

Summarizing the 70-year period of development of Soviet society, the famous Soviet sociologist T. I. Zaslavskaya in 1991 identified 3 groups in its social system: upper class, lower class and separating them interlayer. The basis upper class constitutes a nomenclature that unites the highest layers of the party, military, state and economic bureaucracy. She is the owner of national wealth, most of which she spends on herself, receiving explicit (salary) and implicit (free goods and services) income. Lower class are formed by hired workers of the state: workers, peasants, intelligentsia. They have no property and no political rights. Characteristic features of the lifestyle: low incomes, limited consumption patterns, overcrowding in communal apartments, low level of medical care, poor health.

Social interlayer between the upper and lower classes form social groups serving the nomenklatura: middle managers, ideological workers, party journalists, propagandists, social studies teachers, medical staff of special clinics, drivers of personal cars and other categories of servants of the nomenklatura elite, as well as successful artists, lawyers, writers, diplomats, commanders of the army, navy, KGB and Ministry of Internal Affairs. Although the service stratum appears to occupy a place that usually belongs to the middle class, such similarities are deceptive. The basis of the middle class in the West is private property, which ensures political and social independence. However, the service stratum is dependent in everything; it has neither private property nor the right to dispose of public property.

These are the main foreign and domestic theories of social stratification of Soviet society. We had to turn to them because the issue is still controversial. Perhaps in the future new approaches will appear that in some ways or in many ways clarify the old ones, because our society is constantly changing, and this sometimes happens in such a way that all the predictions of scientists are refuted.

The uniqueness of Russian stratification

Let us summarize and, from this point of view, determine the main contours of the current state and future development of social stratification in Russia. The main conclusion is the following. Soviet society has never been socially homogeneous, there has always been social stratification in it, which is a hierarchically ordered inequality. Social groups formed something like a pyramid, in which the layers differed in the amount of power, prestige, and wealth. Since there was no private property, there was no economic basis for the emergence of classes in the Western sense. Society was not open, but closed, like class and caste. However, there were no estates in the usual sense of the word in Soviet society, since there was no legal recognition of social status, as was the case in feudal Europe.

At the same time, in Soviet society there actually existed class-like And class-like groups. Let's look at why this was so. For 70 years, Soviet society was most mobile in the world society along with America. Free education available to all classes opened up for everyone the same opportunities for advancement that existed only in the United States. Nowhere in the world has the elite of society been formed in a short period of time from literally all strata of society. According to American sociologists, Soviet society was the most dynamic in terms of not only education and social mobility, but also industrial development. For many years, the USSR held first place in terms of the pace of industrial progress. All these are signs of a modern industrial society that put the USSR, as Western sociologists wrote about, among the leading nations of the world.

At the same time, Soviet society must be classified as class society. The basis of class stratification is non-economic coercion, which persisted in the USSR for more than 70 years. After all, only private property, commodity-money relations and a developed market can destroy it, and they just didn’t exist. The place of legal consolidation of social status was taken by ideological and party status. Depending on party experience and ideological loyalty, a person moved up the ladder or moved down into the “residual group.” Rights and responsibilities were determined in relation to the state; all groups of the population were its employees, but depending on their profession and party membership, they occupied different places in the hierarchy. Although the ideals of the Bolsheviks had nothing in common with feudal principles, the Soviet state returned to them in practice - significantly modifying them - in that. which divided the population into “taxable” and “non-taxable” layers.

Thus, Russia should be classified as mixed type stratification, but with a significant caveat. Unlike England and Japan, feudal remnants were not preserved here in the form of a living and highly respected tradition, they were not layered on the new class structure. There was no historical continuity. On the contrary, in Russia the class system was first undermined by capitalism and then finally destroyed by the Bolsheviks. Classes that did not have time to develop under capitalism were also destroyed. Nevertheless, essential, although modified, elements of both systems of stratification were revived in a type of society that, in principle, does not tolerate any stratification, any inequality. This is historically new and a unique type of mixed stratification.

Stratification of post-Soviet Russia

After the well-known events of the mid-80s and early 90s, called the peaceful revolution, Russia turned to market relations, democracy and a class society similar to the Western one. Within 5 years, the country has almost formed an upper class of property owners, constituting about 5% of the total population, and the social lower classes of society have formed, whose standard of living is below the poverty line. And the middle of the social pyramid is occupied by small entrepreneurs who, with varying degrees of success, are trying to get into the ruling class. As the standard of living of the population rises, the middle part of the pyramid will begin to be replenished with an increasing number of representatives not only of the intelligentsia, but also of all other strata of society oriented towards business, professional work and career. From it the middle class of Russia will be born.

The basis, or social base, of the upper class was still the same nomenclature, who, by the beginning of economic reforms, occupied key positions in economics, politics, and culture. The opportunity to privatize enterprises and transfer them to private and group ownership came at the right time for her. In essence, the nomenklatura only legalized its position as the real manager and owner of the means of production. Two other sources of replenishment of the upper class are businessmen in the shadow economy and the engineering stratum of the intelligentsia. The former were actually the pioneers of private entrepreneurship at a time when engaging in it was persecuted by law. They have behind them not only practical experience in business management, but also prison experience of being persecuted by the law (at least for some). The second are ordinary civil servants who left scientific research institutes, design bureaus and hard labor companies on time, and are the most active and inventive.

Opportunities for vertical mobility opened up very unexpectedly for the majority of the population and closed very quickly. It became almost impossible to get into the upper class of society 5 years after the start of reforms. Its capacity is objectively limited and amounts to no more than 5% of the population. The ease with which large capital investments were made during the first Five-Year Plan of capitalism has disappeared. Today, to gain access to the elite, you need capital and opportunities that most people do not have. It's like it's happening top class closure, it passes laws restricting access to its ranks, creating private schools that make it difficult for others to obtain the education they need. The entertainment sector of the elite is no longer accessible to all other categories. It includes not only expensive salons, boarding houses, bars, clubs, but also holidays at world resorts.

At the same time, access to the rural and urban middle class is open. The stratum of farmers is extremely small and does not exceed 1%. The urban middle strata have not yet formed. But their replenishment depends on how soon the “new Russians,” the elite of society and the country’s leadership will pay for qualified mental work not at the subsistence level, but at its market price. As we remember, the core of the middle class in the West consists of teachers, lawyers, doctors, journalists, writers, scientists and middle managers. The stability and prosperity of Russian society will depend on success in the formation of the middle class.

5. Poverty and inequality

Inequality and poverty are concepts closely related to social stratification. Inequality characterizes the uneven distribution of society's scarce resources - money, power, education and prestige - between different strata, or layers of the population. The main measure of inequality is the amount of liquid assets. This function is usually performed by money (in primitive societies inequality was expressed in the number of small and large livestock, shells, etc.).

If inequality is represented as a scale, then at one pole there will be those who own the most (the rich), and at the other - the least (the poor) amount of goods. Thus, poverty is the economic and sociocultural state of people who have a minimum amount of liquid assets and limited access to social benefits. The most common and easy-to-calculate way to measure inequality is to compare the lowest and highest incomes in a given country. Pitirim Sorokin compared different countries and different historical eras in this way. For example, in medieval Germany the ratio of top to bottom income was 10,000:1, and in medieval England it was 600:1. Another way is to analyze the share of family income spent on food. It turns out that the rich spend only 5-7% of their family budget on food, and the poor - 50-70%. The poorer the individual, the more he spends on food, and vice versa.

Essence social inequality lies in the unequal access of different categories of the population to social benefits, such as money, power and prestige. Essence economic inequality is that a minority of the population always owns the majority of national wealth. In other words, the highest incomes are received by the smallest part of society, and the average and lowest incomes are received by the majority of the population. The latter can be distributed in different ways. In the United States in 1992, the lowest incomes, as well as the highest, were received by a minority of the population, and the average by the majority. In Russia in 1992, when the ruble exchange rate sharply collapsed and inflation consumed all ruble reserves of the vast majority of the population, the majority received the lowest incomes, a relatively small group received average incomes, and the minority of the population received the highest incomes. Accordingly, the income pyramid, its distribution between population groups, in other words, inequality, in the first case can be depicted as a rhombus, and in the second - as a cone (Diagram 3). As a result, we get a stratification profile, or an inequality profile.

In the USA, 14% of the total population lived near the poverty line, in Russia - 81%, 5% were rich, and those who could be classified as prosperous or middle class were respectively

81% and 14%. (For data on Russia, see: Poverty: Scientists’ views on the problem / Edited by M. A. Mozhina. - M., 1994. - P. 6.)

Rich

The universal measure of inequality in modern society is money. Their number determines the place of an individual or family in social stratification. The rich are those who own the maximum amount of money. Wealth is expressed by a monetary amount that determines the value of everything that a person owns: a house, a car, a yacht, a collection of paintings, shares, insurance policies, etc. They are liquid - they can always be sold. The rich are so called because they own the most liquid assets, be it oil companies, commercial banks, supermarkets, publishing houses, castles, islands, luxury hotels or painting collections. A person who has all this is considered rich. Wealth is something that accumulates over many years and is inherited, which allows you to live comfortably without working.

The rich are called differently millionaires, multimillionaires And billionaires. In the US, wealth is distributed as follows: 1) 0.5% of the super rich own assets worth $2.5 million. and more; 2) 0.5% of the very rich own from 1.4 to 2.5 million dollars;

3) 9% of the rich - from 206 thousand dollars. up to 1.4 million dollars; 4) 90% of the rich class own less than $206 thousand. In total, 1 million people in the United States own assets worth more than $1 million. These include the “old rich” and the “new rich.” The first accumulated wealth over decades and even centuries, passing it on from generation to generation. The latter created their well-being in a matter of years. These include, in particular, professional athletes. It is known that the average annual income of an NBA basketball player is $1.2 million. They have not yet become hereditary nobility, and it is unknown whether they will become one. They can disperse their wealth among many heirs, each of whom will receive a small portion and, therefore, will not be classified as rich. They may go bankrupt or lose their wealth in other ways.

Thus, the “new rich” are those who have not had time to test the strength of their fortune over time. On the contrary, the “old rich” have money invested in corporations, banks, and real estate, which bring reliable profits. They are not scattered, but multiplied by the efforts of tens and hundreds of the same rich people. Mutual marriages between them create a clan network that insures each individual from possible ruin.

The layer of “old rich” consists of 60 thousand families belonging to the aristocracy “by blood,” that is, by family origin. It includes only white Anglo-Saxons of the Protestant religion, whose roots stretch back to the American settlers of the 18th century. and whose wealth was accumulated back in the 19th century. Among the 60 thousand richest families, 400 families of the super-rich stand out, constituting a kind of property elite of the upper class. In order to get into it, the minimum amount of wealth must exceed $275 million. The entire rich class in the United States does not exceed 5-6% of the population, which is more than 15 million people.

400 selected

Since 1982, Forbes, a magazine for businessmen, has published a list of the 400 richest people in America. In 1989, the total value of their property minus liabilities (assets minus debts) equaled the total value of goods and. services created by Switzerland and Jordan, namely $268 billion. The entrance fee to the club of the elite is $275 million, and the average wealth of its members is $670 million. Of these, 64 men, including D. Trump, T. Turner and X. Perrault, and two women had a fortune of $1 billion. and higher. 40% of the chosen ones inherited wealth, 6% built it on a relatively modest family foundation, 54% were self-made men.

Few of America's great riches date their beginnings to before the Civil War. However, this “old” money is the basis of wealthy aristocratic families such as the Rockefellers and Du Ponts. On the contrary, the savings of the “new rich” began in the 40s. XX century

They increase only because they have little time, compared to others, for their wealth to “scatter” - thanks to inheritance - over several generations of relatives. The main channel of accumulation is ownership of the media, movable and immovable property, and financial speculation.

87% of the super-rich are men, 13% are women, who inherited wealth as the daughters or widows of multimillionaires. All the rich are white, most of them Protestants of Anglo-Saxon roots. The vast majority live in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Washington. Only 1/5 graduated from elite universities, the majority have 4 years of college behind them. Many graduated from the university with a bachelor's degree in economics and law. Ten do not have higher education. 21 people are emigrants.

Abbreviated from source:HessIN.,MarksonE.,Stein P. Sociology. - N.Y., 1991.-R.192.

Poor

While inequality characterizes society as a whole, poverty affects only part of the population. Depending on how high the level of economic development of a country is, poverty affects a significant or insignificant part of the population. As we have seen, in 1992 in the United States, 14% of the population was classified as poor, and in Russia - 80%. Sociologists refer to the scale of poverty as the proportion of a country's population (usually expressed as a percentage) living at the official poverty line, or threshold. The terms “poverty level”, “poverty lines” and “poverty ratio” are also used to indicate the scale of poverty.

The poverty threshold is an amount of money (usually expressed, for example, in dollars or rubles) officially established as the minimum income that allows an individual or family to purchase food, clothing and housing. It is also called the "poverty level". In Russia it received an additional name - living wage. The subsistence level is a set of goods and services (expressed in the prices of actual purchases) that allows a person to satisfy the minimum acceptable, from a scientific point of view, needs. The poor spend 50 to 70% of their income on food; as a result, they do not have enough money for medicines, utilities, apartment repairs, and purchasing good furniture and clothing. They are often unable to pay for their children’s education at a fee-paying school or university.

The boundaries of poverty change over historical time. Previously, humanity lived much worse and the number of poor people was higher. In ancient Greece, 90% of the population lived in poverty by the standards of that time. In Renaissance England, about 60% of the population was considered poor. In the 19th century Poverty levels have dropped to 50%. In the 30s XX century only a third of the English were classified as poor, and 50 years later this figure was only 15%. As J. Galbraith aptly noted, in the past poverty was the lot of the majority, but today it is the lot of the minority.

Traditionally, sociologists have distinguished between absolute and relative poverty. Under absolute poverty is understood as a state in which an individual, with his income, is not able to satisfy even the basic needs for food, housing, clothing, warmth, or is able to satisfy only the minimum needs that ensure biological survival. The numerical criterion is the poverty threshold (subsistence level).

Under relative poverty refers to the impossibility of maintaining a decent standard of living, or some standard of living accepted in a given society. Relative poverty measures how poor you are compared to other people.

- unemployed;

- low-paid workers;

- recent immigrants;

- people who moved from village to city;

— national minorities (especially blacks);

— tramps and homeless people;

People who are unable to work due to old age, disability or illness;

- single-parent families headed by a woman.

The new poor in Russia

Society is split into two unequal parts: outsiders and marginalized (60%) and wealthy (20%). Another 20% fell into the group with an income from 100 to 1000 dollars, i.e. with a 10-fold difference at the poles. Moreover, some of its “inhabitants” clearly gravitate towards the upper pole, while others - towards the lower one. Between them is a failure, a “black hole”. Thus, we still do not have a middle class - the basis for the stability of society.

Why did almost half the population find itself below the poverty line? We are constantly told that the way we work is the way we live... So there is no point in blaming the mirror, as they say... Yes, our labor productivity is lower than, say, the Americans. But, according to Academician D. Lvov, our wages are outrageously low even in relation to our low labor productivity. With us, a person receives only 20% of what he earns (and even then with huge delays). It turns out that, based on 1 dollar of salary, our average worker produces 3 times more products than an American. Scientists believe that as long as wages do not depend on labor productivity, one cannot expect that people will work better. What incentive can a nurse, for example, have to work if she can only buy a monthly pass with her salary?

It is believed that additional income helps to survive. But, as studies show, those who have money have more opportunities to earn extra money—highly qualified specialists, people in high official positions.

Thus, additional earnings do not smooth out, but increase income gaps by 25 times or more.

But people don’t even see their meager salary for months. And this is another reason for mass impoverishment.

From a letter to the editor: “This year my children - 13 and 19 years old - had nothing to wear to school and college: we have no money for clothes and textbooks. There is no money even for bread. We eat crackers that were dried 3 years ago. There are potatoes and vegetables from my garden. A mother who collapses from hunger shares her pension with us. But we are not quitters, my husband doesn’t drink or smoke. But he is a miner, and they haven’t been paid for several months. I was a teacher in a kindergarten, but it was recently closed. My husband cannot leave the mine, since there is nowhere else to get a job and he has 2 years until retirement. Should we go trade, as our leaders urge? But our whole city is already trading. And no one buys anything, because no one has money - everything goes to the miner!” (L. Lisyutina, Venev, Tula region). Here is a typical example of a “new poor” family. These are those who, due to their education, qualifications, and social status, have never before been among the low-income.

Moreover, it must be said that the burden of inflation hits the poor the hardest. At this time, prices rise for essential goods and services. And all the spending of the poor comes down to them. For 1990-1996 for the poor, the cost of living increased by 5-6 thousand times, and for the rich - by 4.9 thousand times.

Poverty is dangerous because it seems to reproduce itself. Poor material security leads to deterioration of health, lack of qualifications, and deprofessionalization. And in the end - to degradation. Poverty is sinking.

The heroes of Gorky's play "At the Lower Depths" came into our lives. 14 million of our fellow citizens are “bottom dwellers”: 4 million are homeless, 3 million are beggars, 4 million are street children, 3 million are street and station prostitutes.

In half of the cases, people become outcasts due to a tendency to vice or weakness of character. The rest are victims of social policy.

Three-quarters of Russians are not confident that they will be able to escape poverty.

The funnel that pulls to the bottom sucks in more and more people. The most dangerous zone is the bottom. There are now 4.5 million people there.

Increasingly, life pushes desperate people to the last step, which saves them from all problems.

In recent years, Russia has taken one of the first places in the world in terms of the number of suicides. In 1995, out of 100 thousand people, 41 committed suicide.

Based on materials from the Institute of Socio-Economic Problems of Population of the Russian Academy of Sciences.