How to turn this paragraph into a personal opinion? The theory put forward by Davis and Moore, known as the structural-functionalist perspective, views social inequality as an essential mechanism within society. According to this theory, different roles in society carry different levels of importance, which justifies different levels of reward. Essentially, they argue that the most challenging and important roles should offer higher rewards to attract the best-suited individuals. This concept supports a structured chain of command where people are motivated to train for and pursue higher status jobs, which are necessary for the stability and functionality of society. The theory points out that this stratification ensures that roles are not left vacant and that those occupying these roles are highly capable and motivated by rewards such as higher income, greater prestige, or more power. On the other hand, I tend to agree more with Melvin Tumin's critique of Davis and Moore's theory. I think Tumin raises an important point by challenging the assumption that rewards always match the importance of a job to society. It's hard to ignore how some individuals in entertainment or social media receive excessive rewards compared to those in critical but lower-paying professions, like teaching or healthcare. To me, this indicates that the system of rewards is not solely based on the value or importance of work but rather on market demand and social influence, which complicates the idea that inequality is purely merit-based.
How to turn this paragraph into a personal opinion?
The theory put forward by Davis and Moore, known as the structural-functionalist perspective, views social inequality as an essential mechanism within society. According to this theory, different roles in society carry different levels of importance, which justifies different levels of reward. Essentially, they argue that the most challenging and important roles should offer higher rewards to attract the best-suited individuals. This concept supports a structured chain of command where people are motivated to train for and pursue higher status jobs, which are necessary for the stability and functionality of society. The theory points out that this stratification ensures that roles are not left vacant and that those occupying these roles are highly capable and motivated by rewards such as higher income, greater prestige, or more power.
On the other hand, I tend to agree more with Melvin Tumin's critique of Davis and Moore's theory. I think Tumin raises an important point by challenging the assumption that rewards always match the importance of a job to society. It's hard to ignore how some individuals in entertainment or social media receive excessive rewards compared to those in critical but lower-paying professions, like teaching or healthcare. To me, this indicates that the system of rewards is not solely based on the value or importance of work but rather on market demand and social influence, which complicates the idea that inequality is purely merit-based.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
