Direct Response To Tumin's Analysis

Ariel Bailey
Dr. Thomas
Debate Paper
12 October 2014
Tumin’s Analysis On Friday, I was assigned to Tumin’s debate. His paper was a direct response to Davis and Moore’s, “Some Principles of Stratification.” While they argued that stratification was functional, Tumin argued back that is was not functional. Davis and Moore say that there are certain groups of people that can only do certain jobs and only some people have the talent to achieve certain positions. Tumin argues that only a certain some people get this opportunity because of who they already are and their current status. “And the more rigidly stratified a society is, the less chance does that society have of discovering any new facts about the talents of its member” (Tumin 389).

“Social inequality is thus an unconsciously evolved device by which societies insure that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons” (Davis and Moore 243). Tumin argues back that there have to be other motivations than what Davis and Moore believe. He also argues against that the highest positions deserve such rewards and the prestige that they want. Tumin gives the argument comparing an engineer and workman. “In the long run, some labor force of unskilled workmen is as important and as indispensable to the factory as some labor force of engineers” (Tumin 388). No matter the talent or skills, another position can be just as important. He also would argue the ‘so-called’ sacrifices people made for training is not really big sacrifices. Davis and Moore say that rewards need to be high because of their sacrifices for their training (244). Tumin says that the cost of money it is to go through training is already being taken care of, and that it technically gives them more freedom because it keeps them from working and keeps them from coming independent yet