What is inequality in society. Social inequality: causes, signs, examples. Solving the problem of social inequality

02.03.2020

The author analyzes various types of social inequality, highlighting the specifics of inequality in the field of education. State the main difference between inequality determined by education and other types of inequality. Based on the text, knowledge of the social science course, the facts of public life, give three other manifestations of inequality in modern society.

Read the text and complete tasks 21-24.

Education as a social institution Education in modern countries is a very wide and highly developed differentiated multilevel social systems(subsystems of society) continuous improvement of the knowledge and skills of members of society, which play an important role in the socialization of the individual, its preparation for obtaining one or another social status and the performance of appropriate roles, in the stabilization, integration and improvement of social systems. Education plays a very important role in determining the social status of an individual, in the reproduction and development of the social structure of society, in maintaining social order and stability, and exercising social control.

Education, along with the army, church and industry, is one of the lifts of social mobility. Having gained knowledge and highly qualified in modern society it is much easier to make a career than a) it was in pre-industrial and industrial society, b) if a person did not possess them.

For a long time and to this day, education as a social institution has been the main mechanism for social testing, selection and distribution of individuals by social strata and groups. The education system was entrusted with the functions of social control over the processes of intellectual, moral, and physical development of the younger generation. And on the system vocational education in addition, there are also functions of control over the distribution of the generation entering independent working life into various cells of the social structure of society: classes, social groups, strata, production teams.

Thus, education is one of the main channels of social mobility, playing an important role in the social differentiation of members of society, their distribution both among social strata and within these strata. The position of an individual in society, the opportunities for his successful promotion up the career ladder are determined by the quality of the education received, which is largely related to the prestige of the educational institution.

The way it is. An uneducated person cannot get a highly paid and responsible job, no matter what. social background he neither was. The educated and the uneducated have unequal life chances, but the situation can always be corrected by improving one's qualifications, one has only to apply individual conditions. What distinguishes inequality in the field of education from other types of inequality, say, inherited, is that it puts a person in an unprivileged position temporarily. But if you were born the son of a king or a hereditary nobleman, then this is forever. Nothing can be done about such inequalities based on prescribed statuses.

(G.E. Tadevosyan)

Explanation.

The correct answer must contain the following elements:

1) The main difference between inequality in the field of education is indicated, for example:

Inequality in the field of education depends on the will and desire of the person himself, it can be corrected by improving one's qualifications.

2) Other types of inequality that are characteristic of modern society are given, for example:

Inequality based on prescribed statuses, such as ethnicity or social origin;

Inequality based on where a person lives, whether metropolitan or provincial;

Inequality associated with the peculiarities of appearance or health status, conditions of upbringing in the family.

Other manifestations of social inequality can also be cited.

Subject area: Social relations. Social stratification and mobility

The basis of the reason for the unequal position of people in society, some representatives of sociological thought, consider the social division of labor. However, scientists explain in different ways the ensuing consequences and, especially, the reasons for the reproduction of inequality.

Herbert Spencer believes that the source of inequality is conquest. Thus, the ruling class - the winners, and the lower class - the vanquished. Prisoners of war become slaves, free farmers become serfs. On the other hand, frequent or constant wars lead to the deliberate dominance of those who function in the state and military sphere. Thus, the law of natural selection operates: the stronger dominate and occupy a privileged position, while the weak obey them and are on the lower rungs of the social ladder.

The development of the sociology of inequality, the idea of evolution and the law of natural selection had a significant impact. One of the directions of evolutionism is social Darwinism. Common to all representatives of this trend was the recognition that the same struggle is going on between human societies as between biological organisms.

Karl Marx believed that initially the division of labor does not lead to the subordination of some people to others, but, being a factor in the mastery of natural resources, causes professional specialization. But the complication of the production process contributes to the division of labor into physical and mental. This division historically preceded the formation of private property and classes. With their appearance, certain areas, types and functions of activity are assigned to the corresponding classes. Since then, each class has been engaged in the kind of activity intended for it, owns or does not own property, and is located on different rungs of the ladder of social positions. The causes of inequality lie in the system of production, in a different relationship to the means of production, which allows those who own property not only to exploit those who do not have it, but also to dominate them. To eliminate inequality, the expropriation of private property and its nationalization is necessary.

In contrast to Marx, Weber, in addition to the economic aspect of stratification, took into account such aspects as power and prestige. Weber viewed property, power, and prestige as three separate, interacting factors that underlie hierarchies in any society. Differences in ownership give rise to economic classes; differences of power give rise to political parties, and differences of prestige give rise to status groupings or strata. From here he formulated his idea of "three autonomous dimensions of stratification." He emphasized that "classes", "status groups" and "parties" are phenomena related to the distribution of power within the community.
Weber's main contradiction with Marx is that, according to Weber, a class cannot be the subject of action, since it is not a community. In contrast to Marx, Weber associated the concept of class only with capitalist society, where the market is the most important regulator of relations. Through it, people satisfy their needs for material goods and services.

However, in the market people occupy different positions or are in different “class situations”. Here everyone sells and buys. Some sell goods, services; others - the labor force. The difference here is that some people own property and others don't. Weber does not have a clear class structure of capitalist society, so different interpreters of his work give inconsistent lists of classes.

Considering his methodological principles and summarizing his historical, economic and sociological works, one can in the following way to reconstruct Weber's typology of classes under capitalism:

1. The dispossessed working class. It offers on the market
their services and differentiated by skill level.
2. Petty bourgeoisie - a class of small businessmen and merchants.
3. Dispossessed white-collar workers: technical specialists and intelligentsia.
4. Administrators and managers.
5. Owners who also strive through education for the advantages that intellectuals have.
5.1 The class of owners, i.e. those who receive rent from land ownership,
mines, etc.
5.2 “Commercial Grade”, i.e. entrepreneurs.

Inequality criteria

Max Weber identified three criteria for inequality:

Wealth.

The level of education.

The degree of religious or ritual purity under the caste system in India.

Ranking by related and ethnic groups.

The first criterion can be used to measure the degree of inequality in terms of income differences. With the help of the second criterion - by the difference in honor and respect. With the help of the third criterion - by the number of subordinates. Sometimes there is a contradiction between the criteria, for example, a professor and a priest today have a low income, but enjoy great prestige. The leader of the mafia is rich, but his prestige in society is minimal. Rich people statistically live longer and get sick less. A person's career is influenced by wealth, race, education, parental occupation, and personal ability to lead people. Higher education makes it easier to move up the corporate ladder in large companies than in small ones.

Social inequality - a form of differentiation in which individuals, social groups strata, classes are at different levels of the vertical social hierarchy and have unequal life chances and opportunities to meet needs.

In the very general view inequality means that people live in conditions in which they have unequal access to limited resources of material and spiritual consumption.

Fulfilling qualitatively unequal working conditions, satisfying social needs to varying degrees, people sometimes find themselves engaged in economically heterogeneous labor, because such types of labor have a different assessment of their social utility.

The main mechanisms of social inequality are the relations of property, power (domination and subordination), social (that is, socially fixed and hierarchized) division of labor, as well as uncontrolled, spontaneous social differentiation. These mechanisms are mainly associated with the features market economy, with inevitable competition (including in the labor market) and unemployment. Social inequality is perceived and experienced by many people (primarily the unemployed, economic migrants, those who are at or below the poverty line) as a manifestation of injustice. Social inequality, property stratification of society, as a rule, lead to an increase in social tension, especially in the transition period. This is what is characteristic of Russia today.

The main principles of social policy implementation are:

the establishment of socialist power with the subsequent transition to communism and the withering away of the state;

protection of living standards by introducing various forms of compensation for price increases and indexation;

providing assistance to the poorest families;

the issuance of assistance in case of unemployment;

ensuring social insurance policy, establishing a minimum wages for employees;

development of education, protection of health, environment mainly at the expense of the state;

pursuing an active policy aimed at ensuring qualifications.

And the development of our planet in the global sense of the word? Interesting thoughts on this subject were expressed by a well-known physicist from the UK, Mr. Stephen Hawking. In his opinion, the most dangerous time period for our entire planet has now come. In his publication, which was recently published in the popular The Guardian, the scientist drew public attention to the ever-growing gap between social elites, including prominent politicians, financiers and ordinary people. This generalized term refers to the working and so-called middle class. The ubiquitous robotization reinforces the lack of practical need for human resources. Ordinary people are no longer so important to the elites to increase their profits. This leads to internal contradiction and potential conflict between different social groups in our society. The Internet and technological tools that speed up processes social inequality allow a small group of people to extract super profits, creating a minimum of real jobs. On the one hand, this is a natural progress, which has always been considered positive. However, the fact that it is socially destructive in its essence is undeniable.

Increasing number of poor people

Let's try to figure this out together. Let us analyze practical examples of how the common people's rejection of the trends in the modern structure of world society is already clearly manifesting itself. Take at least as a basis the results of the last presidential elections in the United States of America. This country can be considered a good example, because. Western "democrats" popularize this model and often aggressively impose it on other peoples. But is everything all right there? The discussed results of the presidential elections actually surprised the American elites. They really have something to think about. Why did Trump win? Let's leave aside the explanations of the "democrats" that he left on jokes and racism. As statistics show, his victory was ensured by precisely those regions in which the working and middle class predominate, and which, accordingly, feel the most inequality in society. If you look at American financial statistics, over the past five decades, the average wage has increased by only $1. It went from $19 to $20 an hour. In other words, taking into account inflationary processes, the overall growth in labor productivity and widespread technological effectiveness did nothing to increase the wealth of the middle class. Moreover, since the 21st century, another trend has become more pronounced: the number of poor US citizens has increased significantly and the middle class has decreased in number. The number of those who have an income of more than $100,000 per year and were previously considered a slightly above average class has also become much smaller. Against this background, there was a reduction in American jobs. They "emigrated" to Southeast Asia, Mexico, South America. At the same time, for example, immigration from Mexico still increased. This only intensified the real competition in the intra-American market for vacancies for workers and employees.

America is one of the most corrupt countries

Further more. Financial crisis 2008 exacerbated the negative picture in society. But, first of all, it was not banks and financial tycoons who suffered, but ordinary people. Some of them were left without houses, because. unable to make mortgage payments. The American elites bailed out the multinationals and banks, but they did so at the expense of the taxpayers. However, few thought about the latter. It is noteworthy that in 2010 the US Supreme Court made a little-known decision with the name Citizens United. Briefly speaking, it established the updated rules of the political game in the American "democratic" state. What was it expressed in? Banks and large corporations were given the opportunity to participate with an unlimited number of banknotes in US election campaigns at all levels. American elites love to criticize third countries for corruption. However, in America itself, for more than 5 years, real corruption has been completely legalized. Long gone are the days when politicians who raised funds for their fair campaign through infusions of voters ended up defending their interests later. Today they are forced to serve rich "donors", without whose money there would be no victories. A similar picture is observed in the island of Great Britain. There are specific features of the British, but in general, Brexit can also be considered clear evidence of social inequality and that the populace is not satisfied current position affairs.

Social discontent will grow

Considering that socio-economic and political problems, briefly analyzed on the example of the United States and Britain, can automatically spread to most other countries of the world, it becomes clear that the alienation between politicians, financial and industrial magnates and the people is growing more and more every year, which means that discontent in society will also grow. Thus, the reflections of the British physicist are absolutely logical and more relevant than ever for our time. The eternal question remains: what to do. There is no single answer. So far, there is only an understanding that the world is on the verge of change. Barriers must be removed, not created, both within countries and at the interstate level. And remember about eternal values, understanding that capital and resources should serve everyone, not the chosen ones.

Social inequality

Inequality of people and social inequality.

social stratification.

social mobility.

The problems of social inequality are very close to everyday, everyday consciousness and feelings of people. Since ancient times, people have noticed and experienced that some people are unequal to others. This was expressed in many ways: in the perception and definition of existing differences as fair or unfair; in secular and religious ideologies that substantiated, justified or, on the contrary, refuted, criticized the existing inequality; in political doctrines and programs that either emphasized the inevitability of inequality and even affirmed its useful social functions or, on the contrary, formulated the ideas of equality, demands for equalizing life chances; in developed philosophical concepts, including the search for sources of inequality in the fundamental features of the human race or in the social conditions of its existence; in ethical theories that interpret equality and inequality as moral categories (values). The problem of inequality and injustice was the topic around which the ground for mass riots, social movements, and revolutions was formed. All this indicates that inequality is an extremely important feature, a hallmark of the human community.

The fact that individuals, separate, concrete people are not equal to others, is a banal truth, an obvious fact. People are tall and short, thin and fat, more intelligent and more stupid, capable and stupid, old and young. Each person has a unique composition of genes, a unique biography and a unique personality warehouse. It is obvious. However, we are not talking about such inequality when we talk about social inequality, that is, about inequality that has social rather than individual characteristics and characteristics. And the most important of these social attributes for a person are the nature of the groups to which he belongs and the nature of the positions he occupies.

Social inequality - unequal access (or unequal chances of access) to socially valuable goods, arising from belonging to different groups or from occupying various public positions

Social inequality is a phenomenon that particularly affects the sphere of people's interests and causes strong emotions. Therefore, discussions on this topic often turn out to be closed within the framework of ideology, that is, such systems of thinking that obey and serve certain group interests. But inequality also remains an important subject of theoretical reflection, the purpose of which is not so much to justify or criticize inequality as to clarify the essence of this phenomenon.

ideologies inequalities.

Despite the many specific formulations and arguments, all ideologies of inequality can be classified into three types. The first is elitist ideologies. They argue that there are groups that, by their very nature, are "higher" than others and therefore should occupy a higher position in society, which finds expression in their privileges, fully justified and justified. Such groups can be formed by birthright, as is the case, for example, in the formation of dynasties, aristocratic circles, citizens of ancient Rome, castes in India. They may also include people who have special prerequisites for this, outstanding abilities, intellect, people who, as it were, are close to God. Examples are tribal elders, shamans, and members of the clergy.

Another type is egalitarian ideologies created by or on behalf of discriminated groups. In their most radical version, they opposed any social inequality and privileges, demanding the same living conditions for all people.

The third type of ideology is meritocratic (from the English merit - merit). According to this ideology, inequalities in society are justified to the extent that they are the result of one's own merit. How is it to be understood that certain groups, strata, classes have special merits? Two interrelated factors are decisive here. First, the level of one's own efforts, the intensity of labor applied, or the level of costs and sacrifices incurred, as well as the possession of exceptional and rare talents, skills, or prerequisites. Secondly, this is the contribution that this group makes to society as a whole, the extent to which this group satisfies the needs of the whole society, the benefits or pleasures that the activity of this group brings to other people and groups of society. From these two points of view, the groups are very different from each other. Social inequality becomes a kind of fair reward for one's own efforts and public benefit.

Theories of inequality

Reasoning about inequality is not only the subject of ideological justifications. This theme also penetrates into the realm of the sciences, first of all into the realm of philosophy, and later into the realm of the social sciences. The prevalence and painful sensitivity of manifestations of social inequality from ancient times caused a desire to find out the causes of this phenomenon.

The functional theory considers social inequality as an eternal, unavoidable phenomenon, moreover, inevitable, necessary for the existence and functioning of human communities. Social inequality provides motivation for compulsory education and training, which creates a certain pool of candidates for mastering the necessary professions, for performing the work necessary in a given type of society, which guarantees the very existence of this society. The conclusion naturally follows from this: in every existing society (for if it exists, it means that it has survived and functions) social inequality is found. Social inequality is a mandatory, indispensable, universal, eternal component of any society.

There are three major varieties of dichotomous inequality: the confrontation between the class of owners and the class of the dispossessed in the sense in which Karl Marx first formulated this opposition; further, the confrontation between groups that form the majority and the minority (in particular, nations and ethnic minorities), as well as the confrontation of the sexes - men and women, which is the main theme of feminist concepts that are now gaining more and more sound.

social stratification

All goods or values: wealth, power, prestige, education and health are hierarchical. You can have them to a greater or lesser extent. From the highest to the lowest levels, a whole gradation scale or hierarchy unfolds. There are, as you know, hierarchies of wealth - from millionaires to the homeless; hierarchies of power - from emperors to slaves; hierarchies of prestige - from idols to nonentities; Olympic Games to the disabled. On such scales of comparison, one can find a place for individuals. Moreover, you can calculate how many people will be at each such level of the hierarchy. Then we get certain statistical categories, for example: very rich, rich, wealthy, people of average income, poor, the poorest. You can do it even more precisely by setting any quantitative limits on earnings. In this case, one can speak of stratification layers.

Social stratification (stratification) is a hierarchy of social groups that have greater or lesser access to any socially valued good: to wealth, power, prestige, education.

The term "social stratification", or division into social strata, is used to describe group or status, but not individual, differences in approaching valued social goals. Each good or value of the five above has its own level of stratification. Groups and positions occupy certain levels, certain places on each of these hierarchies. For example, in the stratification by income level, the doctor will be at more high level than a sister of mercy. In the power stratification, the director will be placed at a higher level than the worker. A prestigious TV presenter will take a higher place than a teacher. But do these systems of stratification exist on their own, independently of each other? Already when describing the individual benefits included in this stratification, we mentioned that some of them may be of auxiliary importance in acquiring other benefits. Wealth can provide power and prestige. Power can help to get a fortune, as well as gain prestige. Prestige can have an impact on the process of achieving power, and on obtaining high wages and incomes. If such an interaction occurs, it may result in a situation in which the same group or position is approximately equally located at all three levels of stratification. Thus, the President of the United States is a position that is associated with high incomes, great wealth, great power and great fame. In this case, we should talk about the coincidence of the stratification parameters. However, much more often we are dealing with examples of a certain disharmony between stratification systems, which is based on the difference in the places occupied by the same group, the difference in the levels at which it finds itself in different stratification systems. A university professor in Poland has high prestige, an average income and little power; a politician, on the contrary, has high incomes and power, but monstrously low prestige; a football player has good prestige, high incomes and no power; prestige. There can be many combinations of this kind. In this case, we are talking about a discrepancy (mismatch) of the stratification parameters.

This discrepancy can have various consequences. Among the members of a given group or persons holding a given position, this may cause a certain sense of dissonance or a peculiarly understood injustice. For example, a person might reason like this: I'm so rich, I've achieved so much, and people are pointing their fingers at me and calling me an "upstart."

There are other features, signs that make it possible to put different phenomena on close or the same levels of the stratification hierarchy: a similar way of life, tastes and passions, customs and mores, religious practices, ideological views, entertainment, etc. For example, rich people in their way of life and thinking are similar to other rich people, and this way of life and thinking is completely different from that of poor people. Wealthy people build similar residences for themselves, drive similar brands of cars, dress from the same “trendsetters”, vacation on the same islands and constantly eat salmon with champagne. In many respects, the way of life of politicians or managers turns out to be similar. The everyday life of the stars of the TV screen, cinema or music has a special character. Ordinary people only timidly, out of the corner of their eye, penetrate this world with the help of illustrated weeklies.

Let us note that the similarity, as it were, accompanies the integrity of those groups or positions that individual individuals represent. Rich people create a certain, real social environment, a rather integral group, a close-knit community, despite the fact that such a community includes doctors, lawyers, businessmen, politicians, television representatives, and mafia bosses. The similarity in the level of wealth is expressed in similar interests (for example, in the desire to protect oneself from taxes).

The similarity in consumer opportunities finds expression in a similar way of life. Accordingly, certain social ties and comradely contacts are formed between people with such similarity, interactions arise and even stronger social relations are established, primarily instrumental, related to ensuring the so-called business interests. A different nature of communication, features of life, tastes in the consumer sphere characterize, say, the environment of managers or the so-called "leading cadres". And again, all this takes on a different character among that wide group of people of the so-called middle class, who are employed in various spheres of production and other professional activities that require high education and qualifications, as well as acting as entrepreneurs who have their own small firms or enterprises that provide them sufficient, though not elite material standard of living. Such close-knit communities - groups, varieties of a certain environment, made up of people who have approximately the same position in hierarchies, in systems of social stratification, regardless of their different group affiliation or other positions they occupy, we call social strata.

social mobility

People change their social positions, as well as their group affiliation. As they move between positions and groups that are on different levels stratification hierarchies, we are talking about social mobility, more precisely, about vertical mobility, which makes it possible to distinguish this process from the movement of people in space - from migrations, travel, tourism, going to work, which we call horizontal mobility. We have spoken of this second form of mobility before. Now let's try to identify the most important aspects of vertical mobility, which is directly related to social inequality.

The simplest example of vertical mobility is promotion, which means gaining a higher professional position or entering a higher professional group than the position that the person currently holds, or the group to which he currently belongs. A school teacher who receives a job offer at a university; a journalist who becomes a minister - these are examples of a person changing his professional affiliation, changing it to one that brings more solid earnings, higher prestige, and in the second case also gives more power. Most often, examples of such career advancement are found within the same professional group, in which there are usually several levels of hierarchy. Assistant who moves to the post of adjunct; an assistant who becomes the head of a department are the first examples of this kind that came across. The succession of such promotions forms the phenomenon we call a career. Turning to the examples we have just given, we note: assistant - adjunct - associate professor - professor - this is one career scheme; referent - head of department - director - this is a scheme of a different kind. Of course, the direction of change may be opposite, people may lose their former, higher positions and move into groups occupying lower levels in the stratification system. An employee who was fired and became unemployed; the head of the department, who was demoted in the form of a disciplinary punishment and made a referent - these are examples of degradation, which sometimes consists in the complete withdrawal of a person from a given professional group, and sometimes is limited only to a decrease in his position within this group. And here, too, there is some consistency. When someone loses the higher position they have held in various social contexts, such as losing their job, being forced to leave the club they were a member of, being kicked out of a sports team, getting divorced, etc., we say they are "rolling". down".

In all the above examples, it was about the rise or fall of an individual in the system of existing, permanent, strong stratification hierarchies. However, mobility can also consist in the movement of entire groups at the same levels of stratification, as well as in a change in the stratification hierarchy itself, due to which the same groups or positions suddenly find themselves at other levels than before, higher or lower, that is subject to promotion or degradation.

Consider first the first case. Professional advancement can cover an entire social category. This was typical for the rural population during the modernization period: migrating to the cities, rural residents, as a rule, occupied higher professional positions in terms of earnings and prestige, penetrating into the environment of the working class.

A change in the relative position of this group can also be caused by a change in the scale of stratification itself. This usually happens as a result of deep and radical social changes, revolutions, upheavals leading to the establishment of a new order, as well as technological and civilizational breaks. Then certain professional groups or other circles can gain access to higher wages, power or prestige. While others, on the contrary, will lose their privileged position. All the movements and changes described above can occur on different scales: within the boundaries of the life of one person, one generation, in a much longer historical period spanning several generations. Accordingly, we can talk about intragenerational and intergenerational mobility. Progress in the educational sphere is especially characteristic of intergenerational activity. Intergenerational activity is a typical phenomenon among emigrants who went to other countries in search of work and earnings: as a rule, in a new country they gain chances to radically improve their lives. The United States of America provides us with a huge number of such examples. Some poor villager of Asian origin in the first generation opens a restaurant there (as the Chinese and Indians often do) or sells vegetables and herbs (like the Vietnamese), but he already sends his children to study at the university, and in the second generation these people are members of the medical or scientific elite.

The American examples lead us to consider the general social conditions that promote mobility. The fact is that the United States is a typical open society in which individual or group advancement is not only possible in a wide area, but also turns out to be a “culturally demanded”, expected, social requirement. It is here that careers “from bootblack to millionaire” constantly happen.

At the other extreme are societies that are called closed. They exclude or at least greatly limit the possibilities of social mobility. Such was the feudal society, where a multi-stage hierarchy, from monarchs, magnates through vassals and up to dependent peasants, was a petrified structure, and each individual estate was closed, inaccessible to representatives of other estates. It is difficult to imagine that a serf could be at the royal court. Today, something similar can be observed in India, where the transition of a person from one caste to another is extremely limited, and for the lower castes, the so-called "untouchables", this is absolutely impossible. The term "caste" is already commonly used not only in relation to this particular situation, but more broadly - as a definition of any closed estate, a closed group, belonging to which is clearly limited to a circle of people, and one can enter this circle only by birthright.

Of course, between the models of an open and a closed society, which are only "ideal types" and nowhere appear in such a pure form, somewhere in the middle between these extreme poles there is a whole range of different situations. The systems of stratification of these phenomena can be flexible enough to allow jumping over some intermediate levels. But there can also be very strict systems of stratification, requiring a clear, rigorous passage of all stages. A symptom of the first type of stratification is the desire to take into account the outstanding achievements of an individual, and a symptom of the second type is a strict requirement for "length of service", an appropriate level of income or life experience. It is instructive to compare the United States and Japan in this regard. Just as outstanding work results in the United States provide the opportunity for quick, “jumping” career advancement, so in Japan it is tough to go through all the stages of a professional career in set periods of time in order to only then reach the top in this hierarchy. Such a difference can also be revealed regardless of culture, but depending on the professional area in which the corresponding processes are unfolding. One can compare, for example, an artistic career, in which victory in some important music competition immediately opens up the opportunity for even the youngest people to perform on the best stages and largest stages in the world, and a scientific career, in which, as a rule, one has to go through everything. steps for which there are specific deadlines.

Within the various professional fields, individual groups differ from each other in the degree of exclusivity, that is, the rigidity of the criteria and procedures that are required and implemented in order to admit new members to the appropriate circle. Sometimes there are special organizations or institutions that stand guard over the "gates" through which one must pass in order to find oneself in a higher elite circle. These institutes select candidates for promotion through complex examination procedures; such a role is played, for example, by special medical commissions, bar associations, scientific councils at university faculties, state examination boards through which one must go through for appointment to a higher administrative position, committees of the Sejm organizing various kinds of hearings, for example, meetings at which candidates for ambassadorial positions answer questions, etc. In democratic societies, joining the political elite is conditioned by a complex election procedure, in which all citizens-voters take on the role of the selecting authority.

Social mobility is an area in which stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination characteristic of a given society are especially pronounced. The extreme form is the complete exclusion of any group, which loses any chance of promotion. For example, certain groups of emigrants or refugees may be denied the right to get a job. More often there is a situation characterized by partial discrimination, which manifests itself in three forms. The first is that for certain social groups the possibility of promotion to the highest positions is closed, regardless of which area it concerns. A kind of barrier of possible achievements is created, and representatives of these social groups cannot overcome this barrier. Studies show that despite the openness of American society, there is de facto a certain barrier to advancement for ethnic and racial minorities.

What is social inequality? What are its reasons?

Answer

Social inequality- a form of differentiation in which individual individuals, social groups, strata, classes are at different levels of the vertical social hierarchy and have unequal life chances and opportunities to meet needs.

The problem of social inequality is one of the most important in modern society. Explanations of the causes of this phenomenon and its assessment are different. According to one point of view, in any society there are especially important and responsible functions. They can be performed by a limited number of gifted people. Encouraging these people to perform these functions, society gives them access to scarce goods. From this point of view social stratification is inevitable in any society; moreover, it is useful because it ensures its normal life and development.