In order to support oneself, humankind must learn the culture or the pattern for living of its society.

Social inequality simply refers to the existence of socially created inequalities which involves subdivisions such as stratification or ranking in terms of prestige and wealth (Haralambos and Holborn, 2013: 21). Culture is a critical source of social identity that has been defined as our understanding of who we are, and who other people are (Jenkins, 1996). The purpose of this essay is to assess the value of functionalist theory of stratification in understanding the way in which different groups of people are placed within society and the social classes that result in their race for evolution or wealth in modern Britain. After first reviewing the functionalist theory, it examines the connections between conflict and consensus theories, then describes the relation between them. Having considered social stratification in essential terms, the essay will present subject from various sociological perspectives. Functionalism theory adopts the perspective that various parts of society are seen to be interrelated and, taken together, they form a complete system; as a consequence each part will in some way affect every other part and the system as a whole. This means that, if the system is to survive, its various parts must have some functional prerequisites or basic needs. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2013:10) One characteristic of functionalism is the connection between value systems and inevitability of stratification. Parsons (in Haralabos and Holborn, 2013:22) believed that unity in society is based on value consensus furthermore stratification system derive from common values. Taking into consideration that value consensus is an essential component of all societies, stratification is an inevitable part of all human societies. In this case those who will share most of the societys values will be ranked right and proper in the hierarchy and they will be liable to receive a variety of rewards. However, he was aware of the potential conflict which justifies unequal reward distributions. Notably in his mobility study Ken Roberts (2001: 194) states that people acquisitons are often due to their social origins rather than their own merits.This is commonly regarded as sufficient proof that we live in an unfair world. If inequalities are not based on individual merit, they cannot be justified. Another characteristic is the unequal power which derives from organization. Margaret and Howard (2010: 374) define power as the capability of one person or class to exercise control over others. For example, the society of Britain which is stratified by race, class and gender, the power is structured into basic social institutions in ways that reflects this inequalities. The power of organized institutions can influence social dynamics within individual even if it is persuasive or coercive. For instance, a president may persuade government to support a social policy. Similarly Parson (in Haralabos and Holborn, 2013: 22) states that the relationship between social groups in society is one of cooperation and interdependence therefore different groups specialize in precise activities. As no one is self-sufficient, it alone cannot satisfy the needs of its society therefore the relationship between social groups is one of reciprocity. As a matter of fact those with power of coordination will have a higher social status and power than those they direct.

One central idea which attracted strong criticizes on all its points is the view that social stratification is both inevitable because it derives from shared values which are crucial part of all social systems and functional because it serves to integrate various groups in society. For instance, Davis and Moore (Haralabos and Holborn, 2013: 23) point out that every human society is stratified and if it is to survive and operate efficiently certain functional prerequisite like effective role allocation and performance are necessary. This has been seen as a divisive rather than an integrating force. Davis and Moore (in Haralabos and Holborn, 2013: 23) affirm that some posts are more functionally important than others because individuals with the necessary ability to acquire such skills for providing services is limited. A solution for full high demanding positions is to motivate individual from the social structure. They concluded that social system is maintained by the distribution of distinctive rewards which are functional for society. On the other hand, Tumin (in Haralabos and Holborn, 2013: 24) argues that differences in power and prestige between occupational groups may be due to differences in their power rather than their functional importance. Not to mention that differential rewards can encourage hostility, suspicion and distrust among the various segments of a society. Tumin also argues that Davis and Moore miscarry the possible erected barriers of recruitment by those who fill highly rewarded positions. Giddens and Sutton (2013: 78) evaluate functionalism as being good in explaining consensus and why societies stand as a whole but is less effective in explaining conflict and radical social change. Another significant critique is that functionalism place creative actions of individuals below societies constraints. Finally, functional analysis incline to attribute needs and purposes to society itself. For example, education system has the function to train students for the needs of a modern society. Marxist perspective is like a contrast to functionalists view. The class is seen as a social group whose members share the same relationship to the means of production. In a capitalist era, there are two main classes: the bourgeoisie which own and control the means of production and the proletariat or subject class, whose members hire their labour to the bourgeoisie in return for wages. As a result of productive capacity the society is expanded beyond the grade required for subsistence and surplus wealth appears. In a functionalist view those in positions of control use their power to pursue collective goals that derive from societys central goals. They use of power therefore serves the interests of society as a whole. On the other hand, Bukharin (2013: 60) states that Marxist perspective is antagonistic to value consensus and it emphasise the concept that relationship between the major social classes is related by bilateral dependence that is not balanced. The relation between capitalists and labourers if one of exploitation where capitalists benefit at the expense of the workers.

Conflict theories sustain that property ownership and political power are the key factor in all social divisions. The class that owns infrastructural capital and natural capital is the most powerful and is capable to benefit at the expense of the worker. The exploitation of labour is the basis for both the accumulation of capital and wealth. Various parts of the superstructure are instruments of ruling class domination and as mechanism of the oppression of the subject class. As a result, dominant concepts occur. For instance, ruling class maintain a level of social stability by distorting the picture of reality and spreading false class consciousness (Haralabos and Holborn, 2013:32). Stein (Nytimes.com, 2013) quoted Buffett which stated that heres class warfare all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning.".It can be seen that even nowadays conflict between classes still exists. Capitalism is represented by a grade of economic concentration and monopoly. When banks and financial become directly in the financing of production small scale capitalists and propertyowners are squeezed. The differences between the working class and capitalists is believed to become substantial, in the long run rich will become richer and poor will become poorer (Fultcher and Scott, 2007: 788). Hence, the polarization of the two principal classes will result in a homogenous working class, bourgeoisie and the proletariat will increase while the petty bourgeoisie or small business owners, will sink into the proletariat (Haralabos and Holborn, 2013: 33). Weber was firmly influenced by Marx's ideas, however he refused the possibility of effective communism. Class and status are closely linked. Weber noted that property is not always recognized as a satus qualification; he also noted that a persons class situation is basically their market situation. Moreover, it can decide the individual interests of enhancing life chances (Fultcher and Scott, 2007:774). Pakulski and Waters (in Giddens and Sutton, 2013: 495) argue that class is no longer applicable to contemporary society.Status conventionalism is a new characteristic of the 21st century.One of the reasons for this huge shift is that there has been important changes in property ownership. Another reason is that societies are stratified by cultural consumption, not class position in the division of labour; differences in consumption and earned income are purely issues of status. A further reason is the increase in service sector jobs is simply favour of manual jobs. O'Brien (The Independent, 2013) reported that UK population is split into no less than seven different social classes also adding that Britons can no longer be boxed in to the traditional upper, middle and working classes. Fiona Devine conclude that theres a much more fuzzy area between the traditional working class and traditional middle class. The way in which classes perceive wealth distribution comes from (the Guardian, 2013) which claims that most people perceive the distribution of wealth in the UK to be far more equal than it actually is. The richest 20% has 60% of all the wealth. Surprising is that the richest 1% are off the scale and they have 60% of the population of the UK combined.

To summarize, theory of functionalists is not a good explanation because in their ardent search for the positive functions of stratification tended to ignore its many dysfunctions. A conclusion can be drawn that functionalist theory of stratification is not pragmatic and it only explains how people of Modern Britain are interconnected. On the other hand, a merge between the Marxism and Postmodernism view over the death of class is the best way to explain nowadays ivisible warfare. Although, Marx expected a proletarian revolution to follow in short time it doesnt mean it will never happen. Class consciousness develops, debt is only on the paper and life is more than money and power.

References
Andersen, M. and Taylor, H. 2010. Sociology: The Essentials. Belmont: Cengage Learning; 6 edition (January 1, 2010). Bukharin, N., Deborin, A., Vavilov, S., Uranovskii, I., Komarov, A. and Fox, R. 2013. Marxism and modern thought. New York: Routledge. Fulcher, J. and Scott, J. 2007. Sociology. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Giddens, A. and Sutton, P. 2013. Sociology. Cambridge [u.a.]: Polity Press. Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. 2013. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 8th ed. London: Collins. Nytimes.com. 2013. Log In - The New York Times. [online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=0 [Accessed: 26 Oct 2013]. Roberts, K. 2001. Class in modern Britain. New York: Palgrave. the Guardian. 2013. Inequality: how wealth is distributed in the UK - animated video. [online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2013/oct/08/inequalityhow-wealth-distributed-uk-animated-video [Accessed: 23 Oct 2013]. The Independent. 2013. Britain now has 7 social classes - and working class is a dwindling breed. [online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britainnow-has-7-social-classes--and-working-class-is-a-dwindling-breed-8557894.html [Accessed: 24 Oct 2013].