The concept of "social hierarchy"

Each person in his life sets a goal to strive for certain peaks, that is, he makes a “bottom-up” movement, and not vice versa. Overtaking each other, we strive to master more resources and power in order to unhinderedly satisfy our needs: for a better life, for resources, for family, for a career. The entire general sphere in which such a movement takes place is called “social hierarchy.”

Researchers imagine social hierarchy in the form of a pyramid, the construction of which is based on a number of laws. One of the key laws is that the number of places and vacancies that are located at the bottom of the pyramid always exceeds the number of vacancies that are located at the top of the hierarchy. Thus, it is possible to maintain some social balance, because at the top there should be only people selected according to certain criteria: physically and intellectually more savvy, capable of making important and responsible decisions that will influence all levels of the social hierarchy.

Definition 1

Thus, scientists understand social hierarchy as a set of positions and jobs, as well as positions that are arranged in ascending order: starting from the less prestigious and least rewarded to the more prestigious and desirable. The presence of hierarchy means that in a social system there is inequality of positions and levels of management.

From the point of view of sociological science, inequality cannot be assessed in ethical terms, since it is aimed at fulfilling both negative and positive functions.

Levels of social hierarchy

Social hierarchy is directly related to the processes of social mobility. The nature of both phenomena presupposes the superiority of some layers and levels of hierarchy over others: that is, there are always those who rule and those who obey. This order is accordingly called “hierarchical”. Any hierarchy can be represented as a pyramid, which consists of the three most common levels in various social systems: upper, middle and lower. Note that in the managerial hierarchy these levels are called “levels of management”, and in the social hierarchy they are called social classes.

The structure of the social hierarchy was established in such a way that at the base of the pyramid, that is, at the lowest level, the majority of the population was located, and at the top level, the most privileged class of society. These are exactly what people strive for, motivating themselves with the opportunity to possess such elements of life as:

• wealth,
• power,
• influence on other people
• availability of various benefits,
• prestige.

Social benefits are the main motivating condition that makes a person work hard and strive for the highest level of the hierarchy. But at the same time, social benefits are a scarce resource that is present only at the highest level of the hierarchy and is available to a small number of people.

Note 1

Redistribution of resources and wealth seems possible only in the case of upward mobility not by a group of people, but by individuals. Each person builds his own path to the top, makes a career, improves his professional skills, and becomes an individual. This upward mobility is called “upward mobility” in scientific circles.

Social laws of hierarchy

Social hierarchy cannot be built chaotically, as this will lead to inconsistencies in the system. That is why its construction is based on a number of laws.

The first law is “The number of vacancies located below is always greater than the number of vacancies located above.” By vacancies, researchers mean not only jobs and positions, but in general positions that are located at all levels of the hierarchy and in the formal structure of the organization. Thanks to this distribution, competition arises: people belonging to the lower level strive to take over a vacancy at a higher level, and participants at the higher levels feel the need to defend their place. The pyramid principle involves selecting among applicants for a high level the most prepared morally, intellectually and physically. The higher the level of hierarchy, the higher the level of reward and prestige.

The second law of social hierarchy is “The amount of social benefits that those at the top receive is always greater than the amount of benefits received by those at the bottom.” Thus we can see the pyramid upside down. If we usually interpret it as narrower at the top, but wider at the bottom, then when it comes to the amount of resources and benefits, the opposite is true. This reveals the law of some injustice: the smallest number of participants in the pyramid are satisfied with everything, and the participants at the lower level are in constant need. But this is the meaning of competition. Feeling a lack of resources, benefits and freedoms, a person is motivated to improve his position. Therefore, he begins to work on himself in order to overcome poverty and misery and achieve maximum heights.

The third law, the “Law of Social Inequality,” follows from the second law on benefits. If some people are motivated by the lack of benefits to act, then there are those who enter into conflict, trying to achieve a better life through illegal means. This leads to an increase in the crime situation, which indicates a negative motivation of the individual. Only the authorities that regulate the crime situation can cope with this: the police, the state. This behavior is observed not only among those who are at the lower levels, but also among those who are at the top. We often encounter phenomena of negative motivation of people who do not want to voluntarily give up their position and social opportunities. Therefore, they also use various manipulations and illegal ways to keep benefits to themselves.

Introduction

A person needs to interact with others like him. Already in the early stages of the development of human society, people gathered into social groups that contributed to their survival and development. At all times, the most cruel punishment for people was considered ostracism - the expulsion of a person from the society to which he belonged. People interact in groups. However, this interaction does not always proceed smoothly; the group does not always achieve the goals set for it or itself. The study of the problems of social groups is relevant both in the personal and social aspects, which is due to great practical interest, since more and more group decisions are being made, the purposeful activities of groups of people require more effective management.

This problem is becoming particularly important in our country today. Many people, having lost their usual foundations, norms and values, are disoriented, they have to change jobs, retrain, and look for new ways to interact with other people. Many organizations are also in the process of change. The form of ownership is changing, the established range of production is changing, production volumes and technologies are changing, there is a massive restructuring of enterprises, layoffs and layoffs of people, and the formation of new divisions and structural units.

Hierarchy as a social relationship.

From the point of view of general systems theory, the phenomenon hierarchy can be defined as multi-level distribution of parts (elements) of the whole according to the degree of commonality of their functions (properties). This distribution is typical for any system – biological, technical, social. In relation to the latter, this principle can be traced at all levels - from a small group to society.

The specificity of the social hierarchy is that it manifests itself in relations of inequality, dependence, subordination. In social organizations, the preemptive right of one employee to make decisions about another is deliberately introduced, and the first also receives the means of control over the official behavior of the other. In addition, the former constitute a clear minority, which, however, is decisive for the majority. This is one of the most controversial principles of organization building, which has long attracted critical attention.

The essence of social hierarchy comes down to the following relationships.

Firstly, hierarchy means centralization. This follows from the impossibility of direct interaction between a large number of people and the natural need to identify an intermediary. At this new level, coordination and integration of individual actions into the whole appear.

In this sense, hierarchy is a form of division of labor not only horizontally, but also vertically, into general and private functions, into decision and execution. Like any division of labor, hierarchy is introduced for efficiency, to save labor by centralization.

Secondly, hierarchy manifests itself as one-sided personal dependence of one person on another. This means that one of the workers can influence the position and behavior of another without the other being able to do the same in relation to the first. In hierarchical relationships between people, this dependence is fixed in statuses and acts as a factor of social inequality.

A serious consequence of this side of hierarchical relationships is that the relationship of subordination cannot be completely regulated. In the official behavior of a manager, administrative and legal norms leave a significant range of choices regarding the nature and methods of influence on a lower-level employee. In other words, the resolution of a number of issues remains at the personal discretion of the superior employee. This gives rise to personal dependence and the so-called personal regime in organizations, that is, the legal, legitimate influence of the subjective qualities of one employee on another.

Third, hierarchy functions as power, that is, the subordination of organizational members to rules and regulations. Control over employee behavior is exercised primarily by the impersonal norms and requirements of the organization; it is they who limit the freedom of behavior of the individual. Therefore, power always presupposes coercion and the need for sanctions for deviation from the prescribed order.

Thus, power exists as an administrative-legal phenomenon. The positive purpose of power is to overcome the known fluctuations in human behavior in an organization, giving it business certainty. Power is sometimes understood as the ability to force someone to do something. But coercion, if we do not mean physical violence, is possible precisely through a system of norms and connections. Therefore, the expression “power is in someone's hands” means that a certain impersonal organization is controlled by certain individuals or a group.

All the considered properties of the organizational hierarchy appear together, but each can have an independent meaning. It should be noted that in all cases we are talking about channels of influence of some people on others, often one on many. The possession of such a channel is psychologically motivated by the possibility of self-affirmation, self-realization, and increased prestige. Therefore, the social value of statuses in the hierarchy increases from level to level.

Otherwise it may be questioned and deleted.
.php?title=%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B8% D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%8F&action=edit edit] this article by adding links to .
This mark is set November 1, 2012.

[[K:Wikipedia:Articles without sources (country: Lua error: callParserFunction: function "#property" was not found. )]][[K:Wikipedia:Articles without sources (country: Lua error: callParserFunction: function "#property" was not found. )]]

Story

Many organizations, such as companies, churches, armies, and political movements, are hierarchical organizations (at least officially). Typically, seniors, called superiors, "bosses", etc., have more power than their subordinates. Thus, the relationships that define this hierarchy are those of power.

The existence of hierarchies that are unfair from any point of view provokes public criticism. For example, feminism often denounces gender hierarchies in which men enjoy unjustified privileges, such as the right to vote (where women do not have it), higher salaries for men when doing similar or identical work, faster promotion for men, and legal privileges. men (such as the right to inherit the property of parents by sons, but not daughters), the right to education, sports, work, etc.

It should be noted that in this context and others like it, the word "hierarchy" is usually used to mean "hierarchy of power" or "power structure." Feminists and representatives of other social movements, for example those with a racist or anti-gay bent, may not disagree with the hierarchy itself, as such, but rather with certain asymmetries, unequal value of men and women, different races, etc.

Anarchism and other anti-authoritarian social movements seek to eliminate all hierarchical social relations.

Hierarchy in modern society

In most countries there are social elevators that allow people to change their position in society. The quantity and quality of those at the top is described by elite theory. A hierarchy that is too rigid usually leads to totalitarianism, while a hierarchy that is too soft leads to the collapse of society.

Social hierarchy in ethology

Ethologists take a broader view of this subject, considering human relationships to be largely similar to the hierarchical relationships of animals. Calhoun's experiment, for example, shows that the lack of free social niches for the younger generation is extremely harmful not for the individual, but for the survival of society as a whole.

see also

Write a review about the article "Social hierarchy"

Notes

Excerpt characterizing Social Hierarchy

– So the “apostles” were also completely different?! What were they like?! Can you tell me about them, North?
I was so interested that for a short moment I even managed to “put to sleep” my torment and fears, I managed to forget the coming pain for a moment!.. I brought down a real barrage of questions on Sever, not even knowing for sure whether there were answers to them. So much I wanted to know the real history of these courageous people, not vulgarized by the lies of five hundred long years!!!
- Oh, they were truly wonderful people - the Knights of the Temple - Isidora!.. Together with Radomir and Magdalena, they created a magnificent backbone of COURAGE, HONOR and FAITH, on which was built the bright TEACHING that our ancestors once left for the salvation of our native Earth. Two of the Knights of the Temple were our students, as well as hereditary warriors from the oldest European aristocratic families. They became our brave and gifted Sorcerers, ready to do anything to save Jesus and Magdalene. Four were descendants of the Rus-Merovingians, who also had a great Gift, like all their distant ancestors - the kings of Thrace... Like Magdalene herself, also born from this extraordinary dynasty, and proudly carried her family Gift. Two were our Magi, who voluntarily left Meteora in order to protect their beloved Disciple, Jesus Radomir, who was going to his own death. They could not betray Radomir in their souls, and even knowing what awaited him, they followed him without regret. Well, the last, ninth of the knights-defenders, about whom no one still knows or writes, was the brother of Christ himself, the son of the White Magus - Radan (Ra - given, given by Ra)... It was he who managed to save his son Radomir after his death. But, unfortunately, while defending him, he died himself...
– Tell me, Sever, doesn’t this have anything in common with the legend of the twins, where it is said that Christ had a twin brother? I read about this in our library and always wanted to know whether it was true, or just another lie of the “holy fathers”?

– No, Isidora, Radan was not Radomir’s twin. This would be an undesirable additional danger to the already quite complex life of Christ and Magdalene. You know, after all, that twins are too closely connected by the thread of their birth, and a danger to the life of one can become a danger to the other? – I nodded. - Therefore, the Magi could not have made such a mistake.
– So, after all, not everyone in Meteora betrayed Jesus?! – I exclaimed joyfully. – Didn’t everyone calmly watch him go to his death?..
- Well, of course not, Isidora!.. We would all leave to protect him. Yes, not everyone managed to step over their Duty... I know that you don’t believe me, but we all loved him very much... and, of course, Magdalene. It’s just that not everyone could forget their responsibilities and give up everything because of one person, no matter how special he was. You give your life to save many, right? So our Magi remained in Meteor to guard the Sacred Knowledge and teach other gifted ones. Such is life, Isidora... And everyone makes it better, to the best of their ability.
- Tell me, Sever, why do you call the Frankish kings Rus? Did these peoples have anything in common? As far as I remember, they were always called Franks?.. And later the beautiful Frankia became France. Is not it?

For many decades, organizations have created formal management structures called hierarchical, or bureaucratic, structures.

Being sociological and managerial, this term came to us from church practice, where it denoted the managerial ladder of official statuses. Under hierarchy we will understand the totality of positions, positions and jobs, arranged in ascending order from the least prestigious to the most prestigious and rewarded. Wherever there is a hierarchy, there is an inequality of positions and levels of management.

The managerial hierarchy may exist in an oral tradition and not be recorded in writing, but may be formalized in special documents.

For example, in Tsarist Russia, the management hierarchy was formalized in a document called the “Table of Ranks” of Peter I and consisted of 14 classes. In France, a similar document was also called the “Table of Ranks”, was adopted under Napoleon and consisted of only four classes.

Any hierarchy can be represented as a pyramid, consisting of three main levels - upper, middle and lower. The social hierarchy is structured in such a way that at the bottom (at the base of the pyramid) there is the majority of the population, and at the top there is a small part of the population and the majority of the benefits and privileges that people strive for (power, wealth, influence, benefits, prestige).

Those at the bottom believe that wealth is distributed unevenly and, moreover, unfairly: a minority of the population owns most of the national wealth, and they have a natural desire to redistribute everything so that everyone gets an equal share. Therefore, history is full of revolutions, uprisings, uprisings, coups, the instigators of which are those who were deprived or consider themselves so.

A slower and more conservative way of redistributing wealth is to move up not as a mass or group, but individually through personal career.

The social hierarchy, as already mentioned, can be represented in the form of a pyramid, built on the basis of a number of laws.

First law: the number of vacancies (jobs or positions) located at the bottom is always greater than the number of vacancies located at the top. Since there are fewer vacancies at the top, and the majority wants to fill them, it becomes possible to select people and competition arises. The pyramid principle in management involves selection among applicants for available vacancies. The higher the level of the hierarchy, the higher the level of reward, the closer the scarce goods.

Second Law: The amount of social benefits received by those at the top is always greater than the amount of social benefits received by those at the bottom. Thus, a reverse (inverted) pyramid is obtained.

The third law is the law of social inequality, according to which in the social hierarchy the majority of social benefits always belong to a minority of the population and vice versa.

The fourth law is the law of social polarization: in any society there are two extreme points at which the amount of goods and vacancies is inversely proportional, i.e. the majority of people have a smaller share of social benefits, and a minority of the population have the majority of benefits. This law presupposes the absence of a middle class in the population, which fills the space between the poles and makes the transition from one pole to another gradual; or the presence of the middle class is so insignificant that it does not have the opportunity to influence the process of property distribution.

The fifth law is the law of social distance, which is characterized by several empirically observable features:

The more levels in the hierarchy and the greater the distance between neighboring status positions, the more difficult it is for an individual to overcome this distance during his life;

The more levels in the hierarchy and the greater the distance between the poles, the less transparent the social pyramid is to the public;

The more difficult it is for the bottom to control the actions of the top, the greater the freedom of maneuver and the likelihood of the top using illegitimate actions; the more likely those involved in maintaining this pyramid will strive to preserve it rather than change it; the more the fate of an individual official will depend not on his personal abilities, but on the rules of the game and the traditions existing in the hierarchy; the more likely it is that promotion will be associated not with competition, but with seniority and length of service; the more likely it is that the difficulty of passing each subsequent level will increase, and the access filters will become tougher.

If we take the public and private sectors as the object of study, it turns out that in the public sector civil servants are interested in maintaining hierarchical relationships to a greater extent than in the private sector.

The sixth law is the law of preserving the status quo of hierarchy, according to which: the more benefits (benefits, privileges, advantages) the social hierarchy promises to subjects of management, the higher the motivation to preserve it and not destroy it.

Seventh law: the more benefits (benefits, privileges, advantages) the social hierarchy promises to subjects of management, the lower the rate of its social renewal, the less the number of management innovations per unit of time.

On the scale of the entire society, as well as at the level of an individual organization, management is built and functions around the distribution of scarce goods, i.e. everything that can satisfy the daily living needs of people and bring them benefit. As a rule, these include: power, income, education and prestige.

The system of government in all societies and in all historical eras was built around the distribution and control of scarce goods.

In a separate organization, benefits can include wages, bonuses, prestige, free time, and assignments. Since everyone strives to possess goods, managers have an effective mechanism for stimulating productive work. But it is worth transferring scarce goods into the category of non-scarce goods, i.e. public, as a powerful lever of influence on people disappears.

American sociologists W. Moore And K. Davis created a theory of social stratification and managerial hierarchy, according to which the most valuable positions in society are located at the top: the management decisions made there are the most important.

A rationally organized organization - be it society as a whole or a separate organization - is based, in their opinion, on the following axioms:

The highest management positions in the organization should be occupied by the most capable and qualified employees;

The higher the position in the hierarchy, the more capable and qualified the manager should be;

The higher the position in the hierarchy, the better the management decisions made by the manager should be;

The highest quality management decisions should be made at the highest level of the hierarchy;

The higher the quality of the decision made by the manager, the higher should be his responsibility to those whom it concerns;

The higher the manager’s responsibility for the decision made, the more power he should have to implement it;

The higher the quality and responsibility for the decision made, the more stringent the selection of candidates for high positions in the hierarchy should be;

The filter barriers on the upper steps of the pyramid should be as rigid as possible.

No organization can function long and successfully if all its intellectual forces are concentrated at the bottom or in the middle, and all the mediocrity is at the top. Such an organization will simply fall apart.

A society in which there is no mechanism for recruiting (promoting) talented people and their further advancement becomes less stable.

The vital principle of a successful organization says: the green road to the top is open to the most talented and competent, the highest positions should be occupied by the most trained workers. The mechanism of interest (upward mobility) is at work here. But at the same time, there must also be mechanisms of reverse (downward) mobility. Reverse mobility mechanisms include procedures such as military demotion and dismissal; deprivation of titles and privileges, etc. An important conclusion follows from this: the mechanism of social mobility is symmetrical with respect to positive and negative sanctions.

The functional theory of Davis and Moore assumes the inequality of superior and inferior positions. Higher positions bring more benefits to society: at each subsequent level of the hierarchy, the importance of decisions made, responsibility for their adoption, labor costs (nervous energy), and, consequently, the reward received increase.

How many times a manager’s salary is higher than the salary of an ordinary worker, is how many times higher should his responsibility and the scale of decisions made be.

In a generalized form, all the axioms proposed by Moore and Davis can be reduced to the following two laws of hierarchy.

The eighth law of hierarchy - the quality of decisions made and the cost of mistakes made increase with each subsequent level of management.

The ninth law of hierarchy - with each subsequent level of hierarchy, the number of people affected by the decision increases.

Greek hierarhia, hieros - holy, arche - power, rule) - a system of sequentially subordinate elements, located from lower to higher, and characterizing the multi-level nature of the social whole. In this meaning, the concept "I." can also be used to characterize private multi-level systems. For example, the concept of “bureaucratic intelligence” became widespread after the works of M. Weber. The term was first used by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in his work “Heavenly Hierarchy and Spiritual Hierarchy” (second half of the 5th century). The term was used to refer to a system of ecclesiastical and spiritual ranks. In the Roman Catholic Church the concept of "I." unites: 1) I. theological law, 2) I. spiritual law, 3) I. jurisdiction. As such, the concept of “I.” used almost until the mid-19th century. and did not have the semantic connotation of “social”.

In modern social theories, the concept of "S.I." used to refer to: 1) any system of social agents and/or their relationships, ranked one in relation to another (SI reflects their differences in power, authority, financial situation, social status, etc.); 2) organization or classification of ascending or descending generalizations - levels of complexity. That is, it is a system of levels in accordance with which social and other processes are organized. As an example, we can cite Comte's I. sciences, where the levels of organization of classification were the time and sequence of the emergence of sciences, the degree of their abstraction and concreteness, and the degree of complexity. Each science depends on and builds on those that precede it, and is more complex.

The concept of "S.I." widely used within the framework of the structural-functional direction. In particular, Parsons' concept postulates the existence of the necessary conditions (normative and environmental conditions) to explain the function of cybernetic control. In addition, in the functional tradition, the concept of "S.I." used to indicate relationships between systems and subsystems. For example, as "I. subsystems of social action." The use of the concept "I" is interesting. in the concept of G. Becker (“Which side are we on?”, 1967), where it is used to designate the classification of the probabilities of “being heard” for an individual in society, which is based on the level of social organization and the corresponding status prescriptions. In modern social philosophy, the concept of "S.I." is also used to designate I. needs, I. values, I. motives, etc.