"The theory of stratification by Davis and Moore was (and remains) highly influential, but has generated enormous controversy". In this context, give a brief overview of its criticism.

Parsons supports this view since high-paying jobs require high degree of skills.

However, Melvin Tumin criticises the functionalists asking how does one decide which role is more important than other? ex: a doctor does need help of a nurse to treat people yet both treated unequal.

He further argues that money should not be the only motivation to empower one self. ex: An artisan may develop expertise in textile embroidery yet be paid less than a worker in assembly line manufacturing despite being more skilled.

Duncan and Blom note that it is training that make people 'deserving' and economically well-off automatically have better access to training.

Robert K Merton further adds that social stratification need not always be functional. Caste system is functional for a Brahmin but is dysfunctional for a Dalit.

Andre Betelle further noted in his book 'Inequality among men' that caste based stratification hamper mobility unlike class based.

Louis Dumont in Homo Hierarchus noted hierarchy in caste stratification that was oppressive and not reciprocity based.

Marx believed stratification between proletariat and bourgeoisie has led to the exploitation of former by latter [The Communist Manifesto].

Amartya Sen further noted in the Argumentative Indian that stratification in Indian society is due to unequal participation. People at the top participate more, get better roles.

Mosca, Robert Michels gave the Iron law of Oligarchy criticising functionality of stratification. The elites ensure that power is perpetual only within them.

Mosca says there is hereditary transfer of power and the important ranks are always circulated among few.