Final answer:
Functionalist and conflict views differ on social stratification; functionalists see it as beneficial for assigning and rewarding roles, whereas conflict theorists view it as a means of perpetuating inequality and benefiting the powerful.
Step-by-step explanation:
Contrast the functional and conflict views of why social stratification is universal. When it comes to understanding why social stratification is considered to be a universal aspect of human societies, functionalists and conflict theorists offer differing perspectives. The functionalist perspective argues that stratification serves a purpose in society by ensuring that the most qualified individuals fill the most important roles and that these roles are rewarded accordingly. This provides incentives for people to strive and be productive, contributing to the stability and efficiency of a society.
On the other hand, conflict theory views social stratification as a consequence of inequality and a way in which the wealthy and powerful maintain their status and further their interests at the expense of the less privileged. This theory suggests that the distribution of resources and opportunities is inherently unfair, leading to systemic disadvantages for lower social strata.
The discussion on social stratification is incomplete without mentioning the role of symbolic interactionism, which looks at how social standing affects individual interactions and the ways in which social classes are constructed and maintained through daily interactions. Nevertheless, when contrasting functionalism and conflict theory, one emphasizes order and stability, while the other highlights division and power imbalances.