Does the structural-functionalist perspective on social stratification promote a status quo? Give reasons for your answer. (Answer in 150 words)

- Does the structural-functionalist perspective on social stratification promote a status quo? Give reasons for your answer. (Answer in 150 words)
Introduction
Functionalism did not set out to defend inequality; the way it explains inequality defends it.

Body

1. What the perspective claims: Davis and Moore held stratification functionally necessary: positions differ in importance and in the scarcity of talent, so unequal rewards draw able people into the difficult ones.

2. Why it defends the existing order: It explains an arrangement by its usefulness, turning what is into what must be, and it reads reward as the measure of a position's importance, so high pay proves worth. It assumes training is open where caste and inheritance restrict access, and it has no account of power. Tumin's reply named the cost: a pool of talent left undeveloped.

3. The reasons against the charge: Davis and Moore claimed to explain, not to justify, and explaining why an arrangement persists is not endorsing it. Merton's dysfunctions let functionalism judge an arrangement wasteful.

4. My answer: Yes in effect: a theory that reads reward as proof of worth cannot ask who fixed it.

Conclusion
Its conservatism lies in the question it never puts.