100winter

Sociology A Down-to-Earth Approach

Thirteenth Edition

James M. Henslin Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville

Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montréal Toronto

Delhi Mexico City São Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 1 11/19/15 4:31 PM

VP, Product Development: Dickson Musslewhite Senior Acquisitions Editor: Billy J. Grieco Editorial Assistant: Amandria Guadalupe Development Editors: Dusty Friedman/Jennifer

Auvil VP, Director of Marketing: Brandy Dawson Project Team Lead: Denise Forlow Project Manager: Marianne Peters-Riordan Program Team Lead: Maureen Richardson Program Manager: Joseph Vella Director of Field Marketing: Jonathan Cottrell Product Marketer: Tricia Murphy Field Marketer: Brittany Pogue-Mohammed Acosta Marketing Assistant, Field Marketing: Andrea

Giamis

Marketing Assistant, Product Marketing: Samantha Cilibrasi

Operations Manager: Mary Fischer Operations Specialist: Mary Ann Gloriande Director of Design: Blair Brown Cover Art Director: Maria Lange Cover Design: Pentagram Digital Studio Product Manager: Claudine

Bellanton Digital Studio Project Manager: Rich Barnes Full-Service Project Management and Composition:

Katy Gabel/Lumina Datamatics Printer/Binder: RR Donnelley/Roanoke Cover Printer: Phoenix Color/Hagerstown

Acknowledgements of third party content appear on pages CR-1–CR-7, which constitutes an extension of this copyright page. Cultural Diversity Around the World: Doing Business in the Global Village box contains art with the following credit: Demashita! Powerpuff Girls Z © 2009 Cartoon Network, Toei Animation & Aniplex. All Rights Reserved. THE POWERPUFF GIRLS and all related characters and elements are trademarks of and © Cartoon Network.

Copyright © 2017, 2014, 2012 by James M. Henslin. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise. For information regarding permissions, request forms and the appropriate contacts within the Pearson Rights & Permissions Department, please visit www.pearsoned.com/permissions/.

PEARSON and ALWAYS LEARNING are exclusive trademarks owned by Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates in the United States and/or other countries.

Unless otherwise indicated herein, any third-party trademarks that may appear in this work are the property of their respective owners and any references to third-party trademarks, logos or other trade dress are for demon- strative or descriptive purposes only. Such references are not intended to imply any sponsorship, endorsement, authorization, or promotion of Pearson’s products by the owners of such marks, or any relationship between the owner and Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates, authors, licensees or distributors.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Henslin, James M., author. Title: Sociology : a down-to-earth approach / James M. Henslin, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. Description: Thirteenth edition. | Boston : Pearson Education, [2017] Identifiers: LCCN 2015043067 | ISBN 9780134205571 Subjects: LCSH: Sociology. Classification: LCC HM586. H45 2017 | DDC 301–dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015043067

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Student Edition: ISBN-10: 0-13-420557-X ISBN-13: 978-0-13-420557-1

Books A La Carte ISBN 10: 0-13-420559-6 ISBN 13: 978-0-13-420559-5

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 2 11/23/15 2:12 PM

To my fellow sociologists, who do such creative research on social life and who communicate the sociological imagination to generations of students. With my sincere admiration and appreciation,

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 3 11/24/15 12:14 AM

1 The Sociological Perspective 1

2 Culture 34

3 Socialization 63

4 Social Structure and Social Interaction 96

5 How Sociologists Do Research 127

6 Societies to Social Networks 148

7 Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 174

8 Deviance and Social Control 196

9 Global Stratification 228

10 Social Class in the United States 261

11 Sex and Gender 294

12 Race and Ethnicity 326

13 The Elderly 365

14 The Economy 394

15 Politics 427

16 Marriage and Family 459

17 Education 493

18 Religion 520

19 Medicine and Health 555

20 Population and Urbanization 587

21 Collective Behavior and Social Movements 622

22 Social Change and the Environment 648

Brief Contents

iv

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 4 11/24/15 12:14 AM

To the Student . . . from the Author xix To the Instructor . . . from the Author xx About the Author xxxi

1 The Sociological Perspective 1 The Sociological Perspective 3

Seeing the Broader Social Context 3 The Global Context—and the Local 4

Sociology and the Other Sciences 5 The Natural Sciences 5 The Social Sciences 5

Anthropology  6  •  Economics  6  •  politicAl  sciEncE  6  •  psychology   6  •  sociology  6

The Goals of Science 7 The Risks of Being a Sociologist 8

Origins of Sociology 8 Tradition versus Science 8 Auguste Comte and Positivism 9 Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism 9 Karl Marx and Class Conflict 10 Emile Durkheim and Social Integration 11

Applying DurkhEim  12

Max Weber and the Protestant Ethic 13 rEligion AnD thE origin of cApitAlism  13

Values in Sociological Research 13

Verstehen and Social Facts 14 Weber and Verstehen 14 Durkheim and Social Facts 15 How Social Facts and Verstehen Fit Together 15

Sociology in North America 16 Sexism at the Time: Women in Early Sociology 16 Racism at the Time: W. E. B. Du Bois 18 Jane Addams: Sociologist and Social Reformer 20

Talcott Parsons and C. Wright Mills: Theory versus Reform 20

The Continuing Tension: Basic, Applied, and Public Sociology 21 BAsic sociology  21 •  AppliED sociology  21  •  puBlic  sociology  21  •  sociAl rEform is risky  22

Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology 23 Symbolic Interactionism 24

symBols in EvEryDAy lifE  24  •  Applying symBolic  intErActionism  24  • 

Functional Analysis 26 roBErt mErton AnD functionAlism  26  •  Applying  functionAl AnAlysis  26

Conflict Theory 28 kArl mArx AnD conflict thEory  28  •  conflict thEory  toDAy  28  •  fEminists AnD conflict thEory  28  •  Applying conflict thEory  29

Putting the Theoretical Perspectives Together 29 Levels of Analysis: Macro and Micro 29

Trends Shaping the Future of Sociology 30 Sociology’s Tension: Research versus Reform 30

thrEE stAgEs in sociology  30  •  DivErsity of  oriEntAtions  30

Globalization 31 ApplicAtion of gloBAlizAtion to this tExt  31

summary and review  31 thinking critically about chapter 1 33

2 Culture 34 What Is Culture? 36

Culture and Taken-for-Granted Orientations to Life 36 Practicing Cultural Relativism 38

AttAck on culturAl rElAtivism  42

Components of Symbolic Culture 42 Gestures 42

misunDErstAnDing AnD offEnsE 42  •  univErsAl  gEsturEs? 43

Language 43 lAnguAgE Allows humAn ExpEriEncE to BE  cumulAtivE 44  •  lAnguAgE proviDEs A sociAl  or shArED pAst 44  •  lAnguAgE proviDEs A sociAl  or shArED futurE 44  •  lAnguAgE Allows shArED  pErspEctivEs 44  •  lAnguAgE Allows shArED,  goAl-DirEctED BEhAvior 45

Language and Perception: The Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis 46 Values, Norms, and Sanctions 46 Folkways, Mores, and Taboos 48

Many Cultural Worlds 49 Subcultures 49 Countercultures 52

Values in U.S. Society 52 An Overview of U.S. Values 52 Value Clusters 53 Value Contradictions 53 An Emerging Value Cluster 54 When Values Clash 55 Values as Distorting Lenses 55 “Ideal” versus “Real” Culture 55

Cultural Universals 56

Sociobiology and Human Behavior 57

Technology in the Global Village 58 The New Technology 58 Cultural Lag and Cultural Change 58 Technology and Cultural Leveling 60 summary and review 61 thinking critically about chapter 2 62

Contents

v

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 5 11/19/15 4:31 PM

vi  contents

3 Socialization 63 Society Makes Us Human 65

Feral Children 65 Isolated Children 66 Institutionalized Children 67

thE orphAnAgE ExpErimEnt in thE unitED stAtEs 67  •  thE orphAnAgE ExpErimEnt in romAniA 68  •  timing  AnD humAn DEvElopmEnt 68

Deprived Animals 69

Socialization into the Self and Mind 70 Cooley and the Looking-Glass Self 70 Mead and Role Taking 70 Piaget and the Development of Reasoning 72 Global Aspects of the Self and Reasoning 73

Learning Personality, Morality, and Emotions 73 Freud and the Development of Personality 73

sociologicAl EvAluAtion 74

Kohlberg and the Development of Morality 74 kohlBErg’s thEory 74  •  criticisms of  kohlBErg 75  •  rEsEArch with BABiEs 75  •  thE  culturAl rElAtivity of morAlity 75

Socialization into Emotions 75 gloBAl Emotions 75  •  ExprEssing Emotions:  “gEnDEr rulEs” 75  •  thE ExtEnt of “fEEling  rulEs” 76  •  whAt wE fEEl  76  •  rEsEArch nEEDED 76

Society within Us: The Self and Emotions as  Social Control 77

Socialization into Gender 77 Learning the Gender Map 77 Gender Messages in the Family 77

pArEnts 77  •  toys AnD plAy 78 •  sAmE-sEx pArEnts 80

Gender Messages from Peers 80 Gender Messages in the Mass Media 80

tElEvision, moviEs, AnD cArtoons 81 •  viDEo gAmEs 81  •  ADvErtising 81

Agents of Socialization 83 The Family 83

sociAl clAss AnD typE of work 83 •  sociAl clAss AnD plAy 83

The Neighborhood 84 Religion 84 Day Care 84 The School 85 Peer Groups 85 The Workplace 88

Resocialization 88 Total Institutions 88

Socialization through the Life Course 90 Childhood (from birth to about age 12) 90 Adolescence (ages 13–17) 91 Transitional Adulthood (ages 18–29) 91

“Bring your pArEnts to work DAy.” 92

The Middle Years (ages 30–65) 92 thE EArly miDDlE yEArs (AgEs 30–49) 92 •  thE lAtEr miDDlE yEArs (AgEs 50–65) 92

The Older Years (about age 65 on) 92 thE trAnsitionAl olDEr yEArs (AgEs 65–74) 92  •  thE lAtEr olDEr yEArs (AgE 75 or so on) 93

Applying the Sociological Perspective to the Life Course 93

Are We Prisoners of Socialization? 93 summary and review 94 thinking critically about chapter 3 95

4 Social Structure and Social Interaction 96 Levels of Sociological Analysis 98

Macrosociology and Microsociology 98

The Macrosociological Perspective: Social Structure 99 The Sociological Significance of Social Structure 99 Culture 101 Social Class 101 Social Status 101

stAtus sEts 101  •  AscriBED AnD AchiEvED  stAtusEs 101  •  stAtus symBols 102  •  mAstEr  stAtusEs 102  •  stAtus inconsistEncy 102

Roles 103 Groups 103 Social Institutions 104 Comparing Functionalist and Conflict Perspectives 105

thE functionAlist pErspEctivE 105  •  thE conflict  pErspEctivE 106 

Changes in Social Structure 106 What Holds Society Together? 106

mEchAnicAl AnD orgAnic soliDArity 106 •  Gemeinschaft AnD Gesellschaft 107 •  how rElEvAnt ArE thEsE concEpts toDAy? 107

The Microsociological Perspective: Social Interaction in Everyday Life 109

Symbolic Interaction 109 stErEotypEs in EvEryDAy lifE 109  •  pErsonAl  spAcE 113  •  EyE contAct 114  •   smiling 114 •  BoDy lAnguAgE 114  •  AppliED BoDy lAnguAgE 114

Dramaturgy: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life 114 stAgEs 115  •  rolE pErformAncE, conflict, AnD  strAin  115  •  sign-vEhiclEs 115  •  tEAmwork 116 •  BEcoming thE rolEs wE plAy 118  •  Applying  imprEssion mAnAgEmEnt 118

Ethnomethodology: Uncovering Background Assumptions 119 The Social Construction of Reality 120   •  gynEcologicAl ExAminAtions 120

The Need for both Macrosociology and Microsociology 122 summary and review 125 thinking critically about chapter 4 126

5 How Sociologists Do Research 127 What Is a Valid Sociological Topic? 129

Common Sense and the Need for Sociological Research 129

A Research Model 129 1. Selecting a Topic 130 2. Defining the Problem 130

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 6 11/19/15 4:31 PM

contents vii

3. Reviewing the Literature 130 4. Formulating a Hypothesis 130 5. Choosing a Research Method 130 6. Collecting the Data 130 7. Analyzing the Results 131 8. Sharing the Results 131

Research Methods (Designs) 131 Surveys 133

sElEcting A sAmplE 133  •  Asking nEutrAl  QuEstions 134  •  QuEstionnAirEs AnD  intErviEws 134  •  EstABlishing rApport 136

Participant Observation (Fieldwork) 136 Case Studies 137 Secondary Analysis 137 Analysis of Documents 137 Experiments 139 Unobtrusive Measures 141 Deciding Which Method to Use 141 Controversy in Sociological Research 141

Gender in Sociological Research 143

Ethics in Sociological Research 143 Protecting the Subjects: The Brajuha Research 144 Misleading the Subjects: The Humphreys Research 144

How Research and Theory Work Together 145 The Real World: When the Ideal Meets the Real 145 summary and review  147 thinking critically about chapter 5  147

6 Societies to Social Networks 148 Societies and Their Transformation 150

Hunting and Gathering Societies 150 Pastoral and Horticultural Societies 152 Agricultural Societies 152 Industrial Societies 153 Postindustrial (Information) Societies 154 Biotech Societies: Is a New Type of

Society Emerging? 154

Groups within Society 156 Primary Groups 158

proDucing A mirror within 158

Secondary Groups 158 In-Groups and Out-Groups 158

shAping pErcEption AnD morAlity 159

Reference Groups 159 EvAluAting oursElvEs 160  •  ExposurE to  contrADictory stAnDArDs in A sociAlly DivErsE  sociEty 160

Social Networks 160 AppliED nEtwork AnAlysis 161  •  thE smAll worlD  phEnomEnon 161  •  is thE smAll worlD phEnomEnon  An AcADEmic myth? 162  •  BuilDing unintEntionAl  BArriErs 162

Group Dynamics 162 Effects of Group Size on Stability and Intimacy 163 Effects of Group Size on Attitudes and Behavior 164

lABorAtory finDings AnD thE rEAl worlD 165

Leadership 167 who BEcomEs A lEADEr? 167  •  typEs of lEADErs 167  •  lEADErship stylEs 168  •  lEADErship stylEs in  chAnging situAtions 168

The Power of Peer Pressure: The Asch Experiment 169

The Power of Authority: The Milgram Experiment 170 Global Consequences of Group Dynamics:

Groupthink 171 prEvEnting groupthink 172

summary and review 172 thinking critically about chapter 6 173

7 Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 174

The Rationalization of Society 176 Why Did Society Make a Deep Shift in Human

Relationships? 176 lifE in trADitionAl sociEtiEs 176  •  thE shift  to rAtionAlity As sociEtiEs inDustriAlizED 176

Marx: Capitalism Broke Tradition 178

Weber: Religion Broke Tradition 178 thE two viEws toDAy 178

Formal Organizations and Bureaucracies 179 Formal Organizations 179 The Characteristics of Bureaucracies 179 “Ideal” versus “Real” Bureaucracy 181 Goal Displacement and the Perpetuation of

Bureaucracies 183 Dysfunctions of Bureaucracies 184

rED tApE: A rulE is A rulE 184  •  lAck of  communicAtion BEtwEEn units 184 •  BurEAucrAtic incompEtEncE 184

Alienation of Workers 185 cAusEs of AliEnAtion 185  •  thE AliEnAtED  BurEAucrAt 186  •  rEsisting AliEnAtion 186

Voluntary Associations 187 Functions of Voluntary Associations 187 Motivations for Joining 188 The Inner Circle and the “Iron Law” of Oligarchy 188

thE innEr circlE 188  •  thE iron lAw of  oligArchy  188

Working for the Corporation 189 Humanizing the Work Setting 189

workEr EmpowErmEnt 189  •  corporAtE chilD  cArE 190  •  thE conflict pErspEctivE 190  •  workErs’  AttEmpts to humAnizE work 190

Fads in Corporate Culture 190 Self-Fulfilling Stereotypes in the “Hidden”

Corporate Culture 192 sElf-fulfilling stErEotypEs AnD promotions 192

Diversity in the Workplace 192

Technology and the Maximum-Security Society 193 summary and review 195 thinking critically about chapter 7 195

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 7 11/19/15 4:31 PM

viii  contents

8 Deviance and Social Control 196 What Is Deviance? 198

thE rElAtivity of DEviAncE 198  •  A nEutrAl  tErm 198  •  stigmA 199

How Norms Make Social Life Possible 199 Sanctions 200 Competing Explanations of Deviance: Sociobiology,

Psychology, and Sociology 200 BiosociAl ExplAnAtions 201  •  psychologicAl  ExplAnAtions 201  •  sociologicAl  ExplAnAtions 201

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective 201 Differential Association Theory 202

ThE ThEory 202  •  fAmiliEs 202  •  friEnDs,  nEighBorhooDs, AnD suBculturEs 202 •  DiffErEntiAl AssociAtion in thE cyBEr  AgE 203  •  prison or frEEDom? 203

Control Theory 203 ThE ThEory 203  •  Applying control thEory 204

Labeling Theory 204 rEjEcting lABEls: how pEoplE nEutrAlizE  DEviAncE 204  •  Applying nEutrAlizAtion 206  •  EmBrAcing lABEls: thE ExAmplE of  outlAw BikErs 206  •  lABEls cAn BE  powErful 207  •  how Do lABEls work? 208

The Functionalist Perspective 208 Can Deviance Really Be Functional for Society? 208 Strain Theory: How Mainstream Values

Produce Deviance 209 four DEviAnt pAths 210

Illegitimate Opportunity Structures: Social Class and Crime 211 strEEt crimE 211  •  whitE-collAr  crimE 211  •  gEnDEr AnD crimE 213 

The Conflict Perspective 214 Class, Crime, and the Criminal Justice System 214 The Criminal Justice System as an Instrument

of Oppression 214

Reactions to Deviance 216 Street Crime and Prisons 216 The Decline in Violent Crime 218 Recidivism 219 The Death Penalty and Bias 220

gEogrAphy 220  •  sociAl clAss 220  •  gEnDEr 220  •  rAcE–Ethnicity 222

The Trouble with Official Statistics 223 The Medicalization of Deviance:

Mental Illness 224 nEithEr mEntAl nor illnEss? 224  •  thE homElEss  mEntAlly ill 225

The Need for a More Humane Approach 226 summary and review 226 thinking critically about chapter 8 227

9 Global Stratification 228 Systems of Social Stratification 230

Slavery 231

cAusEs of slAvEry 231  •  conDitions of  slAvEry 231  •  BonDED lABor in thE nEw  worlD 232  •  slAvEry in thE nEw  worlD 232  •  slAvEry toDAy 232

Caste 233 inDiA’s rEligious cAstEs 233  •  south AfricA 234 •  A u.s. rAciAl cAstE systEm 235

Estate 236 womEn in thE EstAtE systEm 236

Class 236 Global Stratification and the Status of Females 237 The Global Superclass 237

What Determines Social Class? 238 Karl Marx: The Means of Production 238 Max Weber: Property, Power, and Prestige 239

Why Is Social Stratification Universal? 240 The Functionalist View: Motivating Qualified People 240

DAvis AnD moorE’s ExplAnAtion 240  •  tumin’s  critiQuE of DAvis AnD moorE 240

The Conflict Perspective: Class Conflict and Scarce Resources 241 moscA’s ArgumEnt 241  •  mArx’s ArgumEnt  242  •  currEnt ApplicAtions of conflict thEory 242

Lenski’s Synthesis 242

How Do Elites Maintain Stratification? 243 Soft Control versus Force 243

controlling pEoplE’s iDEAs 243  •  controlling informAtion 244  •  stifling  criticism 244  •  Big BrothEr  tEchnology 244 

Comparative Social Stratification 245 Social Stratification in Great Britain 245 Social Stratification in the Former

Soviet Union 245

Global Stratification: Three Worlds 246

thE proBlEm with tErms 247

The Most Industrialized Nations 247 The Industrializing Nations 250 The Least Industrialized Nations 251 Modifying the Model 251

How Did the World’s Nations Become  Stratified? 254

Colonialism 254 World System Theory 254 Culture of Poverty 256 Evaluating the Theories 256

Maintaining Global Stratification 257 Neocolonialism 257

rElEvAncE toDAy 257

Multinational Corporations 257 Buying politicAl stABility 258  •  unAnticipAtED  consEQuEncEs 258

Technology and Global Domination 258

Strains in the Global System 259 summary and review 259 thinking critically about chapter 9 260 260

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 8 11/19/15 4:31 PM

contents ix

10 Social Class in the United States 261 What Is Social Class? 263

Property 263 Distinguishing BEtwEEn wEAlth AnD incomE 263  •  DistriBution of propErty 264  •  DistriBution  of incomE 264

Power 266 thE DEmocrAtic fAcADE 266  •  thE powEr ElitE 266

Prestige 268 occupAtions AnD prEstigE 268  •  DisplAying  prEstigE 268

Status Inconsistency 269

Sociological Models of Social Class 270 Updating Marx 270 Updating Weber 272

thE cApitAlist clAss 273  •  thE uppEr-miDDlE  clAss 273  •  thE lowEr-miDDlE clAss 274  •  thE  working clAss 274  •  thE working poor 274  •  thE unDErclAss 275

Consequences of Social Class 275 Physical Health 276 Mental Health 276 Family Life 276

choicE of husBAnD or wifE 277 •  DivorcE 277  •  chilD rEAring 277

Education 277 Religion 277 Politics 278 Crime and Criminal Justice 278

Social Mobility 279 Three Types of Social Mobility 279 Women in Studies of Social Mobility 280 The Pain of Social Mobility 280

Poverty 283 Drawing the Poverty Line 283 Who Are the Poor? 284

thE gEogrAphy of povErty  284

rAcE–Ethnicity  286  •  EDucAtion  286 •  thE fEminizAtion of povErty  286  •  olD AgE  287

Children of Poverty 287 The Dynamics of Poverty versus the Culture of Poverty 287 Why Are People Poor? 289 Deferred Gratification 289 Where Is Horatio Alger? The Social Functions of a Myth 290

Peering into the Future: Will We Live in a Three-Tier Society? 291

summary and review 292 thinking critically about chapter 10 293

11 Sex and Gender 294 Issues of Sex and Gender 296

thE sociologicAl significAncE of gEnDEr 296

Gender Differences in Behavior: Biology or Culture? 296 The Dominant Position in Sociology 298 Opening the Door to Biology 298

A mEDicAl AcciDEnt  298  •  thE viEtnAm vEtErAns  stuDy 299  •  morE rEsEArch on humAns 299

Gender Inequality in Global Perspective 300 How Did Females Become a Minority Group? 301

humAn rEproDuction 301  •  hAnD-to-hAnD comBAt 303 •  which onE? 303  •  continuing DominAncE 303

Sex Typing of Work 303 Gender and the Prestige of Work 304 Other Areas of Global Discrimination 304

thE gloBAl gAp in EDucAtion 304  •  thE gloBAl  gAp in politics 304  •  thE gloBAl gAp in pAy 307 •  gloBAl violEncE AgAinst womEn 307

Gender Inequality in the United States 308 Fighting Back: The Rise of Feminism 308 Gender Inequality in Everyday Life 311

DEvAluAtion of things fEmininE 311

Gender Inequality in Health Care 311 Gender Inequality in Education 313

thE pAst 313  •  A funDAmEntAl chAngE 313  •  gEnDEr  trAcking 314  •  grADuAtE school AnD BEyonD 314

Gender Inequality in the Workplace 316 The Pay Gap 316

historicAl BAckgrounD 316  •  gEogrAphicAl  fActors 317  •  thE “tEstostEronE Bonus” 317 •  rEAsons for thE gEnDEr pAy gAp 319  •  thE cEo  powEr gAp 320

Is the Glass Ceiling Cracking? 320 thE womEn who BrEAk through 320 •  AnD thE futurE? 320

Sexual Harassment—and Worse 321 lABEls AnD pErcEption 321  •  not just A  “mAn thing” 321  •  sExuAl oriEntAtion 321

Gender and Violence 321 Violence against Women 321

forciBlE rApE 321  •  DAtE (AcQuAintAncE)  rApE 322  •  murDEr 323  •  violEncE in  thE homE 323  •  fEminism AnD gEnDErED  violEncE 323  •  solutions 323

The Changing Face of Politics 323

Glimpsing the Future—with Hope 324 summary and review 324 thinking critically about chapter 11 325

12 Race and Ethnicity 326 Laying the Sociological Foundation 328

Race: Myth and Reality 328 thE rEAlity of humAn vAriEty 328  •  thE myth of purE  rAcEs 328  •  thE myth of A fixED numBEr of rAcEs 328 •  thE myth of rAciAl supEriority 328  •  thE myth  continuEs 331

Ethnic Groups 331 Minority Groups and Dominant Groups 332

not sizE, But DominAncE AnD DiscriminAtion 332 •  EmErgEncE of minority groups 332

Ethnic Work: Constructing Our Racial–Ethnic Identity 332

Prejudice and Discrimination 333 Learning Prejudice 333

Distinguishing BEtwEEn prEjuDicE AnD  DiscriminAtion 333  •  lEArning prEjuDicE 

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 9 11/19/15 4:31 PM

x  contents

from AssociAting with othErs 335  •  thE  fAr-rEAching nAturE of prEjuDicE 336 •  intErnAlizing DominAnt norms 336

Individual and Institutional Discrimination 338 homE mortgAgEs 338  •  hEAlth cArE 338

Theories of Prejudice 339 Psychological Perspectives 339

frustrAtion AnD scApEgoAts 339  •  thE AuthoritAriAn  pErsonAlity 340

Sociological Perspectives 340 functionAlism 340  •  conflict thEory 341 •  symBolic intErActionism 342  •  how lABEls  crEAtE prEjuDicE 342  •  lABEls AnD sElf-fulfilling  stErEotypEs 342

Global Patterns of Intergroup Relations 343 Genocide 343 Population Transfer 344 Internal Colonialism 345 Segregation 345 Assimilation 345 Multiculturalism (Pluralism) 346

Racial–Ethnic Relations in the United States 346 European Americans 346 Latinos (Hispanics) 348

umBrEllA tErm 348  •  countriEs of origin 348 •  unAuthorizED immigrAnts 349  •  rEsiDEncE 351 •  spAnish 351  •  Economic wEll-BEing 351 •  politics 351

African Americans 352 rising ExpEctAtions AnD civil strifE 353 •  continuED gAins 354  •  currEnt lossEs 354  •  rAcE or sociAl clAss? A sociologicAl DEBAtE 354 •  rAcism As An EvEryDAy BurDEn 355

Asian Americans 355 A BAckgrounD of DiscriminAtion 356  •  DivErsity 356 •  rEAsons for finAnciAl succEss 356  •  politics 357

Native Americans 357 DivErsity of groups 357  •  from trEAtiEs to  gEnociDE AnD  populAtion trAnsfEr 358  •  thE  invisiBlE minority AnD sElf-DEtErminAtion 358  •  thE  cAsinos 359  •  DEtErmining iDEntity AnD goAls 359

Looking toward the Future 359 The Immigration Controversy 360 The Affirmative Action Controversy 360 Less Racism 362 Toward a True Multicultural Society 362 summary and review 363 thinking critically about chapter 12 364

13 The Elderly 365 Aging in Global Perspective 367

The Social Construction of Aging 367 Industrialization and the Graying of the Globe 368 The Graying of America 369

rAcE–Ethnicity AnD Aging 370  •  thE lifE spAn 371

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective 372 When Are You “Old”? 372

chAnging pErcEptions As you AgE 372  •  four fActors in our DEcision 372

Changing Perceptions of the Elderly 373 shifting mEAnings 373

The Influence of the Mass Media 375

The Functionalist Perspective 376 Disengagement Theory 376

EvAluAtion of thE thEory 376

Activity Theory 377 EvAluAtion of thE thEory 377

Continuity Theory 377 EvAluAtion of thE thEory 377

The Conflict Perspective 378 Fighting for Resources: Social Security Legislation 378 Intergenerational Competition and Conflict 380 Fighting Back 382

thE grAy pAnthErs 382  •  thE AmEricAn AssociAtion  of rEtirED pErsons  383

Recurring Problems 383 Gender and Living Arrangements of the Elderly 383 Nursing Homes 383

unDErstAffing, DEhumAnizAtion, AnD DEAth 384

Elder Abuse 386 The Elderly Poor 386

rAcE–Ethnicity AnD povErty 386  •  gEnDEr  AnD povErty 386

The Sociology of Death and Dying 387 Industrialization and the New Technology 387 Death as a Process 387 Hospices 388 Suicide and Age 389 Adjusting to Death: The Importance of “Closure” 389

Looking toward the Future 390 New Views of Aging 390

crEAtivE Aging 390

The Impact of Technology 391 summary and review 392 thinking critically about chapter 13 393

14 The Economy 394 The Transformation of Economic Systems 396

Preindustrial Societies: The Birth of Inequality 396 Industrial Societies: The Birth of the Machine 396 Postindustrial Societies: The Birth of the Information Age 397 Biotech Societies: The Merger of Biology and Economics 397 Implications for Your Life 397

The Transformation of the Medium of Exchange 398

Earliest Mediums of Exchange 399 Medium of Exchange in Agricultural Societies 399 Medium of Exchange in Industrial Societies 399 Medium of Exchange in Postindustrial Societies 401

World Economic Systems 401 Capitalism 401

whAt cApitAlism is 401  •  whAt stAtE cApitAlism  is 401  •  thE DEvElopmEnt of stAtE cApitAlism 402

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 10 11/19/15 4:31 PM

contents xi

Socialism 403 whAt sociAlism is 403  •  sociAlism in prActicE 403  •  DEmocrAtic sociAlism 404

Ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism 404 Criticisms of Capitalism and Socialism 404 The Convergence of Capitalism and Socialism 405

chAngEs in sociAlist countriEs 405  •  chAngEs in  cApitAlism 406  •  possiBlE trAnsmErgEncE 407

The Functionalist Perspective on the Globalization of Capitalism 407

The New Global Division of Labor 407 Capitalism in a Global Economy 408

corporAtE cApitAlism 408  •  sEpArAtion of  ownErship AnD mAnAgEmEnt 408

Functions and Dysfunctions on a Global Scale 410

The Conflict Perspective on the Globalization of Capitalism 410 Making Capitalism Flourish: Profits and Self-Interests 410

corporAtE–politicAl connEctions 410  •  corporAtE  powEr AnD conspirAciEs 413  •  multiplying powEr:  intErlocking DirEctorships 413

The Global Superclass 413 Shifting Dominance and Power 414 Global Investing 414

Work in U.S. Society 417 The Transition to Postindustrial Society 417 Women and Work 417

thE QuiEt rEvolution 417  •  fEmAlE-mAlE work stylEs 418

The Underground Economy 419 Stagnant Paychecks 421 Patterns of Work and Leisure 421

work AnD lEisurE AnD thE trAnsformAtion  of EconomiEs 422  •  trEnDs in  lEisurE 422  •  tElEcommuting 422  •  thE moBilE shift 423

Global Capitalism and Our Future 423 The New Economic System and the Old Divisions

of Wealth 424 summary and review 425 thinking critically about chapter 14 426

15 Politics 427 Micropolitics and Macropolitics 429

Power, Authority, and Violence 429 Authority and Legitimate Violence 430

thE collApsE of Authority 430

Traditional Authority 431 Rational–Legal Authority 431 Charismatic Authority 432

thE thrEAt posED By chArismAtic lEADErs 432

Authority as Ideal Type 432 The Transfer of Authority 433

Types of Government 433 Monarchies: The Rise of the State 433 Democracies: Citizenship as a Revolutionary Idea 434 Dictatorships and Oligarchies: The Seizure of Power 436

The U.S. Political System 436 Political Parties and Elections 436

slicEs from thE cEntEr 437  •  thirD pArtiEs 437

Contrast with Democratic Systems in Europe 438 Voting Patterns 438

sociAl intEgrAtion 441  •  AliEnAtion 441 •  ApAthy 441  •  thE gEnDEr AnD rAciAl–Ethnic  gAps in voting 441

Lobbyists and Special-Interest Groups 441 loBBying By spEciAl-intErEst groups 442 •  thE monEy 442

Who Rules the United States? 443 The Functionalist Perspective: Pluralism 443 The Conflict Perspective: The Power Elite 444 Which View Is Right? 444

War and Terrorism: Implementing Political Objectives 446

Is War Universal? 446 How Common Is War? 446 Why Countries Go to War 447 The War Machine and the Profits of War 447 Costs of War 447 A Special Cost of War: Dehumanization 449

succEss AnD fAilurE of DEhumAnizAtion 449

Terrorism 451 Targeted Killings 454 Sowing the Seeds of Future Violence 455

sElling wAr tEchnology 455  •  AlignmEnts  AnD DisAlignmEnts 455

A New World Order? 456 Trends toward Unity 456 Inevitable Changes 456 summary and review 457 thinking critically about chapter 15 458

16 Marriage and Family 459 Marriage and Family in Global Perspective 461

What Is a Family? 461 What Is Marriage? 462 Common Cultural Themes 462

mAtE sElEction 462  •  DEscEnt 462  •  inhEritAncE 463 •  Authority 463

Marriage and Family in Theoretical Perspective 463 The Functionalist Perspective: Functions

and Dysfunctions 464 why thE fAmily is univErsAl 465  •  functions of thE  incEst tABoo 465  •  isolAtion AnD EmotionAl  ovErloAD 465

The Conflict Perspective: Struggles between Husbands and Wives 465

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective: Gender, Housework, and Child Care 466 chAngEs in trADitionAl gEnDEr oriEntAtions 466 •  pAiD work AnD housEwork 466  •  morE chilD  cArE 467  •  totAl hours 467  •  A gEnDEr Division  of lABor 467

The Family Life Cycle 467 Love and Courtship in Global Perspective 467 Marriage 469

thE sociAl chAnnEls of lovE AnD mArriAgE 469

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 11 11/19/15 4:31 PM

xii  contents

Childbirth 470 iDEAl fAmily sizE 470  •  mAritAl sAtisfAction 471

Child Rearing 472 mArriED couplEs AnD singlE mothErs 472  •  singlE  fAthErs 473  •  DAy cArE 474  •  nAnniEs 474  •  uBEr  As A pArEnt suBstitutE 474  •  sociAl clAss 474

Family Transitions 475 trAnsitionAl ADulthooD AnD thE not-so-Empty  nEst 475  •  wiDowhooD 475

Diversity in U.S. Families 476 African American Families 476 Latino Families 477 Asian American Families 478 Native American Families 478 One-Parent Families 479 Couples without Children 479 Blended Families 479 Gay and Lesbian Families 480

ADoption By gAy AnD lEsBiAn couplEs 480

Trends in U.S. Families 481 The Changing Timetable of Family Life: Marriage

and Childbirth 481 Cohabitation 481

cohABitAtion AnD mArriAgE: thE EssEntiAl  DiffErEncE 482  •  cohABitAtion AnD hEAlth 482  •  DoEs cohABitAtion mAkE mArriAgE strongEr? 482

The “Sandwich Generation” and Elder Care 483

Divorce and Remarriage 483 Ways of Measuring Divorce 483 Divorce and Mixed Racial–Ethnic Marriages 485 Children of Divorce 486

nEgAtivE EffEcts 486  •  whAt hElps chilDrEn ADjust  to DivorcE? 486  •  pErpEtuAting DivorcE 487

Grandchildren of Divorce: Ripples to the Future 487 Fathers’ Contact with Children after Divorce 487 The Ex-Spouses 487 Remarriage 488

Two Sides of Family Life 488 The Dark Side of Family Life: Battering, Child Abuse,

Marital Rape, and Incest 488 spousE BAttEring 488  •  chilD ABusE 488  •  mAritAl AnD  intimAcy rApE 489  •  incEst 489

The Bright Side of Family Life: Successful Marriages 490 succEssful mArriAgEs 490

Symbolic Interactionism and the Misuse of Statistics 490

The Future of Marriage and Family 491 summary and review 491 thinking critically about chapter 16 492

17 Education 493 The Development of Modern Education 495

Education in Earlier Societies 495 Industrialization and Universal Education 495

hoDgE-poDgE EDucAtion AnD nAtionAl  Disunity 495  •  inDustriAlizAtion AnD mAnDAtory  EDucAtion 496  •  thE ExpAnsion of EDucAtion 496

Education in Global Perspective 498

Education in the Most Industrialized Nations: Japan 498 Education in the Industrializing Nations: Russia 499 Education in the Least Industrialized Nations: Egypt 500

The Functionalist Perspective: Providing Social Benefits 501 Teaching Knowledge and Skills 501 Cultural Transmission of Values 502 Social Integration 502

intEgrAting immigrAnts 502  •  stABilizing sociEty:  mAintAining thE stAtus Quo 502  •  intEgrAting  pEoplE with DisABilitiEs 502

Gatekeeping (Social Placement) 503 Replacing Family Functions 503 Other Functions 503

A surprising lAtEnt function 505 

The Conflict Perspective: Perpetuating Social Inequality 505 The Hidden Curriculum: Reproducing the Social

Class Structure 505 Tilting the Tests: Discrimination by IQ 506 Stacking the Deck: Unequal Funding 507 The Correspondence Principle 508 The Bottom Line: Family Background 508

rEproDucing thE sociAl clAss structurE 508

•  rEproDucing thE rAciAl–Ethnic structurE 508

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective: Teacher Expectations 509

The Rist Research 509 The Rosenthal–Jacobson Experiment 510 How Do Teacher Expectations Work? 511 Self-Expectations 511

Problems in U.S. Education—and Their Solutions 512 Mediocrity 513

thE rising tiDE of mEDiocrity 513  •  thE sAts 513  •  grADE inflAtion, sociAl  promotion, AnD functionAl illitErAcy 514

Raising Standards 514 rAising stAnDArDs for tEAchErs 514  •  A wArning  ABout highEr stAnDArDs 514

Cheating 515 thE solution to chEAting 515

Violence 516

Technology and Education 517 summary and review 518 thinking critically about chapter 17  519

18 Religion 520 What Is Religion? 522

The Functionalist Perspective 523 Functions of Religion 523

mEAning AnD purposE 523  •  EmotionAl  comfort 523  •  sociAl soliDArity 523  •  guiDElinEs  for EvEryDAy lifE 523  •  sociAl control 525  •  ADAptAtion 525  •  support for thE govErnmEnt 525 •  sociAl chAngE 525

Functional Equivalents of Religion 525

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 12 11/19/15 4:31 PM

contents xiii

Dysfunctions of Religion 526 rEligion As justificAtion for pErsEcution 526 •  wAr AnD tErrorism 526

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective 528 Religious Symbols 528 Rituals 529 Beliefs 529 Religious Experience 529 Community 529

unity 529  •  Exclusion 532

The Conflict Perspective 532 Opium of the People 532 Legitimating Social Inequalities 532

Religion and the Spirit of Capitalism 533

The World’s Major Religions 534 Judaism 534 Christianity 536 Islam 536 Hinduism 538 Buddhism 539 Confucianism 539

Types of Religious Groups 540 Cult 541 Sect 542 Church 542 Ecclesia 543 Variations in Patterns 543 When Religion and Culture Conflict 543

Religion in the United States 544 Characteristics of Members 544

sociAl clAss AnD rEligious pArticipAtion 544 •  rAcE–Ethnicity 545

Characteristics of Religious Groups 545 DivErsity 545  •  plurAlism AnD frEEDom 546 •  compEtition AnD rEcruitmEnt 546 •  commitmEnt 546  •  tolErAtion 547 •  funDAmEntAlist rEvivAl 547 •  thE ElEctronic church 547

Secularization of Religion and Culture 549 thE sEculArizAtion of rEligion 549 •  thE sEculArizAtion of culturE 550

The Future of Religion 551 summary and review 552 thinking critically about chapter 18 554

19 Medicine and Health 555 Sociology and the Study of Medicine and Health 557

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective 557 The Role of Culture in Defining Health and Illness 557 The Components of Health 558

The Functionalist Perspective 558 The Sick Role 558

ElEmEnts of thE sick rolE 558  •  AmBiguity  in thE sick rolE 558  •  gAtEkEEpErs to thE sick  rolE 559  •  gEnDEr DiffErEncEs in thE sick rolE 559

The Conflict Perspective 559 Global Stratification and Health Care 559 Establishing a Monopoly on U.S. Health Care 560

thE profEssionAlizAtion of mEDicinE 561  •  thE  monopoly of mEDicinE 562

Historical Patterns of Health 563 Physical Health 563

lEADing cAusEs of DEAth 563  •  wErE AmEricAns  hEAlthiEr in thE pAst? 564

Mental Health 564

Issues in Health Care 564 Medical Care: A Right or a Commodity? 565 Skyrocketing Costs 565 Social Inequality 565 Reducing Inequalities: Health Care Reform 566 Malpractice Lawsuits and Defensive Medicine 566 Medical Incompetence 567

DEAth By Doctors 567  •  using A chEcklist 567 •  fEDErAl cEntEr for pAtiEnt sAfEty 568

Depersonalization: The Medical Cash Machine 568 Conflict of Interest 569 Medical Fraud 569 Sexism and Racism in Medicine 570 The Medicalization of Society 570

thEorEticAl pErspEctivEs 570

Medically Assisted Suicide 570 Reducing the Costs of Medical Care 571

hEAlth mAintEnAncE orgAnizAtions 571 •  DiAgnosis-rElAtED groups 572  •  pAy-As-you- go clinics 572  •  group cArE 572  •  workplAcE  cArE 572  •  rEtAil hEAlth clinics 572 •  tElEmEDicinE 572  •  Dumping 573  •  rAtioning  mEDicAl cArE 573

Threats to Health 574 HIV/AIDS 574

origin 575  •  thE trAnsmission of hiv/AiDs 575 •  gEnDEr, circumcision, AnD rAcE–Ethnicity 575 •  thE stigmA of AiDs 576  •  is thErE A curE  for AiDs? 576

Weight: Too Much and Too Little 577 Alcohol and Nicotine 577

Alcohol 577  •  nicotinE 578

Disabling Environments 580 Medical Experiments: Callous and Harmful 580

thE tuskEgEE syphilis ExpErimEnt 580  •  thE  guAtEmAlAn ExpErimEnt 580  •  thE colD wAr  ExpErimEnts 580  •  plAying goD 581

Chicken Bones and the Globalization of Disease 581 ruBBing chickEn BonEs togEthEr 582

Treatment or Prevention? 582

The Future of Medicine 582 Alternative Medicine 583 Technology 584

DigitAl mEDicinE 584

summary and review 585 thinking critically about chapter 19 586

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 13 11/19/15 4:31 PM

xiv  contents

20 Population and Urbanization 587 Population in Global Perspective 589 A Planet with No Space for Enjoying Life? 589

The New Malthusians 589 The Anti-Malthusians 591 Who Is Correct? 592 Why Are People Starving? 593

Population Growth 595

Why the Least Industrialized Nations Have So Many Children 596

Consequences of Rapid Population Growth 597 Population Pyramids as a Tool

for Understanding 598 The Three Demographic Variables 598

fErtility 598  •  mortAlity 599  •  migrAtion 599

Problems in Forecasting Population Growth 600

Urbanization 604 The Development of Cities 605

Urbanization 605 thE AppEAl of citiEs 605  •  forcED  urBAnizAtion 608  •  mEtropolisEs 608 •  mEgAlopolisEs 608  •  mEgAcitiEs 608 •  mEgArEgions 608

U.S. Urban Patterns 608 from country to city 608  •  from city to  city 609  •  BEtwEEn citiEs 610  •  within thE city 610  •  from city to suBurB AnD  BAck 610  •  smAllEr cEntErs 610

Models of Urban Growth 612 The Concentric Zone Model 612 The Sector Model 612 The Multiple-Nuclei Model 613 The Peripheral Model 613 Critique of the Models 614

City Life 615 Alienation in the City 615 Community in the City 616 Who Lives in the City? 616

thE cosmopolitEs 616  •  thE singlEs 616  •  thE  Ethnic villAgErs 616  •  thE DEprivED 617  •  thE  TrAppED 617  •  critiQuE 617

The Norm of Noninvolvement and the Diffusion of Responsibility 617 tuning out: thE norm of noninvolvEmEnt 617

Urban Problems and Social Policy 618 Suburbanization 618

city vErsus suBurB 618  •  suBurBAn  flight 619  •  living At thE mAll 619

Disinvestment and Deindustrialization 619 The Potential of Urban Revitalization 619

puBlic sociology 620

summary and review 620  thinking critically about chapter 20 621

21 Collective Behavior and Social Movements 622

Collective Behavior 624 Early Explanations: The Transformation of People 624

How Crowds Change People 624 The Acting Crowd 625

The Contemporary View: The Rationality of the Crowd 626 The Minimax Strategy 626 Emergent Norms 626 How Sociologists Study Collective Behavior 627

Forms of Collective Behavior 627 Riots 627

pArticipAnts in riots 628 

Rumors 629 Panics 630

thE clAssic pAnic  630

Mass Hysteria 632 Moral Panics 632 Fads and Fashions 634 Urban Legends 635

Social Movements 636 Types and Tactics of Social Movements 637

Types of Social Movements 637 Tactics of Social Movements 638

lEvEls of mEmBErship 638  •  thE puBlics 638 •  rElAtionship to AuthoritiEs 639

Multiple Realities and Social Movements 639 Propaganda and the Mass Media 639

gAtEkEEpErs to sociAl movEmEnts 641

Why People Join Social Movements 641 Relative Deprivation Theory: Improving

Status and Power 641 rElAtivity of DEprivAtion 641  •  rElAtivE DEprivAtion  AnD thE civil rights movEmEnt 642

Declining Privilege Theory: Protecting Status and Power 642

Moral Issues and Ideological Commitment 642

When Social Movements Pose a Threat to the Government 643

On the Success and Failure of Social Movements 643 The Rocky Road to Success 643 The Stages of Social Movements 644 Resurgence 645 summary and review 646 thinking critically about chapter 21 647

22 Social Change and the Environment 648 How Social Change Transforms Social Life 650

The Four Social Revolutions 650 From Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft 650 The Industrial Revolution and Capitalism 651 Social Movements 652

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 14 11/19/15 4:31 PM

contents xv

Conflict, Power, and Global Politics 652 A BriEf history of gEopolitics 652  •  g7 plus 652  •  DiviDing up thE worlD 652  •  four thrEAts to this coAlition of  powErs 653  •  thE growing rElEvAncE of AfricA 654

Theories and Processes of Social Change 654 Evolution from Lower to Higher 654 Natural Cycles 655 Conflict over Power and Resources 655 Ogburn’s Theory 656

invEntion 656  •  DiscovEry 657  •  Diffusion 657 •  culturAl lAg 657  •  EvAluAtion of ogBurn’s  ThEory 657

How Technology Is Changing Our Lives 658 Extending Human Abilities 658 The Sociological Significance of Technology: How 

Technology Changes Social Life 659 chAngEs in proDuction 659  •  chAngEs in workEr–ownEr  rElAtions 659  •  chAngEs in iDEology 659  •  chAngEs  in conspicuous consumption 659  •  chAngEs in fAmily  rElAtionships 660

When Old Technology Was New: The Impact of the Automobile 660 DisplAcEmEnt of Existing tEchnology 660  •  EffEcts on  citiEs 660  •  chAngEs in ArchitEcturE 661  •  chAngED  courtship customs AnD sExuAl norms  661  •  EffEcts on  womEn’s rolEs 661 

The New Technology: The Microchip and Social Life 662

computErs in EDucAtion 662  •  computErs in  BusinEss AnD finAncE 663  •  computErs in  intErnAtionAl conflict 663

Cyberspace and Social Inequality 664

The Growth Machine versus the Earth 665 thE gloBAlizAtion of cApitAlism AnD thE rAcE for  Economic growth 666  •  A sustAinABlE  EnvironmEnt 666

Environmental Problems and Industrialization 666 toxic wAstEs 666  •  fossil fuEls AnD climAtE  chAngE 667  •  thE EnErgy shortAgE  AnD intErnAl comBustion EnginEs 669 •  thE rAin forEsts 669

The Environmental Movement 669 Environmental Sociology 672 Technology and the Environment: The Goal

of Harmony 673 summary and review 674 thinking critically about chapter 22 675

Epilogue: Why Major in Sociology? 676 Glossary G-1 References R-1 Name Index N-1 Subject Index S-1 Credits CR-1

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 15 11/19/15 4:31 PM

Special Features

Down-to-Earth Sociology An Updated Version of the Old Elephant Story 7 Enjoying a Sociology Quiz—Testing Your Common Sense 8 Testing Your Common Sense—Answers to the Sociology

Quiz 10 Harriet Martineau and U.S. Customs: Listening to an Early

Feminist 18 W. E. B. Du Bois: The Souls of Black Folk 19 Careers in Sociology: What Applied Sociologists Do 22 Heredity or Environment? The Case of Jack and Oskar,

Identical Twins 66 Gossip and Ridicule to Enforce Adolescent Norms 87 Boot Camp as a Total Institution 89 College Football as Social Structure 100 Beauty May Be Only Skin Deep, But Its Effects Go On

Forever: Stereotypes in Everyday Life 112 Loading the Dice: How Not to Do Research 135 Gang Leader for a Day: Adventures of a Rogue Sociologist 138 The McDonaldization of Society 182 Shaming: Making a Comeback? 205 Running Naked with Pumpkins on Their Heads: Deviance

or Freedom of Self-Expression? 209 Islands in the Street: Urban Gangs in the United States 212 Sexting: Getting on the Phone Isn’t What It Used to Be 216 The Killer Next Door: Serial Murderers in Our Midst 221 Inequality? What Inequality? 246 How the Super-Rich Live 267 The Big Win: Life after the Lottery 271 “The American Dream”: Social Mobility Today 281 What Do You Know about Poverty? A Reality Check 285 Poverty: A Personal Journey 290 Cold-Hearted Surgeons and Their Women Victims 312 Affirmative Action for Men? 315 Applying Sociology: How to Get a Higher Salary 319 Can a Plane Ride Change Your Race? 330 Living in the Dorm: Contact Theory 335 The Racist Mind 337 The Man in the Zoo 342 Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack: Exploring Cultural

Privilege 349 The New Centenarians 382 Feisty to the End: Gender Roles among the Elderly 384 What Do You Think about the Red Sock? Sex in Nursing

Homes 385 Women in Business: Maneuvering the Male Culture 420 The Revolving Door of Power 445 The Rape of Nanking: A Report on Dehumanization 450

Who Are the Suicide Terrorists? Testing Your Stereotypes 452 Child Soldiers 453 Health Benefits of Marriage: Living Longer 471 “What Are Your Chances of Getting Divorced?” 485 Community Colleges: Facing Old and New Challenges 497 Home Schooling: The Search for Quality and Values 504 How I Became a Fairy: Education and the Perpetuation

of Social Inequality 506 You Want to Get Through College? Let’s Apply Sociology

512 Religion and Health: What We Know and Don’t Know 524 Terrorism and Access to the Mind of God 527 José’s Old Kidney: The International Black Market in Human

Body Parts 561 Having Babies Is Men’s Work 563 BioFoods: What’s in Your Future? Threats to Scientific

Research 594 Reclaiming Harlem: A Twist in the Invasion–Succession

Cycle 611 Rumors and Riots: An Eyewitness Account of the Tulsa

Riot 629 Dancing, Sex, and Monkey Men 633 “Tricks of the Trade”—Deception and Persuasion in

Propaganda 640

Cultural Diversity in the United States U n a n t i c i p a t e d P u b l i c S o c i o l o g y : S t u d y i n g J o b

Discrimination 23 Miami—Continuing Controversy over Language 45 Race and Language: Searching for Self-Labels 47 Immigrants and Their Children: Caught between Two

Worlds 86 The Amish: Gemeinschaft Community in a Gesellschaft

Society 108 Do Your Social Networks Perpetuate Social Inequality?

163 Social Class and the Upward Social Mobility of African

Americans 282 Tiger Woods: Mapping the Changing Ethnic Terrain 329 The Illegal Travel Guide 350 Glimpsing the Future: The Shifting U.S. Racial–Ethnic

Mix 361 The Politics of Immigrants: Power, Ethnicity, and Social

Class 440

xvi

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 16 11/19/15 4:31 PM

special features xvii

Human Heads and Animal Blood: Testing the Limits of Tolerance 541

The New Face of Religion: Pentecostals and Spanish- Speaking Immigrants 548

Cultural Diversity around the World Why the Dead Need Money 39 You Are What You Eat? An Exploration in Cultural

Relativity 40 When Women Become Men: The Sworn Virgins 79 Human Sexuality in Cross-Cultural Perspectives 199 Female Circumcision (Genital Cutting) 307 China: Changing Sentiment about the Elderly 374 The Child Workers 398 The New Competitor: The Chinese Capitalists 406 Doing Business in the Global Village 409 East Is East and West Is West: Love and Arranged Marriage

in India 468 Killing Little Girls: An Ancient and Thriving Practice 602 Why City Slums Are Better Than the Country: Urbanization

in the Least Industrialized Nations 614 The Rain Forests: Lost Tribes, Lost Knowledge 670

Thinking Critically Are We Prisoners of Our Genes? 57 Doing Controversial Research—Counting the Homeless 142 Are Rapists Sick? A Close-Up View of Research 146 If Hitler Asked You to Execute a Stranger, Would You?

The Milgram Experiment 170 Diversity in the Workplace 193 The Saints and the Roughnecks: Labeling in Everyday

Life 207 What Should We Do About Repeat Offenders? “Three Strikes”

Laws 219 Vigilantes: When the State Breaks Down 222 Open Season: Children as Prey 250 When Globalization Comes Home: Maquiladoras South of

the Border 255 The Nation’s Shame: Children in Poverty 288 The Coming Three-Tier Society and the Militarization of the

Police 292

New Masculinities and Femininities Are on Their Way 300 Social Security: The Magical Money Machine 378 Would You Like to Live to 200? 391 Targeted Killings 454 Will Traditional College Education Disappear? 518 Your Vote, Please: Should Doctors Be Allowed to Kill

Patients? 571 How Will Your Lifestyle Affect Your Health? 583 Which Side of the Barricades? Prochoice and Prolife as a

Social Movement 645 Cyberwar and Cyber Defense 663 Climate Controversy, the Island Nations, and You 668 Eco-sabotage 671

Sociology and the New Technology How Smart Is Your Clothing? 59 Avatar Fantasy Life: The Blurring Lines of Reality 155 “So, You Want to Be Yourself?” Cloning and the Future of

Society 156 Social Networking as the New Contender to Bureaucracies 185 Surfing at Work 191 Welcome to the Memory Hole: Enjoy the Security State 194 Online Dating: Risks and Rewards 464 What Color Eyes? How Tall? Designer Babies on the

Way 473 Who Should Live, and Who Should Die? The Dilemma of

Rationing Medical Care 573 The Coming Star Wars 665

Mass Media in Social Life Lara Croft, Tomb Raider: Changing Images of Women in the

Mass Media 82 “Nothing Tastes as Good as Thin Feels”: Body Images and

the Mass Media 117 Women in Iran: The Times Are Changing, Ever So

Slowly 302 The Cultural Lens: Shaping Our Perceptions of the Elderly 375 The Propaganda and Profits of War 448 School Shootings: Exploding a Myth 516 God on the Net: The Online Marketing of Religion 552

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 17 11/19/15 4:31 PM

xviii

FiguRE 8.1 How Safe Is Your State? Violent Crime in the United States 213

FiguRE 8.5 Executions in the United States 220

FiguRE 9.3 Global Stratification: Income of the World’s Nations 248

FiguRE 10.9 Patterns of Poverty 286

FiguRE 11.6 Women in the Workforce 317

FiguRE 12.6 The Distribution of Dominant and Minority Groups 348

FiguRE 13.1 The Graying of the Globe 368

FiguRE 13.6 As Florida Goes, So Goes the Nation 371

FiguRE 14.3 The Globalization of Capitalism: U.S. Ownership in Other Countries 416

FiguRE 14.4 The Globalization of Capitalism: U.S. Workers Who Work for Foreign-Owned Businesses 416

FiguRE 15.1 Which Political Party Dominates? 437

FiguRE 16.14 The “Where” of U.S. Divorce 484

FiguRE 17.2 Not Making It: Dropping Out of High School 499

FiguRE 17.3 The Unequal Funding of Education 507

FiguRE 18.2 U.S. Church Membership: Dominant Religion, by County 537

FiguRE 18.3 The Second Most Popular Religion in the United States, by State 537

FiguRE 20.12 The World’s 10 Largest Megacities 609

FiguRE 20.13 How Urban Is Your State? The Rural–Urban Makeup of the United States 609

FiguRE 22.2 The Worst Hazardous Waste Sites 667

Guide to Social Maps

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 18 11/19/15 4:31 PM

To the Student … from the Author

WELCOME TO SOCiOLOgY! I’ve loved sociol-ogy since I was in my teens, and I hope you enjoy it, too. Sociology is fascinating because it is about human behavior, and many of us find that it holds the key to understanding social life.

If you like to watch people and try to figure out why they do what they do, you will like sociology. Sociology pries open the doors of society so you can see what goes on behind them. Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach stresses how profoundly our society and the groups to which we belong influence us. Social class, for example, sets us on a particular path in life. For some, the path leads to more education, more interesting jobs, higher income, and better health, but for others it leads to drop- ping out of school, dead-end jobs, poverty, and even a higher risk of illness and disease. These paths are so significant that they affect our chances of making it to our first birthday, as well as of getting in trouble with the police. They even influence our satisfaction in marriage, the number of children we will have— and whether or not we will read this book in the first place.

When I took my first course in sociology, I was “hooked.” Seeing how marvelously my life had been affected by these larger social influences opened my eyes to a new world, one that has been fascinating to explore. I hope that you will have this experience, too.

From how people become homeless to how they be- come presidents, from why people commit suicide to why women are discriminated against in every society around the world—all are part of sociology. This breadth, in fact, is what makes sociology so intriguing. We can place the sociological lens on broad features of society, such as social class, gender, and race–ethnicity, and then immediately turn our focus on the smaller, more intimate level. If we look at two people in- teracting—whether quarreling or kissing—we see how these broad features of society are being played out in their lives.

We aren’t born with instincts. Nor do we come into this world with preconceived notions of what life should be like. At birth, we have no concepts of race–ethnicity, gender, age, or social class. We have no idea, for example, that people “ought” to act in certain ways because they are male or fe- male. Yet we all learn such things as we grow up in our soci- ety. Uncovering the “hows” and the “whys” of this process is also part of what makes sociology so fascinating.

One of sociology’s many pleasures is that as we study life in groups (which can be taken as a definition of sociol- ogy), whether those groups are in some far-off part of the world or in some nearby corner of our own society, we gain new insights into who we are and how we got that way. As we see how their customs affect them, the effects of our own society on us become more visible.

This book, then, can be part of an intellectual adventure, for it can lead you to a new way of looking at your social world and, in the process, help you to better understand both society and yourself.

I wish you the very best in college—and in your career afterward. It is my sincere desire that Sociology: A Down- to-Earth Approach will contribute to that success.

James M. Henslin

Department of Sociology

Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville

P.S. I enjoy communicating with students, so feel free to com- ment on your experiences with this text. You can write me at [email protected].

xix

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 19 11/19/15 4:31 PM

REMEMBER WHEN YOu FiRST gOT “HOOKED” on sociology, how the windows of perception opened as you began to see life-in-society through the socio- logical perspective? For most of us, this was an eye-opening experience. This text is designed to open those windows onto social life, so students can see clearly the vital effects of group membership on their lives. Although few students will get into what Peter Berger calls “the passion of sociol- ogy,” we at least can provide them the opportunity.

To study sociology is to embark on a fascinating process of discovery. We can compare sociology to a huge jigsaw puzzle. Only gradually do we see how the smaller pieces fit together. As we begin to see the interconnections, our per- spective changes as we shift our eyes from the many small, disjointed pieces to the whole that is being formed. Of all the endeavors we could have entered, we chose sociology be- cause of the ways in which it joins the “pieces” of society to- gether and the challenges it poses to “ordinary” thinking. It is our privilege to share with students this process of aware- ness and discovery called the sociological perspective.

As instructors of sociology, we have set ambitious goals for ourselves: to teach both social structure and social inter- action and to introduce students to the sociological litera- ture—both the classic theorists and contemporary research. As we accomplish this, we would also like to enliven the classroom, encourage critical thinking, and stimulate our students’ sociological imagination. Although formidable, these goals are attainable. This book is designed to help you reach them. Based on many years of frontline (classroom) experience, its subtitle, A Down-to-Earth Approach, was not proposed lightly. My goal is to share the fascination of so- ciology with students and in doing so to make your teach- ing more rewarding.

Over the years, I have found the introductory course es- pecially enjoyable. It is singularly satisfying to see students’ faces light up as they begin to see how separate pieces of their world fit together. It is a pleasure to watch them gain insight into how their social experiences give shape to even their innermost desires. This is precisely what this text is de- signed to do—to stimulate your students’ sociological imagi- nation so they can better perceive how the “pieces” of society fit together—and what this means for their own lives.

Filled with examples from around the world as well as from our own society, this text helps to make today’s multi- cultural, global society come alive for students. From learn- ing how the international elite carve up global markets to studying the intimacy of friendship and marriage, students can see how sociology is the key to explaining contemporary life—and their own place in it.

In short, this text is designed to make your teaching eas- ier. There simply is no justification for students to have to wade through cumbersome approaches to sociology. I am firmly convinced that the introduction to sociology should be enjoyable and that the introductory textbook can be an essential tool in sharing the discovery of sociology with students.

The Organization of This Text The text is laid out in five parts. Part I focuses on the socio- logical perspective, which is introduced in the first chapter. We then look at how culture influences us (Chapter 2), exam- ine socialization (Chapter 3), and compare macrosociology and microsociology (Chapter 4). After this, we look at how sociologists do research (Chapter 5). Placing research meth- ods in the fifth chapter does not follow the usual sequence, but doing so allows students to first become immersed in the captivating findings of sociology—then, after their interest is awakened, they learn how sociologists gather their data. Stu- dents respond very well to this approach, but if you prefer the more traditional order, simply teach this chapter as the second chapter. No content will be affected.

Part II, which focuses on groups and social control, adds to the students’ understanding of how far-reaching society’s influence is—how group membership penetrates even our thinking, attitudes, and orientations to life. We first examine the different types of groups that have such profound influ- ences on us and then look at the fascinating area of group dynamics (Chapter 6). We then examine the impact of bu- reaucracy and formal organizations (Chapter 7). After this, we focus on how groups “keep us in line” and sanction those who violate their norms (Chapter 8).

In Part III, we turn our focus on social inequality, exam- ining how it pervades society and how it has an impact on our own lives. Because social stratification is so significant, I have written two chapters on this topic. The first (Chapter 9), with its global focus, presents an overview of the principles of stratification. The second (Chapter 10), with its emphasis on social class, focuses on stratification in the United States. After establishing this broader context of social stratifica- tion, we examine gender, the most global of the inequalities (Chapter 11). Then we focus on inequalities of race–ethnicity (Chapter 12) and those of age (Chapter 13).

Part IV helps students to become more aware of how social institutions encompass their lives. We first look at

To the Instructor … from the Author

xx

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 20 11/19/15 4:31 PM

to the instructor … from the Author xxi

economy, the social institution that has become dominant in U.S. society (Chapter 14) and then at politics, our second overarching social institution (Chapter 15). We then place the focus on marriage and family (Chapter 16), and education (Chapter 17). After this, we look at the significance of reli- gion (Chapter 18) and, finally, that of medicine (Chapter 19). One of the emphases in this part of the book is how our so- cial institutions are changing and how their changes, in turn, have an impact on our own lives.

With its focus on broad social change, Part V provides an appropriate conclusion for the book. Here we examine why our world is changing so rapidly, as well as catch a glimpse of what is yet to come. We first analyze trends in population and urbanization, those sweeping forces that affect our lives so significantly but that ordinarily remain below our level of awareness (Chapter 20). Our focus on collective behavior and social movements (Chapter 21) and social change and the environment (Chapter 22) takes us to the “cutting edge” of the vital changes that engulf us all.

Themes and Features Six central themes run throughout this text: down-to-earth sociology, globalization, cultural diversity, critical thinking, the new technology, and the influence of the mass media on our lives. For each of these themes, except globalization, which is incorporated throughout the text, I have written a series of boxes. These boxed features are one of my favorite components of the book. They are especially useful for intro- ducing the controversial topics that make sociology such a lively activity.

Let’s look at these six themes.

Down-to-Earth Sociology As many years of teaching have shown me, all too often text- books are written to appeal to the adopters of texts rather than to the students who will learn from them. In writing this book, my central concern has been to present sociology in a way that not only facilitates understanding but also shares its excitement. During the course of writing other texts, I of- ten have been told that my explanations and writing style are “down-to-earth,” or accessible and inviting to students— so much so that I chose this phrase as the book’s subtitle. The term is also featured in my introductory reader, Down- to-Earth Sociology: Introductory Readings, to appear in its 15th edition (New York: The Free Press, 2016).

This first theme is highlighted by a series of boxed fea- tures that explore sociological processes that underlie every- day life. The topics that we review in these Down-to-Earth Sociology boxes are highly diverse. Here are some of them.

• the experiences of W.E.B. Du Bois in studying U.S. race relations (Chapter 1)

• what applied sociologists do (Chapter 2)

• how gossip and ridicule enforce adolescent norms (Chapter 3)

• how football can help us understand social structure (Chapter 4)

• beauty and success (Chapter 4)

• fraudulent social research (Chapter 5)

• serial killers (Chapter 8)

• sexting (Chapter 8)

• the lifestyles of the super-rich (Chapter 10)

• the American dream and actual social mobility (Chapter 10)

• how to get a higher salary by applying sociology (Chapter 11)

• living in the dorm: contact theory (Chapter 12)

• sex in nursing homes (Chapter 13)

• women navigating male-dominated corporations (Chapter 14)

• the life of child soldiers (Chapter 15)

• the health benefits of marriage (Chapter 16)

• how to get through college by applying sociology (Chapter 17)

• terrorism in the name of God (Chapter 18)

• the international black market in human body parts (Chapter 19)

• biofoods (Chapter 20)

• mass hysteria (Chapter 21)

• the coming Star Wars (Chapter 22)

This first theme is actually a hallmark of the text, as my goal is to make sociology “down to earth.” To help stu- dents grasp the fascination of sociology, I continuously stress sociology’s relevance to their lives. To reinforce this theme, I avoid unnecessary jargon and use concise explanations and clear and simple (but not reductive) language. I also use stu- dent-relevant examples to illustrate key concepts, and I base several of the chapters’ opening vignettes on my own experi- ences in exploring social life. That this goal of sharing sociol- ogy’s fascination is being reached is evident from the many comments I receive from instructors and students alike that the text helps make sociology “come alive.”

Globalization In the second theme, globalization, we explore the impact of global issues on our lives and on the lives of people around the world. All of us are feeling the effects of an increasingly powerful and encompassing global economy, one that inter- twines the fates of nations. The globalization of capitalism influences the kinds of skills and knowledge we need, the types of work available to us—and whether work is avail- able at all. Globalization also underlies the costs of the goods

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 21 11/19/15 4:31 PM

xxii  to the instructor … from the Author

and services we consume and whether our country is at war or peace—or in some uncharted middle ground between the two, some sort of perpetual war against unseen, sinister, and ever-threatening enemies lurking throughout the world. In addition to the strong emphasis on global issues that runs throughout this text, I have written a separate chapter on global stratification (Chapter 9). I also feature global issues in the chapters on social institutions and the final chapters on social change: population, urbanization, social movements, and the environment.

What occurs in Russia, Germany, and China, as well as in much smaller nations, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, has far-reaching consequences on our own lives. Consequently, in addition to the global focus that runs throughout the text, the next theme, cultural diversity, also has a strong global emphasis.

Cultural Diversity around the World and in the United States The third theme, cultural diversity, has two primary empha- ses. The first is cultural diversity around the world. Gaining an understanding of how social life is “done” in other parts of the world often challenges our taken-for-granted assump- tions about social life. At times, when we learn about other cultures, we gain an appreciation for the life of other peoples; at other times, we may be shocked or even disgusted at some aspect of another group’s way of life (such as female circum- cision) and come away with a renewed appreciation of our own customs.

To highlight this first subtheme, I have written a series of boxes called Cultural Diversity around the World. Among the topics with this subtheme are

• food customs that shock people from different cultures (Chapter 2)

• why the dead need money (Chapter 2)

• where virgins become men (Chapter 3)

• human sexuality in Mexico and Kenya (Chapter 8)

• how blaming the rape victim protects India’s caste system (Chapter 8)

• female circumcision (Chapter 11)

• the life of child workers (Chapter 14)

• China’s new capitalism (Chapter 14)

• the globalization of capitalism (Chapter 14)

• love and arranged marriage in India (Chapter 16)

• female infanticide in China and India (Chapter 20)

• the destruction of the rain forests and indigenous peoples of Brazil (Chapter 22)

In the second subtheme, Cultural Diversity in the united States, we examine groups that make up the fascinating array

of people who form the U.S. population. The boxes I have written with this subtheme review such topics as

• the language of race (Chapter 2)

• the controversy over the use of Spanish or English (Chapter 2)

• how the Amish resist social change (Chapter 4)

• how our social networks produce social inequality (Chapter 6)

• the upward social mobility of African Americans (Chapter 10)

• how Tiger Woods represents a changing racial–ethnic identity (Chapter 12)

• the author’s travels with a Mexican who transports un- documented workers to the U.S. border (Chapter 12)

• Pentecostalism among Latino immigrants (Chapter 18)

• human heads, animal sacrifices, and religious freedom (Chapter 18)

• our shifting racial–ethnic mix (Chapter 20)

Seeing that there are so many ways of “doing” social life can remove some of our cultural smugness, making us more aware of how arbitrary our own customs are—and how our taken-for-granted ways of thinking are rooted in culture. The stimulating contexts of these contrasts can help students develop their sociological imagination. They encourage stu- dents to see connections among key sociological concepts, such as culture, socialization, norms, race–ethnicity, gender, and social class. As your students’ sociological imagination grows, they can attain a new perspective on their experiences in their own corners of life—and a better understanding of the social structure of U.S. society.

Critical Thinking In our fourth theme, critical thinking, we focus on controver- sial social issues, inviting students to examine various sides of those issues. In these sections, titled Thinking Critically, I present objective, fair portrayals of positions and do not take a side—although occasionally I do play the “devil’s advocate” in the questions that close each of the topics. Like the boxed features, these sections can enliven your classroom with a vi- brant exchange of ideas. Among the social issues we tackle are

• whether rapists are sick (Chapter 5)

• our tendency to conform to authority, even though evil, as uncovered by the Milgram experiments (Chapter 6)

• how labeling keeps some people down and helps others move up (Chapter 8)

• how vigilantes fill in when the state breaks down (Chapter 8)

• the three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws (Chapter 8)

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 22 11/19/15 4:31 PM

to the instructor … from the Author xxiii

• bounties paid to kill homeless children in Brazil (Chapter 9)

• children in poverty (Chapter 10)

• biology versus culture (Chapter 11)

• emerging masculinities and femininities (Chapter 11)

• targeted killings (Chapter 15)

• medically assisted suicide (Chapter 19)

• abortion as a social movement (Chapter 21)

• cyberwar and cyber defense (Chapter 22)

These Thinking Critically sections are based on contro- versial social issues that either affect the student’s own life or focus on topics that have intrinsic interest for students. Because of their controversial nature, these sections stimulate both crit- ical thinking and lively class discussions. These sections also provide provocative topics for in-class debates and small dis- cussion groups, effective ways to enliven a class and present sociological ideas. In the Instructor’s Manual, I describe the nuts and bolts of using small groups in the classroom, a highly effective way of engaging students in sociological topics.

Sociology and the New Technology The fifth theme, sociology and the new technology, explores an aspect of social life that has come to be central in our lives. We welcome these new technological tools, for they help us to be more efficient at performing our daily tasks, from making a living to communicating with others—whether those peo- ple are nearby or on the other side of the globe. The signif- icance of our new technology, however, extends far beyond the tools and the ease and efficiency they bring to our lives. The new technology is better envisioned as a social revolution that will leave few aspects of our lives untouched. Its effects are so profound that it even changes the ways we view life.

This theme is introduced in Chapter 2, where technol- ogy is defined and presented as a major aspect of culture. The impact of technology is then discussed throughout the text. Examples include how technology is related to cultural change (Chapter 2), the control of workers (Chapter 7), the maintenance of global stratification (Chapter 9), social class (Chapter 10), and social inequality in early human history (Chapter 14). We also look at the impact of technology on dating (Chapter 16), family life (Chapter 16), education (Chapter 17), religion (Chapter 18), medicine (Chapter 19), and war (Chapter 22). The final chapter (Chapter 22), “Social Change and the Environment,” concludes the book with a focus on the effects of technology.

To highlight this theme, I have written a series of boxes called Sociology and the New Technology. In these boxes, we explore how technology affects our lives as it changes so- ciety. We examine how technology

• is making our clothing smart (Chapter 2)

• blurs the distinction between reality and fantasy (Chapter 6)

• might make social networking the dominant form of social organization (Chapter 7)

• is leading to an overwhelming security state (Chapter 7)

• is being used to organize family life (Chapter 16)

• is changing the way people find mates (Chapter 16)

• is leading to designer babies (Chapter 16)

• is changing education through distance learning (Chapter 17)

• leads to dilemmas of rationing medical care (Chapter 19)

The Mass Media and Social Life In the sixth theme, we stress how the mass media affect our behavior and permeate our thinking. We consider how the media penetrate our consciousness to such an extent that they even influence how we perceive our own bodies. As your students consider this theme, they may begin to grasp how the mass media shape their attitudes. If so, they will come to view the mass media in a different light which, should further stimulate their sociological imagination.

To make this theme more prominent for students, I have written a series of boxed features called Mass Media in Social Life. Among these are

• the presentation of gender in computer games (Chapter 3)

• the worship of thinness—and how this affects our body images (Chapter 4)

• the issue of censoring high-tech pornography (Chapter 8)

• the reemergence of slavery in today’s world (Chapter 9)

• the slowly changing status of women in Iran (Chapter 11)

• the profits and propaganda of war (Chapter 15)

• God on the Net (Chapter 18)

What’s New in This Edition? Because sociology is about social life and we live in a chang- ing global society, an introductory sociology text must reflect the national and global changes that engulf us, as well as represent the new sociological research. An indication of the thoroughness of incorporating recent sociological research is the text’s hundreds of new citations. This edition of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach also has more than 300 new in- structional photos. I have either selected or taken each of the photos, which are tied directly into the content of the text. I have designed it so that the photos and their captions are part of the students’ learning experience.

I won’t bother listing the numerous changes that run throughout the text. Instead, on the two pages that follow this Note to the Instructor (pp. xxvi and xxvii) I have listed just the new topics, boxed features, and tables and figures that are new in this edition. This gives you the best idea of how extensively this edition is revised.

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 23 11/19/15 4:31 PM

xxiv  to the instructor … from the Author

Visual Presentations of Sociology SHOWiNg CHANgES OVER TiME In presenting social data, many of the figures and tables show how data change over time. This feature allows students to see trends in social life and to make predictions on how these trends might continue—and how the trends even affect their own lives. Examples include

• Figure 1.4 U.S. Marriage, U.S. Divorce (Chapter 1)

• Figure 3.2 Transitional Adulthood: A New Stage in Life (Chapter 3)

• Figure 8.2 How Much Is Enough? The Explosion in the Number of Prisoners (Chapter 8)

• Figure 10.3 The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Dividing the Nation’s Income (Chapter 10)

• Figure 16.2 In Two-Paycheck Marriages, How Do Husbands and Wives Divide Their Responsibilities? (Chapter 16)

• Figure 16.4 The Number of Children Americans Think Are Ideal (Chapter 16)

• Figure 16.9 The Decline of Two-Parent Families (Chapter 16)

• Figure 16.11 Cohabitation in the United States (Chapter 16)

• Figure 17.1 Educational Achievement in the United States (Chapter 17)

• Figure 20.11 How the World Is Urbanizing (Chapter 20)

THROugH THE AuTHOR’S LENS Using this format, stu- dents are able to look over my shoulder as I experience other cultures or explore aspects of this one. These eight photo es- says should expand your students’ sociological imagination and open their minds to other ways of doing social life, as well as stimulate thought-provoking class discussions.

ViENNA: SOCiAL STRuCTuRE AND SOCiAL iNTERAC- TiON iN A ViBRANT CiTY appears in Chapter 4. The photos I took in this city illustrate how social structure sur- rounds us, setting the scene for our interactions, limiting and directing them.

WHEN A TORNADO STRiKES: SOCiAL ORgANizATiON FOLLOWiNg A NATuRAL DiSASTER When a tornado hit a small town just hours from where I lived, I photographed the aftermath of the disaster. The police let me in to view the neighborhood where the tornado had struck, destroying homes and killing several people. I was impressed by how quickly people were putting their lives back together, the topic of this photo essay (Chapter 4).

COMMuNiTY iN THE CiTY, in Chapter 6, is also from Vienna. This sequence of four photos focuses on strangers who are helping a man who has just fallen. This event casts doubt on the results of Darley and Latane’s laboratory experi- ments. This short sequence was serendipitous in my research. One of my favorite photos is the last in the series, which

portrays the cop coming toward me to question why I was taking photos of the accident. It fits the sequence perfectly.

THE DuMP PEOPLE OF PHNOM PENH, CAMBODiA Among the culture shocks I experienced in Cambodia was not to discover that people scavenge at Phnom Penh’s huge city dump—this I knew about—but that they also live there. With the aid of an interpreter, I was able to interview these people, as well as photograph them as they went about their everyday lives. An entire community lives in the city dump, complete with restaurants amid the smoke and piles of gar- bage. This photo essay reveals not just these people’s activi- ties but also their social organization (Chapter 9).

WORK AND gENDER: WOMEN AT WORK iN iNDiA As I traveled in India, I took photos of women at work in pub- lic places. The more I traveled in this country and the more photos I took, the more insight I gained into gender relations. Despite the general dominance of men in India, women’s worlds are far from limited to family and home. Women are found at work throughout the society. What is even more re- markable is how vastly different “women’s work” is in India than it is in the United States. This, too, is an intellectually provocative photo essay (Chapter 11).

SMALL TOWN uSA: STRuggLiNg TO SuRViVE To take the photos for this essay, on a road trip from California to Florida I went off the beaten path. Instead of following the interstates, I followed those “little black lines” on the map. They took me to out-of-the-way places that the national transportation system has bypassed. Many of these little towns are putting on a valiant face as they struggle to sur- vive, but, as the photos show, the struggle is apparent, and, in some cases, so are the scars (Chapter 14).

HOLY WEEK iN SPAiN, in Chapter 18, features proces- sions in two cities in Spain: Malaga, a provincial capital, and Almuñecar, a smaller city in Granada. The Roman Catho- lic heritage of Spain runs so deeply that the La Asunción de María (The Assumption of Mary) is a national holiday, with the banks and post offices closing. City streets carry such names as (translated) Conception, Piety, Humility, Calvary, Crucifixion, The Blessed Virgin. In large and small towns throughout Spain, elaborate processions during Holy Week feature tronos that depict the biblical account of Jesus’ suf- fering, death, and resurrection. I was allowed to photograph the preparations for one of the processions, so this essay also includes “behind-the-scenes” photos.

During the processions, the participants walk slowly for one or two minutes; then because of the weight of the tronos, they rest for one or two minutes. This process repeats for about six hours. As you will see, some of the most interesting activities occur during the rest periods.

A WALK THROugH EL TiRO iN MEDELLiN, COLOMBiA One of the most significant social changes in the world is

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 24 11/19/15 4:31 PM

to the instructor … from the Author xxv

taking place in the Least Industrialized Nations. In the search for a better life, people are abandoning rural areas. Fleeing poverty, they are flocking to the cities, only to be greeted with more poverty. Some of these settlements of the new ur- ban poor are dangerous. I was fortunate to be escorted by an insider through a section of Medellin, Colombia, that is controlled by gangs (Chapter 20).

OTHER PHOTO ESSAYS To help students better under- stand subcultures, I have retained the photo essay Standards of Beauty in Chapter 2. I have also kept the photo essay in Chapter 12 on ethnic work, as it helps students see that eth- nicity doesn’t “just happen.” Because these photo essays consist of photos taken by others, they are not a part of the series, Through the Author’s Lens. I think you will appreciate the understanding these two photo essays can give your students.

PHOTO COLLAgES Because sociology lends itself so well to photographic illustrations, this text also includes photo collages. In Chapter 1, the photo collage, in the shape of a wheel, features some of the many women who became so- ciologists in earlier generations, women who have largely gone unacknowledged as sociologists. In Chapter 2, students can catch a glimpse of the fascinating variety that goes into the cultural relativity of beauty. The collage in Chapter 6 il- lustrates categories, aggregates, and primary and secondary groups, concepts that students sometimes wrestle to distin- guish. The photo collage in Chapter 11 lets students see how differently gender is portrayed in different cultures.

OTHER PHOTOS BY THE AuTHOR Sprinkled throughout the text are photos that I took in Austria, Cambodia, India, Latvia, Spain, and the United States. These photos illus- trate sociological principles and topics better than photos available from commercial sources. As an example, while in the United States, I received a report about a feral child who had been discovered living with monkeys. The pos- sibility of photographing and interviewing that child who had been taken to an orphanage was one of the reasons that I went to Cambodia. That particular photo is on page 63. Another of my favorites is on page 198.

Other Special Pedagogical Features In addition to chapter summaries and reviews, key terms, and a comprehensive glossary, I have included several spe- cial features to help students learn sociology. in Sum sections

help students review important points within the chapter be- fore going on to new materials. I have also developed a se- ries of Social Maps that illustrate how social conditions vary by geography. All the maps in the text are original.

Learning Objectives I have written learning objectives for the main points of each chapter. These learning objec- tives are presented in a list at the beginning of the chap- ter, at the point where that specific material is presented, and again in the chapter ’s Summary and Review. These learning objectives provide a guiding “road map” for your students.

CHAPTER-OPENiNg VigNETTES These accounts feature down-to-earth illustrations of a major aspect of each chapter’s content. Several of these vignettes are based on my research with the homeless, the time I spent with them on the streets and slept in their shelters (Chapters 1, 10, and 19). Others re- count my travels in Africa (Chapters 2 and 11) and Mexico (Chapters 16 and 20). I also share my experiences when I spent a night with street people at DuPont Circle in Washington, D.C. (Chapter 4). For other vignettes, I use current and histor- ical events (Chapters 5, 7, 9, 12, 17, 18, 21, and 22), composite accounts (Chapter 14), classical studies in the social sciences (Chapters 3, 8, and 13), and even scenes from novels (Chapters 6 and 15). Many students have told their instructors that they find these vignettes compelling, that they stimulate interest in the chapter.

THiNKiNg CRiTiCALLY ABOuT THE CHAPTERS I close each chapter with critical thinking questions. Each question focuses on a major feature of the chapter, asking students to reflect on and consider some issue. Many of the questions ask the students to apply sociological findings and principles to their own lives.

ON SOuRCES Sociological data are found in a wide va- riety of sources, and this text reflects that variety. Cited throughout this text are standard journals such as the Amer- ican Journal of Sociology, Social Problems, American Sociolog- ical Review, and Journal of Marriage and Family, as well as more esoteric journals such as the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Chronobiology International, and Western Journal of Black Studies. I have also drawn heavily from standard news sources, especially the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, as well as more unusual sources such as El País. In addition, I cite unpublished research and theoretical papers by sociologists.

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 25 11/19/15 4:31 PM

Acknowledgments The gratifying response to this text’s earlier editions indicates that my efforts at making sociology down-to-earth have suc- ceeded. The years that have gone into writing this text are a culmination of the many years that preceded its writing— from graduate school to that equally demanding endeavor known as classroom teaching. No text, of course, comes solely from its author. Although I am responsible for the final words on the printed page, I have received excellent feedback from instructors who have taught from the first twelve editions.

Reviewers of the First through Twelfth Editions Francis O. Adeola, University of New Orleans Brian W. Agnitsch, Marshalltown Community College Sandra L. Albrecht, The University of Kansas Christina Alexander, Linfield College Richard Alman, Sierra College Gabriel C. Alvarez, Duquesne University Kenneth Ambrose, Marshall University Alberto Arroyo, Baldwin–Wallace College Karren Baird-Olsen, Kansas State University Rafael Balderrama, University of Texas—Pan American Linda Barbera-Stein, The University of Illinois Brenda Blackburn, California State University—Fullerton Ronnie J. Booxbaum, Greenfield Community College Cecil D. Bradfield, James Madison University Karen Bradley, Central Missouri State University Francis Broouer, Worcester State College Valerie S. Brown, Cuyahoga Community College Sandi Brunette-Hill, Carrol College Richard Brunk, Francis Marion University Karen Bullock, Salem State College Allison R. Camelot, California State University—Fullerton Paul Ciccantell, Kansas State University John K. Cochran, The University of Oklahoma James M. Cook, Duke University Joan Cook-Zimmern, College of Saint Mary Larry Curiel, Cypress College Russell L. Curtis, University of Houston John Darling, University of Pittsburgh—Johnstown Ray Darville, Stephen F. Austin State University Jim David, Butler County Community College Nanette J. Davis, Portland State University Vincent Davis, Mt. Hood Community College Lynda Dodgen, North Harris Community College Terry Dougherty, Portland State University Marlese Durr, Wright State University Helen R. Ebaugh, University of Houston Obi N. Ebbe, State University of New York—Brockport Cy Edwards, Chair, Cypress Community College John Ehle, Northern Virginia Community College

Morten Ender, U.S. Military Academy Rebecca Susan Fahrlander, Bellevue University Louis J. Finkle, Horry-Georgetown Technical College Nicole T. Flynn, University of South Alabama Lorna E. Forster, Clinton Community College David O. Friedrichs, University of Scranton Bruce Friesen, Kent State University—Stark Lada Gibson-Shreve, Stark State College Norman Goodman, State University of New York—Stony Brook Rosalind Gottfried, San Joaquin Delta College G. Kathleen Grant, The University of Findlay Bill Grisby, University of Northern Colorado Ramon Guerra, University of Texas—Pan American Remi Hajjar, U.S. Military Academy Donald W. Hastings, The University of Tennessee— Knoxville Lillian O. Holloman, Prince George’s Community College Michael Hoover, Missouri Western State College Howard R. Housen, Broward Community College James H. Huber, Bloomsburg University Erwin Hummel, Portland State University Charles E. Hurst, The College of Wooster Nita Jackson, Butler County Community College Jennifer A. Johnson, Germanna Community College Kathleen R. Johnson, Keene State College Tammy Jolley, University of Arkansas Community College at Batesville David Jones, Plymouth State College Arunas Juska, East Carolina University Ali Kamali, Missouri Western State College Irwin Kantor, Middlesex County College Mark Kassop, Bergen Community College Myles Kelleher, Bucks County Community College Mary E. Kelly, Central Missouri State University Alice Abel Kemp, University of New Orleans Diana Kendall, Austin Community College Gary Kiger, Utah State University Gene W. Kilpatrick, University of Maine—Presque Isle Jerome R. Koch, Texas Tech University Joseph A. Kotarba, University of Houston Michele Lee Kozimor-King, Pennsylvania State University Darina Lepadatu, Kennesaw State University Abraham Levine, El Camino Community College Diane Levy, The University of North Carolina— Wilmington Stephen Mabry, Cedar Valley College David Maines, Oakland University Ron Matson, Wichita State University Armaund L. Mauss, Washington State University Evelyn Mercer, Southwest Baptist University Robert Meyer, Arkansas State University Michael V. Miller, University of Texas—San Antonio John Mitrano, Central Connecticut State University

xxvi  to the instructor … from the Author

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 26 11/19/15 4:31 PM

to the instructor … from the Author xxvii

W. Lawrence Neuman, University of Wisconsin— Whitewater Charles Norman, Indiana State University Patricia H. O’Brien, Elgin Community College Robert Ostrow, Wayne State Laura O’Toole, University of Delaware Mike K. Pate, Western Oklahoma State College Lawrence Peck, Erie Community College Ruth Pigott, University of Nebraska—Kearney Phil Piket, Joliet Junior College Trevor Pinch, Cornell University Daniel Polak, Hudson Valley Community College James Pond, Butler Community College Deedy Ramo, Del Mar College Adrian Rapp, North Harris Community College Ray Rich, Community College of Southern Nevada Barbara Richardson, Eastern Michigan University Salvador Rivera, State University of New York—Cobleskill Howard Robboy, Trenton State College Paulina X. Ruf, University of Tampa Michael Samano, Portland Community College Michael L. Sanow, Community College of Baltimore County Mary C. Sengstock, Wayne State University Walt Shirley, Sinclair Community College

Marc Silver, Hofstra University Roberto E. Socas, Essex County College Susan Sprecher, Illinois State University Mariella Rose Squire, University of Maine at Fort Kent Rachel Stehle, Cuyahoga Community College Marios Stephanides, University of Tampa Randolph G. Ston, Oakland Community College Vickie Holland Taylor, Danville Community College Maria Jose Tenuto, College of Lake County Gary Tiederman, Oregon State University Kathleen Tiemann, University of North Dakota Judy Turchetta, Johnson & Wales University Stephen L. Vassar, Minnesota State University—Mankato William J. Wattendorf, Adirondack Community College Jay Weinstein, Eastern Michigan University Larry Weiss, University of Alaska Douglas White, Henry Ford Community College Stephen R. Wilson, Temple University Anthony T. Woart, Middlesex Community College Stuart Wright, Lamar University Mary Lou Wylie, James Madison University Diane Kholos Wysocki, University of Nebraska—Kearney Stacey G. H. Yap, Plymouth State College William Yoels, University of Alabama Birmingham

I couldn’t ask for a more outstanding team than the one that I have the pleasure to work with at Pearson. I want to thank Billy Grieco and Emily Tamburri, who joined the team for this 13th edition, for coordinating the many tasks that were necessary to produce this new edition; Navin Kumar and Mark Schaefer, who provided excellent research, track- ing down both standard and esoteric items that made an im- pact on the book; and Kate Cebik, for her creativity in photo research and for her willingness to “keep on looking.”

I do appreciate this team. It is difficult to heap too much praise on such fine, capable, and creative people. Often going “beyond the call of duty” as we faced nonstop deadlines, their untiring efforts coalesced with mine to produce this text. Students, whom we constantly kept in mind as we prepared this edition, are the beneficiaries of this intricate teamwork.

Since this text is based on the contributions of many, I would count it a privilege if you would share with me your

teaching experiences with this book, including suggestions for improving the text. Both positive and negative comments are welcome. This is one way that I continue to learn.

I wish you the very best in your teaching. It is my sincere desire that Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach contributes to your classroom success.

James M. Henslin Professor Emeritus

Department of Sociology Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville

I welcome your correspondence. You can reach me at [email protected]

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 27 11/19/15 4:31 PM

Chapter 2 Cultural Diversity around the World Box: Why the Dead

Need Money Sociology and the New Technology Box: How Smart Is Your

Clothing? Topic: The wearable computers that are coming will make

Google Glass look like a museum piece

Chapter 3 Topic: Transitional adulthood has become so extended that

some companies have a “Bring Your Parents to Work Day” Topic: Research on orphans in Romania with experimental

and control groups: Personalized care improves not only social skills but also increases brain cells

Topic: A university is offering a varsity sports scholarship in video games

Chapter 4 Topic: To apply body language, Homeland Security spends

$200 million a year on training "Behavior Detection Officers” Topic: Attractive people are treated more favorably by

judges and juries Topic: “Image consultants” teach women executives how to

display power amid “soft” femininity

Chapter 7 Sociology and the New Technology Box: Welcome to the

Memory Hole: Enjoy the Security State Topic: Corporate team building fad: pseudo sumo wrestling

in fat suits Topic: Bureaucratic dysfunctions: France bought a fleet of

new trains that are too wide for their railroad stations

Chapter 8 Down-to-Earth Sociology Box: Sexting: Getting On the

Phone Isn’t What It Used to Be Figure 8.3 How Fast They Return: Recidivism of U.S.

Prisoners Topic: Differential association in the cyber age Topic: Mexico moves against the militias that citizens have

formed to fight the drug cartels Topic: GM executives did not take action on the ignition

problem that accidently turned off the engine and air bags, causing many deaths

Chapter 9 Down-to-Earth Sociology Box: Inequality? What Inequality? Topic: The FBI is pressuring Google and Amazon to stop

sales of encrypted mobile devices

Chapter 10 Thinking Critically Section: The Frightful Future: The

Three-Tier Society Figure 10.12 How Does Income Influence Births to Single

Women? Topic: The gender gap in social mobility: As adults, women

are less likely than men to live in families with higher income than the one in which they grew up

Topic: Larry Ellison has a basketball court on his yacht and a basketball retriever who trails the yacht, scooping up errant balls

Topic: A $39,000 backpack for the ultra-rich by Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen.

Topic: The Waltons of Walmart fame are worth more than the bottom 40 percent of all Americans

Topic: Callie Rogers, youngest lottery winner in Great Britain, added to the box on lottery winners

Chapter 11 Thinking Critically Section: New Masculinities and

Femininities Are on the Way Topic: Holding a real gun increases levels of testosterone. Topic: “Girlie feminism” promoted by some women in the

current third wave Topic: Swara, a practice in tribal areas of Pakistan: Unmar-

ried girls, even children, are given as brides to compen- sate a family for a man’s crime

Chapter 12 Topic: Supreme Court upholds states’ rights to ban affirma-

tive action in college admissions Topic: Associate’s degree added to Table 12.3 Topic: North Koreans who defile the “sacred Korean race”

are tortured, raped, and starved Topic: Native American tribes clash over casino profits Topic: Donald Sterling forced to give up the ownership of

the Los Angeles Clippers, banned from professional basketball for life, and fined $2.5 million

Topic: Social class as the answer to the affirmative action controversy in college admissions

What’s New in the 13th Edition?

xxviii

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 28 11/19/15 5:08 PM

What’s New in the 13th Edition? xxix

Chapter 13 Topic: 97% of the nation’s total income tax from individuals

is spent on just Social Security and Medicare

Chapter 14 Topic: To find cheaper workers, China’s capitalists are

moving factories to Africa. Topic: The ascent of China: Of the world’s ten largest multi-

national corporations, three are Chinese; seven years ago none were

Topic: The mobile shift is bringing the deskless office

Chapter 15 Topic: New research by Gilens and Page on 1,800 policy

decisions by the U.S. government supports the power elite perspective

Topic: Russia–West dispute threatens G8 alliance

Chapter 16 Topic: The single father Topic: Same-sex and heterosexual couples have about the

same rate of divorce Topic: Uber as a parent substitute

Chapter 17 Down-to-Earth Sociology: Box You Want to Get Through

College? Let’s Apply Sociology Figure 17.4 Parents’ Income and Quality of College Attended Thinking Critically Section: Will Traditional College Educa-

tion Disappear? Topic: The NanoDegree Topic: To make Russia’s textbooks more patriotic, Putin

arranged for his old judo partner to become Russia’s main textbook publisher

Topic: Egypt plans to pattern its education on the British model Topic: Three models of online teaching/learning Topic: Some U.S. schools provide three meals a day for

students in poverty

Chapter 18 Table 18.1 New Pew research on how Americans identify

with religion Figure 18.3 The Second Most Popular Religion in the United

States, by State Topic: The shooting deaths of 140 Pakistani schoolchildren

Chapter 19 Topic: Getting close to an HIV vaccine: An engineered mole-

cule blocks the entry points of the virus that causes AIDS

Topic: Deaths from medical errors run over 1,000 a day Topic: A NEJM study shows that surgical checklists don’t

reduce surgical deaths Topic: More than ten times more Americans have died from

smoking than have died in all the wars that the United States has fought

Topic: The 2014 surgeon general’s 50-year report on tobacco and health

Topic: Digital medicine, smartphones, and nanobots Topic: Retail health clinics Topic: Telemedicine to reduce medical costs Topic: E-cigarettes Topic: The Ebola outbreak

Chapter 20 Topic: The Communist Party of China now allows married

couples to have two children Topic: To encourage childbirth, officials in Turkey pin a gold

medal on women who have their first child Topic: Since the 1990s, world hunger has dropped 40

percent Topic: Update on the controversy over biofoods Topic: Corporate funding and the threat to objective scien-

tific research Topic: There are 28 megacities; by 2030 there will be 41 Topic: Edge cities are being changed to give them the look

and feel of traditional cities Topic: Forced urbanization: deciding that urbanization fuels

economic growth, China’s top leaders are forcing villagers to move to the city

Topic: Some aging suburbs are turning their malls into town centers

Topic: Megaregions have developed

Chapter 21 Topic: Project Minerva, a step to militarizing higher education

on the way to the garrison state Topic: 2015 panic on Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, leaving

700 dead Topic:Foods as fashion

Chapter 22 Topic: The United States and Russia are backing opposing

sides in the oil-rich region of the Middle East Topic: G8 becomes G7 (with Russia’s absence), which might

become G8 again (if China cooperates) Topic: U.S. and Russia fighting a proxy war in Syria Topic: The X-47B pilotless drone

What’s New in the 13th Edition? xxix

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 29 11/19/15 5:08 PM

A Note from the Publisher on the Supplements Instructor Supplements Unless otherwise noted, instructor supplements are available at no charge to adopters— in electronic formats through the Instructor’s Resource Center (www.pearsonhighered. com/irc).

Instructor’s Manual and Test Bank For each chapter in the text, the Instructor’s Manual provides a list of key changes to the new edition, chapter summaries and outlines, learning objectives, key terms and people, discus- sion topics, classroom activities, recommended films and Web sites, and additional references. The Instructor’s Manual also includes sample syllabi and a section by Jim Henslin on how to make your class more interactive and stimulating by using small, in-class discussion groups.

Test Bank The Test Bank contains approximately 125 questions for each chapter in multiple-choice, true/false, short answer, essay, and matching formats. There is also a set of questions based on the text’s figures, tables, and maps. The questions are correlated to each chapter’s in-text learning objectives.

MyTest Computerized Test Bank The printed Test Bank is also available online through Pearson’s computerized testing system, MyTest. The user-friendly interface allows you to view, edit, and add questions, transfer questions to tests, and print tests in a variety of fonts. Search and sort features allow you to locate questions quickly and to arrange them in whatever order you prefer. The Test Bank can be accessed anywhere with a free MyTest user account. There is no need to download a program or file to your computer.

PowerPoint Presentation Slides Lecture PowerPoint Presentations are available for this edition. The lecture slides outline each chapter of the text, while the line art slides provide the charts, graphs, and maps found in the text. PowerPoint software is not required as PowerPoint viewer is included.

revel™ Educational technology designed for the way today’s students read, think, and learn When students are engaged deeply, they learn more effectively and perform better in their courses. This simple fact inspired the creation of REVEL: an immersive learning experience designed for the way today’s students read, think, and learn. Built in collabo- ration with educators and students nationwide, REVEL is the newest, fully digital way to deliver respected Pearson content.

REVEL enlivens course content with media interactives and assessments — integrated directly within the authors’ narrative — that provide opportunities for students to read about and practice the course material in tandem. This immersive educational technology boosts student engagement, which leads to better understanding of concepts and improved performance throughout the course.

Learn more about REVEL http://www.pearsonhighered.com/revel/xxx

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 30 11/19/15 4:31 PM

xxxi

Jim Henslin was born in Minnesota, graduated from high school and junior college in California and from college in Indiana. Awarded scholarships, he earned his master’s and doctorate degrees in sociology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. After this, he won a postdoctoral fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health and spent a year studying how people adjust to the suicide of a family member. His primary interests in sociology are the sociology of everyday life, deviance, and international relations. Among his many books are Down-to-Earth Sociolo- gy: Introductory Readings (Free Press), soon in its 15th edition, and Social Problems (Allyn and Bacon), soon to be in its 12th edition. He has also published widely in sociology journals, including Social Problems and American Journal of Sociology.

While a graduate student, Jim taught at the University of Missouri at St. Louis. After completing his doctorate, he joined the faculty at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, where he is Professor Emeritus of Sociology. He says, “I’ve always found the introductory course enjoy- able to teach. I love to see students’ faces light up when they first glimpse the sociological perspective and begin to see how society has become an essential part of how they view the world.”

Jim enjoys reading and fishing, and he also does a bit of kayaking and weight lifting. His two favorite activities

are writing and traveling. He especially enjoys visiting and living in other cultures, for this brings him face to face with behaviors and ways of thinking that challenge his perspectives and “make sociological principles come alive.” A special pleasure has been the preparation of Through the Author’s Lens, the series of photo essays that appear in this text.

Jim moved to Latvia, an Eastern European country formerly dominated by the Soviet Union, where he had the experience of becoming an immigrant. There he observed firsthand how people struggle to adjust to capitalism. While there, he interviewed aged political prisoners who had survived the Soviet gulag. He then moved to Spain, where he was able to observe how people adjust to a declining economy and the immigration of people from contrasting cultures. (Of course, for this he didn’t need to leave the United States.) To better round out his cultural experiences, Jim recently visited South Korea, Vietnam, and again India. He plans to travel extensively in South America, where he expects to do more photo essays to reflect their fascinating cultures. He is grateful to be able to live in such exciting social, technological, and geopolitical times—and to have access to portable broadband Internet while he pursues his sociological imagination.

About the Author

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 31 11/19/15 4:31 PM

A01_HENS5571_13_SE_FM.indd 32 11/19/15 4:31 PM

This page intentionally left blank

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 1 11/19/15 7:01 AM

2

Chapter 1

The Sociological Perspective

The room was strangely silent. Hundreds of men were eating, each immersed in his own private hell, . . .

I quickly scanned the room filled with 100 or so bunks. I was relieved to see that an upper bunk was still open. I grabbed it, figuring that attacks are more difficult in an upper bunk. Even from the glow of the faded red-and-white exit sign, its faint light barely illuminating this bunk, I could see that the sheet was filthy. Resigned to another night of fitful sleep, I reluc- tantly crawled into bed.

I kept my clothes on. The next morning, I joined the long line of disheveled men leaning against the chain-

link fence. Their faces were as downcast as their clothes were dirty. Not a glimmer of hope among them.

No one spoke as the line slowly inched forward. When my turn came, I was handed a cup of coffee, a white plastic spoon, and a bowl of

semiliquid that I couldn’t identify. It didn’t look like any food I had seen before. Nor did it taste like anything I had ever eaten.

My stomach fought the foul taste, every spoonful a battle. But I was determined. “I will experience what they experience,” I kept telling myself. My stomach reluctantly gave in and accepted its morning nourishment.

The room was strangely silent. Hundreds of men were eating, each one immersed in his own private hell, his mind awash with disappointment, remorse, bitterness.

As I stared at the Styrofoam cup that held my coffee, grateful for at least this small plea- sure, I noticed what looked like teeth marks. I shrugged off the thought, telling myself that my

Learning Objectives

1.1 Explain why both history and biography are essential for the sociological perspective. (p. 3)

1.2 Know the focus of each social science. (p. 5)

1.3 Trace the origins of sociology, from tradition to Max Weber. (p. 8)

1.4 Summarize the opposing arguments in the debate about values in sociological research. (p. 13)

1.5 State what Verstehen is and why it is valuable. (p. 14)

1.6 Trace the development of sociology in North America and explain the tension between objective analysis and social reform. (p. 16)

1.7 Explain the basic ideas of symbolic interactionism, functional analysis, and conflict theory. (p. 23)

1.8 Explain how research versus reform and globalization are likely to influence sociology. (p. 30)

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 2 11/19/15 7:01 AM

The Sociological Perspective 3

long weeks as a sociological observer of the homeless were finally getting to me. “It must be some sort of crease from handling,” I concluded.

I joined the silent ranks of men turning in their bowls and cups. When I saw the man behind the counter swishing out Styrofoam cups in a washtub of murky water, I began to feel sick to my stomach. I knew then that the jagged marks on my cup really had come from another person’s mouth.

How much longer did this research have to last? I felt a deep longing to return to my family—to a welcome world of clean sheets, healthy food, and “normal” conversations.

The Sociological Perspective 1.1 Explain why both history and biography are essential for the sociological

perspective.

Why were these men so silent? Why did they receive such despicable treatment? What was I doing in that homeless shelter? After all, I hold a respectable, professional position, and I have a home and family.

You are in for an exciting and eye-opening experience. Sociology offers a fascinating view of social life. The sociological perspective (or imagination) opens a window onto unfa- miliar worlds—and offers a fresh look at familiar ones. In this text, you will find yourself in the midst of Nazis in Germany and warriors in South America. Sociology is broad, and your journey will even take you to a group that lives in a city dump. (If you want to jump ahead, you can see the photos I took of the people who live—and work and play—in a dump in Cambodia on pages 252–253.) You will also find yourself looking at your own world in a different light. As you view other worlds—or your own—the sociological per- spective enables you to gain a new perception of social life. In fact, this is what many find appealing about sociology.

The sociological perspective has been a motivating force in my own life. Ever since I took an introductory course in sociology as a freshman in college, I have been enchanted by the perspective that sociology offers. I have enjoyed both observing other groups and questioning my own assumptions about life. I sincerely hope the same hap- pens to you.

Seeing the Broader Social Context The sociological perspective stresses the social contexts in which people live. It examines how these contexts influence people’s lives. At the center of the sociological perspective is the question of how groups influence people, especially how people are influenced by their society—a group of people who share a culture and a territory.

To find out why people do what they do, sociologists look at social location, the corners in life that people occupy because of their place in a society. Sociologists look at how jobs, income, education, gender, race–ethnicity, and age affect people’s ideas and behavior. Consider, for example, how being identified with a group called females or with a group called males when you were growing up has shaped your ideas of who you are. Growing up as a female or a male has influenced not only how you feel about yourself but also your ideas of what you should attain in life and how you should relate to others. Even your gestures and the way you laugh come from your identifying with one of these groups.

Sociologist C. Wright Mills (1959) put it this way: “The sociological imagination [perspective] enables us to grasp the connection between history and biography.” By his- tory, Mills meant that each society is located in a broad stream of events. This gives each society specific characteristics—such as its ideas about what roles are proper for men

sociological perspective understanding human behavior by placing it within its broader social context

society people who share a culture and a territory

social location the group memberships that peo- ple have because of their location in history and society

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 3 11/19/15 7:01 AM

4 Chapter 1

and women. By biography, Mills referred to your experiences within a specific historical setting, which gives you your orien- tations to life. In short, you don’t do what they do because you inherited some internal mechanism, such as instincts. Rather, external influences—your experiences—become part of your thinking and motivation. Or we can put it this way: At the cen- ter of what you do and how you think is the society in which you grow up and your particular location in that society.

Consider a newborn baby. As you know, if we were to take the baby away from its U.S. parents and place it with the Yanomamö Indians in the jungles of South America, his or her first words would not be in English. You also know that the child would not think like an American. The child would not grow up wanting credit cards, for example, or designer clothes, a car, a smartphone, an iPad, and video games. He or she would take his or her place in Yanomamö society— perhaps as a food gatherer, a hunter, or a warrior—and would not even know about the world left behind at birth. And, whether male or female, the child would grow up assuming that it is natural to want many children, not debating whether to have one, two, or three children.

People around the globe take their own views of the world for granted. Something inside us Americans tells us that ham- burgers are delicious, small families desirable, and designer clothing attractive. Yet something inside some of the Sinai desert Arab tribes tells them that warm, fresh camel’s blood makes a fine drink and that everyone should have a large fam- ily and wear flowing robes (Murray 1935; McCabe and Ellis 1990). That “something” certainly isn’t an instinct. As sociol- ogist Peter Berger (1963/2016) phrased it, that something is society within us.

Although obvious, this point frequently eludes us. We often think and talk about people as though their behavior were caused by their sex (“men are like that”), their race (“those people are like that”), or some other factor transmitted by their genes. The socio- logical perspective helps us escape from this cramped, personal view by exposing the broader social context that underlies human behavior. It helps us see how social settings shape people’s behavior.

If you have been thinking along with me—and I hope you have—you should be thinking about how your social groups have shaped your ideas and desires. Over and over in this text, you will see that the way you look at the world is the result of your exposure to specific human groups. I think you will enjoy the process of self-discovery that sociology offers.

The Global Context—and the Local As is evident to all of us—from the labels on our clothing that say Hong Kong, Brunei, or Macau to the many other imported products that have become part of our daily lives— our world has become a global village. How life has changed! Our predecessors lived on isolated farms and in small towns. They grew their own food and made their own cloth- ing, buying only sugar, coffee, and a few other items that they couldn’t produce. Beyond the borders of their communities lay a world they perceived only dimly.

And how slow communications used to be! In December 1814, the United States and Great Britain signed a peace treaty to end the War of 1812. Yet two weeks later, their armies

We all learn our basic views of the world from the group in which we grow up. Just as this principle applies to this woman in the Bayaka tribe of the Central African Republic, so it applies to you.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 4 11/19/15 7:01 AM

The Sociological Perspective 5

fought a major battle at New Orleans. Neither the American nor the British forces there had heard that the war was over (Volti 1995).

Now we can grab our cell phone or use the Internet to communicate instantly with people anywhere on the planet. News flashes from around the world are part of our everyday life. Although we are engulfed in instantaneous global communications, we also continue to occupy our own little corners of life. Like those of our predecessors, our worlds, too, are marked by differences in family background, religion, job, age, gender, race–ethnicity, and social class. In these smaller corners of life, we continue to learn dis- tinctive ways of viewing the world.

One of the beautiful—and fascinating—aspects of sociology is that it enables us to look at both parts of our current reality: being part of a global network and having unique experiences in our smaller corners of life. This text reflects both of these worlds, each vital in understanding who we are.

Sociology and the Other Sciences 1.2 Know the focus of each social science.

Just as humans today have an intense desire to unravel the mysteries around them, so did people in ancient times. Their explanations were based not only on observations, however, but were mixed with magic and superstition.

To satisfy their basic curiosity about the world, humans gradually developed science, systematic methods for studying the social and natural worlds and the knowl- edge obtained by those methods. Sociology, the study of society and human behavior, is one of these sciences.

A useful way of comparing these sciences—and of gaining a better understanding of sociology’s place—is to divide them into the natural and the social sciences.

The Natural Sciences The natural sciences are the intellectual and academic disciplines that are designed to explain and predict the events in our natural environment. The natural sciences are divided into specialized fields of research according to subject matter, such as biology, geology, chemistry, and physics. These are further subdivided into even more highly specialized areas. Biology is divided into botany and zoology; geology into mineralogy and geomorphology; chemistry into its organic and inorganic branches; and physics into biophysics and quantum mechanics. Each area of investigation examines a particular “slice” of nature.

The Social Sciences People have also developed the social sciences, which examine human relationships. Just as the natural sciences attempt to objectively understand the world of nature, the social sciences attempt to objectively understand the social world. Just as the world of nature contains ordered (or lawful) relationships that are not obvious but must be discovered through controlled observations, so the ordered relationships of the human or social world are not obvious and must be revealed by means of repeated observations.

Like the natural sciences, the social sciences are divided into specialized fields based on their subject matter. These divisions—anthropology, economics, political sci- ence, psychology, and sociology—are, like the natural sciences, subdivided into special- ized fields. Anthropology includes cultural and physical anthropology; economics has macro (large-scale) and micro (small-scale) specialties; political science has theoretical

science the application of systematic methods to obtain knowledge and the knowledge obtained by those methods

natural sciences the intellectual and academic dis- ciplines designed to comprehend, explain, and predict events in our natural environment

social sciences the intellectual and academic dis- ciplines designed to understand the social world objectively by means of controlled and repeated observations

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 5 11/19/15 7:01 AM

6 Chapter 1

and applied branches; psychology may be clinical or experimental; and sociology has its quantitative and qualitative branches. Since our focus is sociology, let’s contrast sociol- ogy with each of the other social sciences.

Anthropology Anthropology, which traditionally focuses on tribal peoples, is closely related to sociology. The chief goal of anthropologists is to understand culture, a people’s total way of life. Culture includes a group’s (1) artifacts, such as its tools, art, and weapons; (2) structure, the patterns that determine how its members interact with one another, such as positions of leadership; (3) ideas and values, the ways the group’s beliefs affect its members’ lives; and (4) forms of communication, especially language.

Students working on their doctorates in anthropology used to spend a year or two living with a tribal group. In their reports, they emphasized the group’s family (kin) rela- tionships. As there are no “undiscovered” groups left in the world, this focus on tribal groups has given way to the study of groups in agricultural settings and, increasingly, in industrialized society (Welker et al. 2011). When they study the same groups that sociol- ogists do, anthropologists place more emphasis on artifacts, authority (hierarchy), and language, especially kinship terms.

Economics Economics concentrates on a single social institution. Economists study the production and distribution of the material goods and services of a society. They want to know what goods are being produced, what they cost, and how those goods are distributed. Economists are also interested in the choices that determine production and consumption; for example, they study what motivates people to buy one item instead of another item.

politicAl sciEncE Political science focuses on politics and government. Political scientists examine how governments are formed, how they operate, and how they are related to the other institutions of society. Political scientists are especially interested in how people attain ruling positions, how they maintain those positions, and the consequences of their actions for the people they govern.

psychology The focus of psychology is on processes that occur within the individ- ual, inside what they call the “skin-bound organism.” Experimental psychologists do research on intelligence, emotions, perception, memory, even sleep and dreams. Some study how personality is formed and the causes and treatment of mental illness. Clin- ical psychologists work as therapists, helping people resolve personal problems, such as recovering from abuse or addiction to drugs. Others work as counselors in school and work settings, where they give personality tests, intelligence tests, and vocational aptitude tests.

sociology Sociology overlaps these other social sciences. Like anthropologists, sociologists also study culture; they, too, do research on group structure and belief sys- tems, as well as on how people communicate with one another. Like economists, sociol- ogists do research on how a society’s goods and services are distributed, especially how that distribution results in inequality. Like political scientists, sociologists study how people govern one another, especially how those in power affect people’s lives. And like psychologists, sociologists also study how people adjust to the difficulties of life.

With such similarities, what distinguishes sociology from the other social sciences? Unlike anthropologists, sociologists focus primarily on industrialized and postindustri- alized societies. Unlike economists and political scientists, sociologists do not concentrate on a single social institution. And unlike psychologists, sociologists stress factors external to the individual to determine what influences people and how they adjust to life. These differences might not be entirely clear, so let’s go to the Down-to-Earth Sociology box and, in an updated ancient tale, consider how members of different disciplines might perceive the same subject matter.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 6 11/19/15 7:01 AM

The Sociological Perspective 7

Down-to-Earth Sociology An Updated Version of the Old Elephant Story It is said that in the recent past, five wise men and women, all blindfolded, were led to an elephant and asked to explain what they “saw.” The first, an anthropologist, tenderly touching the trunk and the tusks, broke into a huge grin and said, “This is really primitive. I feel very comfortable here. Concentrate on these.”

The second, an economist, feeling the mouth, said, “This is what counts. What goes in here is distributed throughout the body. Concentrate your research on what goes in here and how it is distributed.”

The third, a political scientist, feeling the gigantic ears, announced, “This is the power center. What goes in here controls the entire beast. Concentrate your studies here.”

The fourth, a psychologist, stroking the top of the elephant’s head, smiled contentedly and said, “This is the only thing that counts. All feeling and thinking take place inside here. To understand this beast, we’ll study this part.”

Then came the sociologist (of course!), who, after feeling the entire body, said, “You can’t understand the beast by concentrating on only one part. Each is part of the whole. The trunk and tusks, the mouth, the ears, the head—all are

important. But so are the parts of the beast that you haven’t mentioned. We must remove our blindfolds so we can see the larger picture. We have to see how everything works together to form the entire animal.”

Pausing for emphasis, the sociologist added, “And we also need to understand how this creature interacts with similar creatures. How does its life in groups influence its behavior?”

I wish I could conclude this tale by saying that the anthropologist, the economist, the political scientist, and the psychologist were dazzled on hearing the wisdom of the sociologist, and, amidst gasps of wonderment, they tore off their blindfolds, joined together, and began to examine the entire animal. But, alas and alack! On hearing this sage advice, the specialists stubbornly bound

their blindfolds even tighter so they could concentrate all the more on their particular part. And if you listened very, very carefully, you could even hear them mutter, “Don’t touch the tusks.” “Stay away from the mouth—that’s my area.” “Take your hands off the ears.” “The top of the head is mine—get away from it.”

The traditional version of the blind men and the elephant does not include social scientists.

The Goals of Science The first goal of each science is to explain why something happens. The second goal is to make generalizations, that is, to go beyond the individual case and make statements that apply to a broader group or situation. For example, a sociologist wants to explain not only why Mary went to college or became an armed robber but also why people with her characteristics are more likely than others to go to college or to become armed robbers. To achieve generaliza- tions, sociologists look for patterns, recurring characteristics or events. The third scientific goal is to predict, to specify in the light of current knowledge what will happen in the future.

To attain these goals, scientists do not rely on magic, superstition, or common beliefs but, instead, they do systematic research. They explain exactly how they did their research so it can be reviewed by others. Secrecy, biases, and “trying to prove the way you want something to be” go against the grain of science.

Sociologists and other scientists also move beyond common sense—the prevail- ing ideas in a society, the things that “everyone knows” are true. “Everyone” can be as misguided today as everyone was when common sense dictated that the world was flat or that no human could ever walk on the moon. As sociologists do their research, their findings may confirm or contradict commonsense notions about social life.

Do you want to test your own common sense? Take the little Down-to-Earth Sociology quiz.

generalization a statement that goes beyond the individual case and is applied to a broader group or situation

common sense those things that “everyone knows” are true

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 7 11/19/15 7:01 AM

8 Chapter 1

Down-to-Earth Sociology Enjoying a Sociology Quiz—Testing Your Common Sense Some findings of sociology support commonsense understandings of social life, and others contradict them. Can you tell the difference?

Answer all questions before turning the page to see the answers.

1. True/False More U.S. students are killed in school shootings now than ten or fifteen years ago.

2. True/False The earnings of U.S. women have just about caught up with those of U.S. men.

3. True/False With life so rushed and more women working for wages, today’s parents spend less time with their children than parents of previous generations did.

4. True/False It is more dangerous to walk near topless bars than fast-food restaurants.

5. True/False Most rapists are mentally ill.

6. True/False A large percentage of terrorists are mentally ill.

7. True/False Most people on welfare are lazy and looking for a handout. They could work if they wanted to.

8. True/False Compared with women, men make more eye contact in face-to-face conversations.

9. True/False Because bicyclists are more likely to wear helmets now than a few years ago, their rate of head injuries has dropped.

10. True/False As measured by their divorce rate, couples who live together before marriage are usually more satisfied with their marriages than couples who did not live together before marriage.

The Risks of Being a Sociologist Sometimes the explorations of sociologists take them into nooks and crannies that people would prefer remain unexplored. For example, a sociologist might study how muggers choose their victims or how people make decisions to cheat on their spouses. Since sociologists are intrigued with understanding social life, they don’t stop doing research because people disapprove of it or feel uncomfortable about it. Sociologists consider all realms of human life legitimate avenues to explore, and they research both the respectable and the downright disreputable.

When sociologists do research on organizations, they sometimes face pressure to keep things secret. Every group, it seems, nourishes some ideal image that it presents to others. Because sociologists are interested in knowing what is really going on, they peer behind the scenes to get past those sugar-coated images (Berger 1963, 2016). An objec- tive report can threaten a group’s image, leading to pressure and conflict—all part of the adventure, and risk, of being a sociologist.

Origins of Sociology 1.3 trace the origins of sociology, from tradition to max Weber.

Tradition versus Science So when did sociology begin? Even ancient peoples tried to figure out how social life works. They, too, asked questions about why war exists, why some people become more powerful than others, and why some are rich but others are poor. However, they often based their answers on superstition, myth, even the positions of the stars. They did not test their assumptions.

Science, in contrast, requires theories that can be tested by research. Mea- sured by this standard, sociology emerged about the middle of the 1800s, when social observers began to use scientific methods to test their ideas. Three main events set the stage for the challenge to tradition and the emer- gence of sociology.

The first was the social upheaval of the Industrial Revolution. As agri- culture gave way to factory production, masses of people moved to cities in search of work. The city’s greeting was harsh: miserable pay, long hours,

Upsetting the entire social order, the French Revolution removed the past as a sure guide to the present. This stimulated Auguste Comte to analyze how societies change. Shown here is the king of France, Luis XVI, as he is about to be executed by guillotine in 1793.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 8 11/19/15 7:01 AM

The Sociological Perspective 9

and dangerous work. To help their family survive, even children worked in these misera- ble conditions, some of them chained to machines to keep them from running away. With their ties to the land broken and their world turned upside down, no longer could people count on tradition to provide the answers to the difficult questions of life.

The second was the social upheaval of political revolution. The American and French revolutions swept away the existing social orders—and with them the answers they had pro- vided. Before this period, tradition had ruled. The reply to questions of “why” was “We do this because it has always been done this way.” A new social order challenges traditional answers and ushers in new ideas. The ideas that emerged during this period challenged tra- dition even further. Especially powerful was the new idea that each person possesses inalien- able rights. This idea caught fire to such an extent that people were willing to die for it, forcing many traditional Western monarchies to give way to more democratic forms of government.

The third was the imperialism (empire building) of the time. The Europeans had conquered so many countries that their new colonies stretched across the world, from Asia and Africa to North and South America. This exposed them to radically different ways of life, and they began to ask why cultures differ.

The industrial revolution, political revolution, and imperialism, then, led to a questioning of traditional answers. At this same time, the scientific method—using objective, systematic observations to test theories—was being tried in chemistry and physics. This revealed many secrets that had been concealed in nature. With traditional answers failing, the next step was to apply the scientific method to questions about social life. The result was the birth of sociology.

Let’s take a quick overview of some of the main people in this development.

Auguste Comte and Positivism Auguste Comte (1798–1857) suggested that we apply the scientific method to the social world, a process known as positivism. With the bloody upheavals of the French Revo- lution fresh in his mind—and he knew that the crowds had cheered at the public exe- cution of the king and queen of France—Comte started to wonder what holds society together. He asked why we have social order instead of anarchy or chaos. And when society becomes set on a particular course, what causes it to change?

These were pressing questions, and Comte decided that the scientific method held the key to answering them. Just as the scientific method had revealed the law of gravity, so, too, it would uncover the laws that underlie society. Comte called this new science sociology—”the study of society” (from the Greek logos, “study of,” and the Latin socius, “companion,” or “being with others”). The purpose of this new science, he said, would not only be to discover social principles but also to apply them to social reform. Comte devel- oped a grandiose view: Sociologists would reform society, making it a better place to live.

Applying the scientific method to social life meant something quite different to Comte than it does to sociologists today. To Comte, it meant a kind of “armchair philosophy”— drawing conclusions from informal observations of social life. Comte did not do what we today call research, and his conclusions have been abandoned. But because he proposed that we observe and classify human activities to uncover society’s fundamental laws and coined the term sociology to describe this process, Comte often is credited with being the founder of sociology.

Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), who grew up in England, is sometimes called the second founder of sociology. Spencer disagreed sharply with Comte. He said that sociologists should not guide social reform. If they did, he said, it would interfere with a natural pro- cess that improves societies. Societies are evolving from a lower form (“barbarian”) to higher (“civilized”) forms. As generations pass, a society’s most capable and intelligent

scientific method the use of objective, systematic observations to test theories

positivism the application of the scientific approach to the social world

sociology the scientific study of society and human behavior

Auguste Comte (1798–1857), who is credited as the founder of sociology, began to analyze the bases of the social order. Although he stressed that the scientific method should be applied to the study of society, he did not apply it himself.

Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), sometimes called the second founder of sociology, coined the term “survival of the fittest.” Spencer thought that helping the poor was wrong, that this merely helped the “less fit” survive.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 9 11/19/15 7:01 AM

10 Chapter 1

members (“the fittest”) survive, while the less capable die out. These fittest members pro- duce a more advanced society—unless misguided do-gooders get in the way and help the less fit (the lower classes) survive.

Spencer called this principle the survival of the fittest. Although Spencer coined this phrase, it usually is credited to his contemporary, Charles Darwin. Where Spencer pro- posed that societies evolve over time as the fittest people adapt to their environment, Darwin applied this idea to organisms. Because Darwin is better known, Spencer’s idea is called social Darwinism. History is fickle, and if fame had gone the other way, we might be speaking of “biological Spencerism.”

Spencer’s idea that it was wrong to help the poor offended many. Some people, how- ever, liked the concept of the survival of the fittest: They saw themselves as “the fittest”—and therefore superior. I’m sure that Spencer’s views also helped some wealthy businessmen of the time avoid feeling guilty for living like royalty while people around them went hungry.

Like Comte, Spencer did armchair philosophy instead of conducting scientific research. His ideas about society became popular, and he was sought after as a speaker in both England and the United States. Eventually, social Darwinism was discredited, and few today remember Spencer.

The next sociologist, in contrast, has a name that is recognized around the world.

Karl Marx and Class Conflict Karl Marx (1818–1883) not only influenced sociology but also left his mark on world his- tory. Marx’s influence has been so great that even the Wall Street Journal, that staunch advocate of capitalism, has called him one of the three greatest modern thinkers (the other two being Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein).

Like Comte, Marx thought that people should try to change society. His proposal for change was radical: revolution. This got him thrown out of Germany, and he set- tled in England. Marx believed that the engine of human history is class conflict. He said that society is made up of two social classes, and they are natural enemies of one another: the bourgeoisie (boo-shwa-ZEE) (the capitalists, those who own the means of

class conflict Marx’s term for the struggle between capitalists and workers

bourgeoisie Marx’s term for capitalists, those who own the means of production

Karl Marx (1818–1883) believed that the roots of human misery lay in class conflict, the exploitation of workers by those who own the means of production. Social change, in the form of the workers overthrowing the capitalists was inevitable from Marx’s perspective. Although Marx did not consider himself a sociologist, his ideas have influenced many sociologists, particularly conflict theorists.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Testing Your Common Sense—Answers to the Sociology Quiz 1. False. More students met violent deaths at U.S. schools in

the 1990s than now. See Table 17.2 (page 517).

2. False. Over the years, the wage gap has narrowed, but only slightly. On average, full-time working women earn about 72 percent of what full-time working men earn. This low figure is actually an improvement over earlier years. (See Figures 11.7 and 11.8 on page 318.)

3. False. Today’s parents spend more time with their children (Bianchi 2010). To see how this could be, see Figure 16.2 (page 466).

4. False. The crime rate outside fast-food restaurants is considerably higher. The likely reason is that topless bars hire private security and parking lot attendants (Linz et al. 2004).

5. False. Sociologists compared the psychological profiles of prisoners convicted of rape and prisoners convicted of other crimes. Their profiles were similar. Like robbery, rape is learned behavior. (See page 144.)

6. False. Extensive testing of Islamic terrorists shows that they actually tend to score more “normal” on psychological

tests than most “normal” people do. As a group, they are in better mental health than the rest of the population (Sageman 2008b:64). (See pages 452–453.)

7. False. Most people on welfare are children, young mothers with few skills, or are elderly, sick, mentally challenged, or physically handicapped. Less than 2 percent fit the stereotype of an able-bodied man. (See page 285.)

8. False. Women make considerably more eye contact.

9. False. Bicyclists today are more likely to wear helmets, but their rate of head injuries is higher. Apparently, they take more risks because the helmets make them feel safer (Barnes 2001).

10. False. Until recently, the divorce rate of couples who cohabited before marriage was higher than those who did not cohabit. Now the divorce rate seems to be about the same (Kuperberg 2014). Neither divorce rate indicates that the couples who previously cohabited are more satisfied with their marriage.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 10 11/19/15 7:01 AM

The Sociological Perspective 11

production—the money, land, factories, and machines) and the proletariat (the exploited workers, who do not own the means of production). Eventually, the workers will unite and break their chains of bondage. The workers’ revolution will be bloody, but it will usher in a classless society, one free of exploitation. People will work according to their abilities and receive goods and services according to their needs (Marx and Engels 1848/1967).

Marxism is not the same as communism. Although Marx proposed revolution as the way for workers to gain control of society, he did not develop the political system called com- munism. This is a later application of his ideas. Marx himself felt disgusted when he heard debates about his insights into social life. After listening to some of the positions attributed to him, he shook his head and said, “I am not a Marxist” (Dobriner 1969:222; Gitlin 1997:89).

Unlike Comte and Spencer, Marx did not think of himself as a sociologist—and with his reputation for communism and revolution, many sociologists wish that no one else did either. Marx spent years studying in the library of the British Museum in London, where he wrote widely on history, philosophy, economics, and political science. Because of his insights into the relationship between the social classes, Marx is generally recognized as a significant early sociologist. He introduced conflict theory, one of today’s major perspectives in sociology. Later, we will examine this perspective in detail.

Emile Durkheim and Social Integration Until the time of Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), sociology was viewed as part of history and economics. Durkheim, who grew up in France, wanted to change this, and his major professional goal was to get sociology recognized as a separate academic discipline (Coser 1977). He achieved this goal in 1887 when the University of Bordeaux awarded him the world’s first academic appointment in sociology.

Durkheim’s second goal was to show how social forces affect people’s behavior. To accomplish this, he conducted rigorous research. Comparing the suicide rates of several European countries, Durkheim (1897/1966) found that each country has a different suicide rate—and that these rates remain about the same year after year. He also found that different groups within a country have different suicide rates and that these, too, remain stable from year to year. Males are more likely than females to kill themselves, Protestants more likely than Catholics or Jews, and the unmarried more likely than the married. From these obser- vations, Durkheim concluded that suicide is not what it appears— simply a matter of individuals here and there deciding to take their lives for personal reasons. Instead, social factors underlie suicide, which is why a group’s rate remains fairly constant year after year.

In his search for the key social factors in suicide, Durkheim identified social integra- tion, the degree to which people are tied to their social groups: He found that people who have weaker social ties are more likely to commit suicide. This, he said, explains why Prot- estants, males, and the unmarried have higher suicide rates. This is how it works: Protes- tantism encourages greater freedom of thought and action; males are more independent than females; and the unmarried lack the ties and responsibilities that come with mar- riage. In other words, members of these groups have fewer of the social bonds that keep people from committing suicide. In Durkheim’s term, they have less social integration.

Although strong social ties help protect people from suicide, Durkheim noted that strong bonds can also encourage suicide. An example is people who, torn apart by grief, kill themselves after the death of a spouse. Their own feelings are so integrated with those of their spouses that they prefer death rather than life without the one who gave it meaning. Another is the suicide terrorists who, motivated by loyalty to their group, blow themselves (and others) up. Despite the many years that have passed since Durkheim did his research, the principle he uncovered still applies: People who are less socially integrated have higher rates of suicide. Even today, more than a century later, those same groups that Durkheim identified—Protestants, males, and the unmarried—are more likely to kill themselves.

proletariat Marx’s term for the exploited class, the mass of workers who do not own the means of production

social integration the degree to which members of a group or a society feel united by shared values and other so- cial bonds; also known as social cohesion

The French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) contributed many important concepts to sociology. His comparison of the suicide rates of several countries revealed an underlying social factor: People are more likely to commit suicide if their ties to others in their communities are weak. Durkheim’s identification of the key role of social integration in social life remains central to sociology today.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 11 11/19/15 7:01 AM

12 Chapter 1

It is important for you to understand the principle that was central in Durkheim’s research: Human behavior cannot be understood only in terms of the individual; we must always examine the social forces that affect people’s lives. Suicide, for example, appears to be such an intensely individual act that psychologists should study it, not sociologists. As Durkheim stressed, however, if we look at human behavior only in reference to the individual, we miss its social basis.

Applying DurKhEim Did you know that 29,000 whites and 2,000 African Americans will commit suicide in the next twelve months? Of course not. And you probably are wondering if anyone can know something like this before it happens. Sociologists can. How? Sociologists look at patterns of behavior, recurring characteristics or events.

The patterns of suicide let us be even more specific. Look at Figure 1.1. There you can see the methods by which African Americans and whites commit suicide. These patterns

patterns of behavior recurring behaviors or events

Durkheim believed that modern societies produce feelings of isolation, much of which comes from the division of labor. In contrast, members of traditional societies, who work alongside family and neighbors and participate in similar activities, experience a high degree of social integration. The photo below is of community fishing in Assam in northeastern India. To the left is a photo of information workers in their cubicles.

Figure 1.1 How Americans Commit Suicide

P er

ce nt

ag e

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

53.0 51.9

20.0 25.3

18.3

11.4

1.9 3.4 1.0 3.0 1.8 1.7 0.4 0.9 1.2 2.1

Whites African Americans

Guns Hanging Poison Jumping Drowning Cutting Fire Other

NoTe: These totals are the mean of years 2001–2011. (“Mean” is explained in Table 5.2 on page 133.)

Source: By the author. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2012 and earlier years; Center for Injury Prevention and Control 2013.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 12 11/19/15 7:01 AM

The Sociological Perspective 13

are so consistent that we can predict with high certainty that of the 29,000 whites, about 15,500 will use guns to kill themselves, and that of the 2,000 African Americans, 60 to 70 will jump to their deaths.

These patterns—both the numbers and the way people take their lives—recur year after year. This indicates something far beyond the individuals who kill themselves. They reflect conditions in society, such as the popularity and accessibility of guns. They also reflect conditions that we don’t understand. I am hoping that one day this textbook will pique a student’s interest enough to investigate these patterns.

Max Weber and the Protestant Ethic Max Weber (Mahx VAY-ber) (1864–1920), a German sociologist and a contemporary of Durkheim, also held professorships in the new academic discipline of sociology. Like Durkheim and Marx, Weber is one of the most influential of all sociologists, and you will come across his writings and theories in later chapters. For now, let’s consider an issue Weber raised that remains controversial today.

rEligion AnD thE origin of cApitAlism Weber disagreed with Marx’s claim that economics is the central force in social change. That role, he said, belongs to reli- gion. Weber (1904/1958) theorized that the Roman Catholic belief system encouraged followers to hold on to their traditional ways of life, while the Protestant belief system encouraged its members to embrace change. Roman Catholics were taught that because they were Church members, they were on the road to heaven, but Protestants, those of the Calvinist tradition, were told that they wouldn’t know if they were saved until Judg- ment Day. You can see why this made them uncomfortable. Calvinists began to look for a “sign” that they were in God’s will. They found this “sign” in financial success, which they took as a blessing that indicated that God was on their side. To bring about this “sign” and receive spiritual comfort, they began to live frugal lives, saving their money and investing it in order to make even more. This accumulation and investment of capi- tal, said Weber, brought about the birth of capitalism.

Weber called this self-denying approach to life the Protestant ethic. He termed the desire to invest capital in order to make more money the spirit of capitalism. To test his theory, Weber compared the extent of capitalism in Roman Catholic and Protestant countries. In line with his theory, he found that capitalism was more likely to flourish in Protestant countries. Weber’s conclusion that religion was the key factor in the rise of capitalism was controversial when he made it, and it continues to be debated today (Kotz 2015). We’ll explore these ideas in more detail in Chapter 7.

Values in Sociological Research 1.4 summarize the opposing arguments in the debate about values in sociological

research.

Weber raised another issue that remains controversial among sociologists. He said that sociology should be value free. By this, he meant that a sociologist’s values—beliefs about what is good or desirable in life and the way the world ought to be—should not affect his or her research. Weber wanted objectivity, value neutrality, to be the hall- mark of social research. If values influence research, he said, they will bias sociological findings.

That bias has no place in research is not a matter of debate. All sociologists agree that no one should distort data to make them fit preconceived ideas or personal values. It is equally clear, however, that because we sociologists—like everyone else—are mem- bers of a particular society at a given point in history, we, too, are infused with values of all sorts. Our values do play a role in our research. For example, values are part of the

value free the view that a sociologist’s personal values or beliefs should not influence social research

values the standards by which people define what is desirable or undesirable, superior or inferior good or bad, beautiful or ugly

objectivity value neutrality in research

Max Weber (1864–1920) was another early sociologist who left a profound impression on sociology. He used cross-cultural and historical materials to trace the causes of social change and to determine how social groups affect people’s orientations to life.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 13 11/19/15 7:01 AM

14 Chapter 1

reason that one sociologist chooses to do research on how poverty affects life chances while another turns a sociological eye on violence against women.

Because values can lead to unintended distortions in research, sociologists stress the need of replication, repeating a study in order to compare the new results with the orig- inal findings. If an individual’s values have distorted research findings, replication by other sociologists should uncover the bias and correct it.

Despite this consensus, however, values remain a hotly debated topic in sociology (Burawoy 2007; Simonds 2013). As summarized in Figure 1.2, the disagreement centers on the proper purposes and uses of sociology. Regard- ing its purpose, some sociologists take the position that their goal should be simply to advance understanding of social life. Sociologists should gather data on any topic that interests them and then use the best theory avail- able to interpret their findings. Others are convinced that sociologists have the moral responsibility to investigate social arrangements that harm people—the causes of poverty, crime, racism, war, and other forms of human exploitation.

There is also a disagreement over the uses of sociology. Those who say that sociology’s purpose is to understand human behavior take the posi- tion that the knowledge gained by social research belongs to both the scien- tific community and the world. It can be used by anyone for any purpose. In contrast, those who say that sociologists should focus on harmful social conditions take the position that the purpose of their research should be to

alleviate human suffering and improve society. Some also say that sociologists should spearhead social reform.

Although few sociologists take such one-sided views and this debate is more com- plicated than the argument summarized here, this sketch does identify its major issues. Here is how sociologist John Galliher (1991) expressed today’s majority position:

Some argue that social scientists, unlike politicians and religious leaders, should merely attempt to describe and explain the events of the world but should never make value judgments based on those observations. Yet a value-free and nonjudgmental social science has no place in a world that has experienced the Holocaust, in a world having had slavery, in a world with the ever-present threat of rape and other sexual assault, in a world with frequent, unpunished crimes in high places, including the production of products known by their manufacturers to cause death and injury as has been true of asbestos products and continues to be true of the cigarette industry, and in a world dying from environmental pollution by these same large multinational corporations.

Verstehen and Social Facts 1.5 state what Verstehen is and why it is valuable.

Weber and Verstehen Max Weber also stressed that to understand human behavior, we should use Verstehen (vare-shtay-in) (a German word meaning “to understand”). Perhaps a better translation of this term is “to grasp by insight.” By emphasizing Verstehen, Weber meant that the best interpreter of human behavior is someone who “has been there,” someone who can understand the feelings and motivations of the people being studied. In short, we must pay attention to what are called subjective meanings—how people interpret their situa- tion in life, how they view what they are doing and what is happening to them.

To better understand this term, let’s return to the homeless in our opening vignette. Why were the men so silent at breakfast? Why were they so unlike the noisy, sometimes boisterous college students who swarm dorms and cafeterias?

replication the repetition of a study in order to test its findings

Verstehen a German word used by Weber that is perhaps best understood as “to have insight into someone’s situation”

subjective meanings the meanings that people give their own behavior

Figure 1.2 The Debate Over Values in Sociological Research

The Purposes of Social Research

To understand human behavior

To investigate harmful social arrangements

Should be used to improve

society

The Uses of Social Research

Can be used by anyone for any purpose

versus

versus

Source: By the author.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 14 11/19/15 7:01 AM

The Sociological Perspective 15

Verstehen can help explain this. When I interviewed men in the shelters (and, in other settings, homeless women), they revealed their despair. Because you know—at least on some level—what the human emotion of despair is, you can do Verstehen; that is, you can apply your knowledge of despair to understand their situation. You know that people in despair feel a sense of hopelessness. The future looks bleak, hardly worth plodding toward. Consequently, why is it worth talking about? Who wants to hear another hard-luck story?

By applying Verstehen—your understanding of what it means to be human and to face some situation in life—you gain insight into other people’s behavior. In this case, you can under- stand these men’s silence, their lack of communication in the homeless shelter.

Durkheim and Social Facts In contrast to Weber’s emphasis on Verstehen and subjective meanings, Durkheim stressed what he called social facts. By this term, he meant a group’s recurring patterns of behavior. Examples of social facts in the United States include June being the most popular month for weddings and suicide rates being higher among the elderly. You probably knew both of these social facts, but did you know this one, that more births occur on Tuesdays than on any other day of the week?

Durkheim said that we must use social facts to interpret social facts. In other words, each pattern reflects some condition of society. People all over the country don’t just coincidentally decide to do similar things, whether that is to get married or to commit suicide. If this were the case, in some years, middle-aged people would be the most likely to kill themselves, in other years, young people, and so on. Patterns that hold true year after year indicate that as thousands and even millions of people make their individual decisions, they are responding to conditions in their society. It is the job of the sociologist, then, to uncover social facts and to explain them through other social facts. To see how this works, let’s look at how the social facts I mentioned—weddings, suicide, and births—are explained by other social facts.

How Social Facts and Verstehen Fit Together Social facts and Verstehen go hand in hand. As a member of U.S. society, you know how June weddings are related to the end of the school year and how this month, now locked in tradition, common sentiment, and advertising, carries its own momentum. As for sui- cide among the elderly (see Chapter 13), you probably already have a sense of the greater despair that many older Americans feel.

But do you know why more Americans are born on Tuesday than on any other day of the week? You would expect Tuesday to be no more common than any other day, and that is how it used to be. But no longer (Martin et al. 2013:Table I-3). To understand this change, we need to combine social facts and Verstehen. Four social facts are relevant: First, technology has made the hospital a dominating force in the U.S. medical system. Second, medical technology has made births by cesarean section safer. Third, as discussed in Chapter 19, doctors have replaced midwives in the delivery of babies. Fourth, medi- cine in the United States is a business, with profit a major goal. These four social facts have coalesced to make an operation that used to be a last resort for emergencies now so routine that one-third (33 percent) of all U.S. babies are now delivered in this manner (Statistical Abstract 2014:Table 93).

social facts Durkheim’s term for a group’s patterns of behavior

Perhaps from this photo taken in Athens, Greece, you can see why silence is common in homeless shelters. An optimistic view of life and exciting things to talk about are not part of the homeless.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 15 11/19/15 7:01 AM

16 Chapter 1

If we add Verstehen to these social facts, we gain insight that goes far beyond the cold statistics. Let’s try it. You know that most American mothers-to-be prefer to give birth in a hospital. You can also understand how influential physicians can be at such an emotionally charged and vulnerable moment and how alternatives can appear so slim. Finally, you can also understand that physicians would schedule births for a time that is most convenient for them, which happens to be Tuesdays. (Mondays are filled with appointments, as well as sniffles and fevers from the weekend, and a Tuesday deliv- ery provides enough time to take care of the new mother and child to best assure free weekends.) Combine Verstehen with social facts and you have the answer.

Sociology in North America 1.6 trace the development of sociology in north America and explain the tension

between objective analysis and social reform.

Transplanted to U.S. soil, sociology first took root at the University of Kansas in 1890, at the University of Chicago in 1892, at Catholic University in 1895, and at Atlanta University (then an all-black school) in 1897. From there, sociology spread rapidly throughout North America (Lengermann and Niebrugge 2007; university catalogs 2015).

Some universities were slow to adopt sociology. Not until 1922 did McGill Univer- sity establish Canada’s first department of sociology. Harvard University did not open its sociology department until 1930, and it took until 1946 for the University of California at Berkeley to do so.

The University of Chicago initially dominated North American sociology. Albion Small (1854–1926), who founded this department, also launched The American Journal of Sociology and was its editor from 1895 to 1925. Members of this sociology faculty whose ideas continue to influence today’s sociologists include Robert Park (1864–1944), Ernest Burgess (1886–1966), and George Herbert Mead (1863–1931). Mead developed the symbolic interactionist perspective, which we will examine later.

Sexism at the Time: Women in Early Sociology As you may have noticed, all the sociologists we have discussed are men. In the 1800s, sex roles were rigid, with women assigned the roles of wife and mother. In the classic German phrase, women were expected to devote themselves to the four K’s: Kirche, Küche, Kinder, und Kleider (the four C’s in English: church, cooking, children, and clothes). Trying to break out of this mold meant risking severe disapproval.

At this time, few people, male or female, attained any education beyond basic read- ing and writing and a little math. Higher education, for the rare few who received it, was reserved primarily for men. Of the handful of women who did pursue higher edu- cation, some became prominent in early sociology. Marion Talbot, for example, was an associate editor of the American Journal of Sociology for thirty years, from its founding in 1895 to 1925. The influence of some early female sociologists went far beyond sociol- ogy. Grace Abbott became chief of the U.S. government’s Children’s Bureau, and Frances Perkins was the first woman to hold a cabinet position, serving twelve years as Secretary of Labor under President Franklin Roosevelt. The photo wheel on the next page portrays some of these early sociologists.

Most early female sociologists viewed sociology as a path to social reform. They focused on ways to improve society, such as how to stop lynching, integrate immigrants into society, and improve the conditions of workers. As sociology developed in North

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 16 11/19/15 7:01 AM

The Sociological Perspective 17

America, a debate arose about the purpose of sociology. Should it be to reform society or to do objective research on society? Those who held the university positions won the debate. They feared that advocating for social causes would jeopardize the reputation of sociology—and their own university positions. It was these men who wrote the his- tory of sociology. Distancing themselves from the social reformers, they ignored the early female sociologists (Lengermann and Niebrugge 2007). Now that women have regained their voice in sociology—and have begun to rewrite its history—early female sociologists are again, as here, being acknowledged.

Harriet Martineau (1802–1876) provides an excellent example of how the con- tributions of early female sociologists were ignored. Although Martineau was from England, she is included here because she did extensive analyses of U.S. social customs.

Sexism was so pervasive that when Martineau first began to analyze social life, she would hide her writing beneath her sewing when visitors arrived; writing was “masculine” and sewing “feminine” (Gilman 1911/1971:88). Despite her extensive and acclaimed research on social life in both Great Britain and the United States, until recently Martineau was known primarily for translating Comte’s ideas into English. The Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page features Martineau’s research on the United States.

Beatric e Potter Webb

Self–educated

(1858–1943)

Marion TalbotB.S. 1888

MIT

(1858–1948)

A nn

a Ju lia C

o o

p e r

Ph.D . 1925

U niversity of Paris (1858–1964)

Fr a n

ce s

Pe rk

in s

M .A

. 1 91

0

C o

lu m

b ia

U ni

ve rs

ity

(1 88

0– 19

65 )

G ra

ce A b

b o

tt U

n iversity o

f Chicago

M .Ph

il. 1909

(1878–1939)

Cha rlo

tte Pe

rk in

s G

ilm an

Att end

ed Rh

od e I

sla nd

Sch ool

of De

sig n 1

87 8–

18 80

(18 60

–1 93

5)

Ida B. Wells-Barnett

Attended FiskUniversity 1882–1884

(1862–1931)

Em

ily Greene Balch

Bryn M awr College

B.A. 1889 (1867–1961)

Fl o

re n

ce K

e ll

e y

N or

th w

es te

rn U

n iv

er si

ty

J. D

. 1 89

5 (1

85 9–

19 32

)

Al ice

Pa ul

D. C.L

. 1 92

8 Am

er ica

n U niv

ers ity

(18 85

–1 97

7)

The Forgotten Sociologists

Early North American sociologists combined the roles of social analysis and social reform. As

sociology became a respected academic subject and sociology departments developed across the United

States, academic sociologists began to emphasize social research and theory. From this orientation,

the academic sociologists wrote the history of sociology. They designated non-academic activists as social workers, not sociologists, effectively writing them out of the history of sociology. The women

shown here, among the forgotten sociologists of this period, are gradually regaining a

place in the history of sociology.

Figure 1.3 The Forgotten Sociologists

Source: Photo wheel copyright 2016 © James M. Henslin.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 17 11/19/15 8:45 AM

18 Chapter 1

Down-to-Earth Sociology Harriet Martineau and U.S. Customs: Listening to an Early Feminist The breadth of Martineau’s research is striking. In 1834, two or three decades before Durkheim and Weber were born, Martineau began a two-year study of U.S. customs. Traveling by foot, horseback, stagecoach, and steamboat, she visited twenty of the then twenty-four states. She observed and interviewed Americans, from those who lived in poverty to Andrew Jackson, then the President of the United States, with whom she had dinner (Lengermann and Niebrugge 2007). She spoke with both slaveholders and abolitionists. She also visited prisons and attended sessions of the U.S. Supreme Court. To summarize her research, in 1837 she published Society in America, from which these excerpts are taken.

Concerning Women Not Being Allowed to Vote One of the fundamental principles announced in the Declaration of Independence is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. How can the political condition of women be reconciled with this?

Governments in the United States have power to tax women who hold property . . . to fine, imprison, and execute them for certain offences. Whence do these governments derive their powers? They are not “just,” as they are not derived from the consent of the women thus governed. . . .

The democratic principle condemns all this as wrong; and requires the equal political representation of all rational beings. Children, idiots, and criminals . . . are the only fair exceptions. . . .

Concerning the Education of Women The intellect of woman is confined by an unjustifiable restriction. . . . As women have none of the objects in life for which an enlarged education is considered requisite, the education is not given. . . . [S]ome things [are] taught which . . . serve to

fill up time . . . to improve conversation, and to make women something like companions to their husbands, and able to teach their children somewhat. . . . There is rarely or never a . . . promotion of clear intellectual activity. . . . [A]s long as women are excluded from the objects for which men are trained . . . intellectual activity is dangerous: or, as the phrase is, unfit. Accordingly marriage is the only object left open to woman.

Concerning Sex and Slavery, and Relations Between White Women and Men in the South [White American women] are all married young . . . and there

is ever present an unfortunate servile class of their own sex [female slaves] to serve the purposes of licentiousness

[as sexual objects for white slaveholders]. . . . [When most] men carry secrets which their wives must be the last to know . . . there is an end to all wholesome confidence and sympathy, and woman sinks to be the ornament of her husband’s house, the domestic manager of his establishment, instead of being his all-sufficient friend. . . . I have seen, with

heart-sorrow, the kind politeness, the gallantry, so insufficient to the loving heart, with which the wives of the south are treated by their husbands. . . . I know the tone of conversation which is adopted towards women; different in its topics and its style from that which any man would dream of offering to any other man. I have heard the boast of chivalrous consideration in which women are held throughout their woman’s paradise; and seen something of the anguish of crushed pride, of the conflict of bitter feelings

with which such boasts have been listened to by those whose aspirations teach them the hollowness of the system. . . .

For Your Consideration → How do you think relations between men and women

have changed since Martineau did her research?

Racism at the Time: W. E. B. Du Bois Not only was sexism assumed to be normal during this early period of sociology but so was racism. This made life difficult for African American professionals such as W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963). After earning a bachelor’s degree from Fisk University, Du Bois became the first African American to earn a doctorate at Harvard. He then stud- ied at the University of Berlin, where he attended lectures by Max Weber. After teaching Greek and Latin at Wilberforce University, Du Bois moved to Atlanta University in 1897 to teach sociology and do research. He remained there for most of his career (Du Bois 1935/1992).

The following Down-to-Earth Sociology box features Du Bois’ description of race relations when he was in college.

Interested in social reform, Harriet Martineau (1802–1876) turned to sociology, where she discovered the writing of Comte. She became an advocate for the abolition of slavery, traveled widely, and wrote extensive analyses of social life.

W(illiam) E(dward) B(urghardt) Du Bois (1868–1963) spent his lifetime studying relations between African Americans and whites.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 18 11/19/15 7:02 AM

The Sociological Perspective 19

It is difficult to grasp how racist society was at this time. As Du Bois passed a butcher shop in Georgia one day, he saw the fingers of a lynching victim displayed in the window (Aptheker 1990). When Du Bois went to national meetings of the American Sociological Society, restaurants and hotels would not allow him to eat or room with the white sociologists. How times have changed. Not only would today’s sociologists boycott such

Down-to-Earth Sociology W. E. B. Du Bois: The Souls of Black Folk Du Bois wrote more like an accomplished novelist than a sociologist. The following excerpts are from pages 66–68 of his 1903 book, The Souls of Black Folk. In this book, Du Bois analyzes changes that occurred in the social and economic conditions of African Americans during the thirty years following the Civil War.

For two summers, while he was a student at Fisk, Du Bois taught in a segregated school in a little log cabin that he said was “way back in the hills” of rural Tennessee. These excerpts help us understand conditions at that time.

It was a hot morning late in July when the school opened. I trembled when I heard the patter of little feet down the dusty road, and saw the growing row of dark solemn faces and bright eager eyes facing me. . . . There they sat, nearly thirty of them, on the rough benches, their faces shading from a pale cream to deep brown, the little feet bare and swinging, the eyes full of expectation, with here and there a twinkle of mischief, and the hands grasping Webster’s blue-black spelling-book. I loved my school, and the fine faith the children had in the wisdom of their teacher was truly marvelous. We read and spelled together, wrote a little, picked flowers, sang, and listened to stories of the world beyond the hill. . . .

On Friday nights I often went home with some of the children,— sometimes to Doc Burke’s farm. He was a great, loud, thin Black, ever working, and trying to buy these seventy-five acres of hill and dale where he lived; but people said that he would surely fail and the “white folks would get it all.” His wife was a magnificent Amazon, with saffron face and shiny hair, uncorseted and barefooted, and the children were strong and barefooted. They lived in a one-and-a-half-room cabin in the hollow of the farm near the spring. . . .

Often, to keep the peace, I must go where life was less lovely; for instance, ‘Tildy’s mother was incorrigibly dirty,

Reuben’s larder was limited seriously, and herds of untamed insects wandered over the Eddingses’ beds. Best of all I loved to go to Josie’s, and sit on the porch, eating peaches, while the mother bustled and talked: how Josie had bought the sewing- machine; how Josie worked at service in winter, but that four dollars a month was “mighty little” wages; how Josie longed to go away to school, but that it “looked like” they never could get far enough ahead to let her; how the crops failed and the well was yet unfinished; and, finally, how mean some of the white folks were.

For two summers I lived in this little world. . . . I have called my tiny community a world, and so its isolation

made it; and yet there was among us but a half-awakened common consciousness, sprung from common joy and grief, at burial, birth, or wedding; from common hardship in poverty, poor land, and low wages, and, above all, from the sight of the Veil* that hung between us and Opportunity. All this caused us to think some thoughts together; but these, when ripe for speech, were spoken in various languages. Those whose eyes twenty-five and more years had seen “the glory of the coming of the Lord,” saw in every present

hindrance or help a dark fatalism bound to bring all things right in His own good time. The mass of those to

whom slavery was a dim recollection of childhood found the world a puzzling thing: it asked little of them, and they answered with little, and yet it ridiculed their offering. Such a paradox they could not understand, and therefore sank into listless indifference, or shiftlessness, or reckless bravado.

*“The Veil” is shorthand for the Veil of Race, referring to how race colors all human relations. Du Bois’ hope, as he put it, was that “sometime, somewhere, men will judge men by their souls and not by their skins” (p. 261).

In the 1800s, most people were poor, and formal education beyond the first several grades was a luxury. This photo depicts the conditions of the people Du Bois worked with.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 19 11/19/15 7:02 AM

20 Chapter 1

businesses but also they would refuse to hold meetings in that state. At that time, how- ever, racism, like sexism, prevailed throughout society, rendering it mostly invisible to white sociologists. Du Bois eventually became such an outspoken critic of racism that the U.S. State Department, fearing he would criticize the United States abroad, refused to issue him a passport (Du Bois 1968).

Each year between 1896 and 1914, Du Bois published a book on relations between African Americans and whites. Not content to collect and interpret data, Du Bois, along with Jane Addams and others from Hull-House (see the next section), was one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) (Deegan 1988). Continuing to battle racism both as a sociologist and as a journalist, Du Bois eventually embraced revolutionary Marxism. At age 93, dismayed that so little improvement had been made in race relations, he moved to Ghana, where he was buried (Stark 1989).

Until recently, Du Bois’ work was neglected by sociologists. As a personal example, during my entire graduate program at Washington University, the faculty never mentioned him. Today, however, sociologists are rediscovering Du Bois, read- ing and discussing his research. Of his almost 2,000 writings, The Philadelphia Negro (1899/2011) stands out. In this analysis, Du Bois pointed out that some successful African Americans were breaking their ties with African Americans and “passing as white.” This, he said, weakened the African American community by depriving it of their influence.

Jane Addams: Sociologist and Social Reformer Of the many early sociologists who combined the role of sociologist with that of social reformer, none was as successful as Jane Addams (1860–1935), who was a member of the American Sociological Society from its founding in 1905. Like Harriet Martin- eau, Addams, too, came from a background of wealth and privilege. She attended the Women’s Medical College of Philadelphia but dropped out because of illness (Addams 1910/1981). On a trip to Europe, Addams saw the work being done to help London’s poor. The memory wouldn’t leave her, she said, and she decided to work for social justice.

In 1889, Addams co-founded Hull-House with Ellen Gates Starr. Located in Chicago’s notorious slums, Hull-House was open to people who needed refuge—to immigrants, the sick, the aged, the poor. Sociologists from the nearby University of Chicago were frequent visitors at Hull-House. With her piercing insights into the exploitation of workers and how rural immigrants adjusted to city life, Addams strove to bridge the gap between the powerful and the powerless. She co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union and campaigned for the eight-hour workday and for laws against child labor. She wrote books on poverty, democracy, and peace. Addams’ writings and efforts at social reform were so outstanding that in 1931, she was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace. She and Emily Greene Balch are the only sociologists to have won this coveted award.

Talcott Parsons and C. Wright Mills: Theory versus Reform Like Du Bois and Addams, many early North American sociologists saw society, or parts of it, as corrupt and in need of reform. During the 1920s and 1930s, for example, Robert Park and Ernest Burgess (1921) not only studied crime, drug addiction, juvenile delinquency, and prostitution but also offered suggestions for how to alleviate these social problems. But by the 1940s, the emphasis shifted from social reform to social the- ory. A major sociologist of this period, Talcott Parsons (1902–1979), developed abstract

Jane Addams (1860–1935), a recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace, worked on behalf of poor immigrants. With Ellen G. Starr, she founded Hull- House, a center to help immigrants in Chicago. She was also a leader in women’s rights (women’s suffrage), as well as the peace movement of World War I.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 20 11/19/15 7:02 AM

The Sociological Perspective 21

models of society that influenced a generation of sociologists. His models of how the parts of society work together harmoniously did nothing to stimulate social activism.

Another sociologist, C. Wright Mills (1916–1962), deplored such theoretical abstrac- tions. Trying to push the pendulum the other way, he urged sociologists to get back to social reform. In his writings, he warned that the nation faced an imminent threat to freedom—the coalescing of interests of a power elite, the top leaders of business, politics, and the military. Shortly after Mills’ death came the turbulent late 1960s and the 1970s. This precedent-shaking era sparked interest in social activism, making Mills’ ideas popu- lar among a new generation of sociologists.

The Continuing Tension: Basic, Applied, and Public Sociology BAsic sociology As we have seen, two contradictory goals—analyzing society ver- sus working toward its reform—have run through North American sociology since its founding. This tension is still with us. As we saw in Figure 1.2 (see page 14), some sociol- ogists see their proper role as doing basic (or pure) sociology, analyzing some aspect of society with no goal other than gaining knowledge. Others reply, “Knowledge for what?” They argue that gaining knowledge through research is not enough, that sociolo- gists need to use their expertise to help reform society, especially to help bring justice and better conditions to the poor and oppressed.

AppliED sociology As Figure 1.4 shows, one attempt to go beyond basic sociology is applied sociology, using sociology to solve problems. Applied sociology goes back to the roots of sociology: As you have seen, sociologists founded the NAACP. Today’s applied sociologists lack the broad vision that the early sociologists had of reforming society, but their application of sociology is wide-ranging. Some work for business firms to solve problems in the workplace, while others investigate social problems such as pornography, rape, pollution, or the spread of AIDS. Sociology is even being applied to find ways to disrupt terrorist groups (Sageman 2008a) and to improve technology for the mentally ill (Kelly and Farahbakhsh 2013). To see some of the variety of work that applied sociologists do, look at the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

puBlic sociology To encourage sociologists to apply sociology, the American Sociological Association (ASA) is promoting a middle ground between research and reform called public sociology. By this term, the ASA refers to harnessing the sociologi- cal perspective for the benefit of the public. Of special interest to the ASA is getting poli- ticians and policy makers to apply the sociological understanding of how society works as they develop social policy (American Sociological Association 2004; Gans 2014). Public sociology would incorporate both items 3 and 4 of Figure 1.4.

basic (or pure) sociology sociological research for the purpose of making discoveries about life in human groups, not for making changes in those groups

applied sociology the use of sociology to solve problems—from the micro level of classroom interaction and family relationships to the macro level of crime and pollution

public sociology applying sociology for the public good; especially the use of the sociological perspective (how things are related to one another) to guide politicians and policy makers

C. Wright Mills (1916–1962) was a controversial figure in sociology because of his analysis of the role of the power elite in U.S. society. Today, his analysis is taken for granted by many sociologists and members of the public.

Research on basic social life, on how groups affect people

Implementing solutions

(clinical sociology)

Constructing theory and testing

hypotheses

1 2 The middle ground: criticisms

of society and social policy

Analyzing problems, evaluating

programs, and suggesting solutions

3 4 5

Audience: Clients Product: Change

BASIC SOCIOLOGY Audience: Fellow sociologists and anyone interested Product: Knowledge

Audience: Policy makers Product: Recommendations

APPLIED SOCIOLOGYPUBLIC SOCIOLOGY

Figure 1.4 Comparing Basic and Applied Sociology

Source: By the author. Based on DeMartini 1982, plus events since then.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 21 11/19/15 7:02 AM

22 Chapter 1

The lines between basic, applied, and public sociology are not always firm. In the Cultural Diversity box on the next page, you can see how basic sociology can morph into public sociology.

sociAl rEform is risKy As some sociologists have found, often to their displeasure, promoting social reform is risky. This is especially the case if they work with oppressed people to promote social change. What someone wants to “reform” is inevitably some- thing that someone else wants to keep just the way it is. Those who resist change can be formidable opponents—and well connected politically. For their efforts, some sociolo- gists have been fired. In a couple of cases, entire departments of sociology have been

Down-to-Earth Sociology Careers in Sociology: What Applied Sociologists Do Most sociologists teach in colleges and universities, where they share sociological knowledge with students, as your instructor is doing with you in this course. Applied sociologists, in contrast, work in a wide variety of areas—from counseling children to studying how diseases are transmitted. To give you an idea of this variety, let’s look over the shoulders of five applied sociologists.

Leslie Green, who does marketing research at Vanderveer Group in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, earned her bachelor’s degree in sociology at Shippensburg University. She helps develop strategies to get doctors to prescribe particular drugs. She sets up the meetings, locates moderators for the discussion groups, and arranges payments to the physicians who participate in the research. “My training in sociology,” she says, “helps me in ‘people skills.’ It helps me to understand the needs of different groups, and to interact with them.”

Stanley Capela, whose master’s degree is from Fordham University, works as an applied sociologist at HeartShare Human Services in New York City. He evaluates how children’s programs— such as those that focus on housing, AIDS, group homes, and preschool education— actually work, compared with how they are supposed to work. He spots problems and suggests solutions. One of his assignments was to find out why it was taking so long to get children adopted, even though there was a long list of eager adoptive parents. Capela pinpointed how the paperwork got bogged down as it was routed through the system and suggested ways to improve the flow of paperwork.

Laurie Banks, who received her master’s degree in sociology from Fordham University, analyzes statistics for the New York City Health Department. As she examined death

certificates, she noticed that a Polish neighborhood had a high rate of stomach cancer. She alerted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose researchers conducted interviews in the neighborhood. The CDC traced the cause of the cancer to eating large amounts of sausage. In another case, Banks compared birth certificates with school records. She found that lack of prenatal care and problems at birth— low birth weight and birth complications—were linked to low reading skills and behavior problems in school.

Daniel Knapp, who earned a doctorate from the University of Oregon, applied sociology by going to the city dump. Moved by the idea that urban wastes could be recycled and reused, he first tested this idea by scavenging in a small way— at the city dump in Berkeley, California. After starting a company called Urban Ore, Knapp (2005) did research on how to recycle urban waste and worked to change waste disposal laws. As a founder of the recycling movement in the United States, Knapp’s application of sociology continues to influence us all.

Clara Rodriguez, who earned her doctorate at the University of Washington, also illustrates how wide-ranging

applied sociology is. Rodriguez is the sociological consultant for Dora the Explorer. She advises on the social implications of what the viewers will see on this program. This ranges from advice about Dora as a role model for girls to what aspects of Latino culture to present (Havrilla 2010).

From just these few examples, you can catch a glimpse of the variety of work that applied sociologists do. Some work for corporations, others are employed by government and private agencies, and some run their own businesses. You can also see that you don’t need a doctorate in order to work as an applied sociologist.

How can Dora the Explorer be an example of applied sociology? The text explains the reason.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 22 11/19/15 7:02 AM

The Sociological Perspective 23

taken over by their university administrators for “taking sociology to the streets,” siding with the poor and showing them how to use the law to improve their lives.

With roots that go back a century or more, this contemporary debate about the purpose and use of sociology is likely to continue for another generation. At this point, let’s consider how theory fits into sociology.

Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology 1.7 Explain the basic ideas of symbolic interactionism, functional analysis, and

conflict theory.

Facts never interpret themselves. To make sense out of life, we use our common sense. That is, to understand our experiences (our “facts”), we place them into a framework of more-or-less related ideas. Sociologists do this, too, but they place their observations into a conceptual framework called a theory. A theory is a general statement about how some parts of the world fit together and how they work. It is an explanation of how two or more “facts” are related to one another.

theory a general statement about how some parts of the world fit together and how they work; an explanation of how two or more facts are related to one another

Cultural Diversity in the United States Unanticipated Public Sociology: Studying Job Discrimination Basic sociology—research aimed at learning more about some behavior—can turn into public sociology. Here is what happened to Devah Pager (2003). When Pager was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, she did volunteer work at a homeless shelter. When some of the men told her how hard it was to find work if they had been in prison, she wondered if the men were exaggerating. Pager decided to find out what difference a prison record makes in getting a job. She sent pairs of college men to apply for 350 entry-level jobs in Milwaukee. One team was African American, and one was white. Pager prepared identical résumés for the teams, but with one difference: On each team, one of the men said he had served eighteen months in prison for possession of cocaine.

Figure 1.5 shows the difference that the prison record made. Men without a prison record were two or three times more likely to be called back.

But Pager came up with another significant finding. Look at the difference that race–ethnicity made. White men with a prison record were more likely to be offered a job than African American men who had a clean record!

Sociological research often remains in obscure journals, read by only a few specialists. But Pager’s findings got around, turning basic research into public sociology. Someone told President George W. Bush about the research, and he announced in his State of the Union speech that he wanted Congress to fund a $300 million program to provide mentoring and other support to help former prisoners get jobs (Kroeger 2004).

And it isn’t just Wisconsin. When Pager repeated her research in New York City, she found similar results (Pager et al. 2009).

As you can see, sometimes only a thin line separates basic and public sociology.

For Your Consideration → What findings would you expect if women had been

included in this study?

U.S.A.U.S.A.

Figure 1.5 Call-Back Rates by Race-Ethnicity and Criminal Record

Source: Courtesy of Devah Pager.

30%

20%

10%

0

40%

Whites African Americans

5

34

17 14P

er ce

nt ag

e

Without criminal record With criminal record

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 23 11/19/15 7:02 AM

24 Chapter 1

Sociologists use three major theories: symbolic interactionism, functional analysis, and conflict theory. Each theory is like a lens through which we can view social life. Let’s first examine the main elements of each theory and then apply each to the U.S. divorce rate to see why it is so high. As we do this, you will see how each theory, or perspective, provides a distinct interpretation of social life.

Symbolic Interactionism The central idea of symbolic interactionism is that symbols—things to which we attach meaning—are the key to understanding how we view the world and communicate with one another. Two major sociologists who developed this perspective are George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) and Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929). Let’s look at the main elements of this theory.

symBols in EvEryDAy lifE Without symbols, our social life would be no more sophisticated than that of animals. For example, without symbols, we would have no aunts or uncles, employers or teachers—or even brothers and sisters. I know that this sounds strange, but it is symbols that define our relationships. There would still be repro- duction, of course, but no symbols to tell us how we are related to whom. We would not know to whom we owe respect and obligations, or from whom we can expect privileges—two elements that lie at the essence of human relationships.

I know it is vague to say that symbols tell you how you are related to others and how you should act toward them, so let’s make this less abstract:

Suppose that you have fallen head over heels in love. Finally, after what seems forever, it is the night before your wedding. As you are contemplating tomorrow’s bliss, your mother comes to you in tears. Sobbing, she tells you that she had a child before she mar- ried your father, a child that she gave up for adoption. Breaking down, she says that she has just discovered that the person you are going to marry is this child.

You can see how the symbol will change overnight—and your behavior, too! The symbols “boyfriend” and “brother”—or “girlfriend” and “sister”—are certainly

different, and, as you know, each symbol requires rather different behavior. Not only do relationships depend on symbols but so does society itself. Without

symbols, we could not coordinate our actions with those of others. We could not make plans for a future day, time, and place. Unable to specify times, materials, sizes, or goals, we could not build bridges and highways. Without symbols, we would have no movies or musical instruments, no hospitals, no government, no religion. The class you are tak- ing could not exist—nor could this book. On the positive side, there would be no war.

in sum Symbolic interactionists analyze how social life depends on the ways we de- fine ourselves and others. They study face-to-face interaction, examining how people make sense out of life and their place in it.

Applying symBolic intErActionism Look at Figure 1.6 on the next page, which shows U.S. marriages and divorces over time. Let’s see how symbolic interactionists would use changing symbols to explain this figure. For background, you should under- stand that marriage used to be a lifelong commitment. A hundred years ago (and less), getting divorced was viewed as immoral, a flagrant disregard for public opinion, and the abandonment of adult responsibilities. Let’s see what changed.

The meaning of marriage Historically in the West, marriage was based on obligation and duty. By the 1930s, young people were coming to view marriage in a different way, a change that was reported by sociologists of the time. In 1933, William Ogburn observed that people were placing more emphasis on the personality of their potential mates. Then in 1945, Ernest Burgess and Harvey Locke reported that people were expecting more

symbolic interactionism a theoretical perspective in which society is viewed as composed of symbols that people use to establish meaning, develop their views of the world, and communicate with one another

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is one of the founders of symbolic interactionism, a major theoretical perspective in sociology. He taught at the University of Chicago, where his lectures were popular. Although he wrote little, after his death students compiled his lectures into an influential book, Mind, Self, and Society.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 24 11/19/15 7:02 AM

The Sociological Perspective 25

affection, understanding, and compatibility from marriage. As feelings became more important in marriage, duty and obligation became less important. Eventually, marriage came to be viewed as an arrangement that was based mostly on feelings—on attraction and intimacy. Marriage then became an arrangement that could be broken when feelings changed.

The meaning of divorce As divorce became more common, its meaning also changed. Rather than being a symbol of failure, divorce came to indicate freedom and new begin- nings. Removing the stigma from divorce shattered a strong barrier that had prevented husbands and wives from breaking up.

The meaning of parenthood Parents used to have little responsibility for their children beyond providing food, clothing, shelter, and moral guidance. And they needed to do this for only a short time, because children began to contribute to the support of the fam- ily early in life. Among some people, parenthood is still like this. In Colombia, for exam- ple, children of the poor often are expected to support themselves by the age of 8 or 10. In industrial societies, however, we assume that children are vulnerable beings who must depend on their parents for financial and emotional support for many years—often until they are well into their 20s. In some cases, this is now being extended to the 30s. The greater responsibilities that we assign to parenthood place heavier burdens on today’s couples and, with them, more strain on marriage.

The meaning of love And we can’t overlook the love symbol. As surprising as it may sound, to have love as the main reason for marriage weakens marriage. In some depth of our being, we expect “true love” to deliver constant emotional highs. This expec- tation sets people up for crushed hopes, as dissatisfactions in marriage are inevitable. When they come, spouses tend to blame one another for failing to deliver the illusive satisfaction.

in sum Symbolic interactionists look at how changing ideas (or symbols) of marriage, divorce, parenthood, and love put pressure on married couples. No single change is the cause of our divorce rate. Taken together, however, these changes provide a strong push toward marriages breaking up.

Figure 1.6 U.S. Marriage, U.S. Divorce N

um b

er in

M ill

io ns

2.25

1.75

1.50

1.25

1.0

.75

.50

.25

.00

Marriages

Divorces

2.50

2.0

20201970 1980 1990 201020001890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Year

Source: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 1998:Table 92 and 2013:Tables 81, 134; earlier editions for earlier years. The broken lines indicate the author’s estimates.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 25 11/19/15 7:02 AM

26 Chapter 1

Functional Analysis The central idea of functional analysis is that society is a whole unit, made up of inter- related parts that work together. Functional analysis (also known as functionalism and structural functionalism) is rooted in the origins of sociology. Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer viewed society as a kind of living organism, similar to an animal’s body. Just as a person or animal has organs that function together, they wrote, so does society. And like an organism, if society is to function smoothly, its parts must work together in harmony.

Emile Durkheim also viewed society as being composed of many parts, each with its own function. He said that when all the parts of society fulfill their functions, society is in a “normal” state. If they do not fulfill their functions, society is in an “abnormal” or “pathological” state. To understand society, then, functionalists say that we need to look at both structure (how the parts of a society fit together to make the whole) and function (what each part does, how it contributes to society).

roBErt mErton AnD functionAlism Robert Merton (1910–2003) dismissed the comparison of society to a living organism, but he did maintain the essence of functionalism—the image of society as a whole unit composed of parts that work together. Merton used the term functions to refer to the beneficial consequences of people’s actions: Functions help keep a group (society, social system) in balance. In contrast, dysfunctions are the harmful consequences of people’s actions. They undermine a system’s equilibrium.

Functions can be either manifest or latent. If an action is intended to help some part of a system, it is a manifest function. For example, suppose that government officials become concerned that women are having so few children. Congress offers a $10,000 bonus for every child born to a married couple. The intention, or manifest function, of the bonus is to increase childbearing within the family unit. Merton pointed out that people’s actions can also have latent functions; that is, they can have unintended consequences that help a system adjust. Let’s suppose that the bonus works. As the birth rate jumps, so does the sale of diapers and baby furniture. Because the benefits to these businesses were not the intended consequences, they are latent functions of the bonus.

Of course, human actions can also hurt a system. Because such consequences usually are unintended, Merton called them latent dysfunctions. Let’s assume that the government has failed to specify a “stopping point” with regard to its bonus system. To collect more bonuses, some people keep on having children. The more children they have, however, the more they need the next bonus to survive. Large families become common, and pov- erty increases. As welfare and taxes jump, the nation erupts in protest. Because these results were not intended and because they harmed the social system, they would be latent dysfunctions of the bonus program.

in sum From the perspective of functional analysis, society is a functioning unit, with each part related to the whole. Whenever we examine a smaller part, we need to look for its functions and dysfunctions to see how it is related to the larger unit. This basic approach can be applied to any social group, whether an entire society, a college, or even a group as small as a family.

Applying functionAl AnAlysis Now let’s apply functional analysis to the U.S. divorce rate. Functionalists stress that industrialization and urbanization undermined the traditional functions of the family. For example, before industrialization, the family formed an economic team. On the farm, where most people lived, each family member had jobs or “chores” to do. The wife was in charge not only of household tasks but also of raising small animals, such as chickens, milking cows, collecting eggs, and churning butter. She also did the cooking, baking, canning, sewing, darning, washing, and clean- ing. The daughters helped her. The husband was responsible for caring for large animals, such as horses and cattle, for planting and harvesting, and for maintaining buildings and tools. The sons helped him.

functional analysis a theoretical framework in which society is viewed as composed of various parts, each with a function that, when fulfilled, contributes to society’s equilibrium; also known as functionalism and structural functionalism

Robert K. Merton (1910–2003), who spent most of his academic career at Columbia University, was a major proponent of functionalism, one of the main theoretical perspectives in sociology.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 26 11/19/15 7:02 AM

The Sociological Perspective 27

This certainly doesn’t sound like life today! But what does it have to do with divorce? Simply put, there wasn’t much divorce because the husband and wife formed an eco- nomic unit in which each depended on the other for survival. There weren’t many alter- natives.

Other functions also bound family members to one another: educating the children, teaching them religion, providing home-based recreation, and caring for the sick and elderly. All these were functions of the family, certainly quite different from today’s sit- uation. To further see how sharply family functions have changed, look at this example from the 1800s:

When Phil became sick, he was nursed by Ann, his wife. She cooked for him, fed him, changed the bed linens, bathed him, read to him from the Bible, and gave him his medi- cine. (She did this in addition to doing the housework and taking care of their six chil- dren.) Phil was also surrounded by the children, who shouldered some of his chores while he was sick. When Phil died, the male neighbors and relatives made the casket while Ann, her mother, and female friends washed and dressed the body. Phil was then “laid out” in the front parlor (the formal living room), where friends, neighbors, and relatives paid their last respects. From there, friends moved his body to the church for the final message and then to the grave they themselves had dug.

in sum When the family loses functions, it becomes more fragile, making an increase in divorce inevitable. These changes in economic production illustrate how the fam- ily has lost functions. When making a living was a cooperative, home-based effort, husbands and wives depended on one another for their interlocking contributions to a mutual endeavor. With their individual paychecks, today’s husbands and wives increasingly function as separate components in an impersonal, multinational, and even

Sociologists who use the functionalist perspective stress how industrialization and urbanization undermined the traditional functions of the family. Before industrialization, members of the family worked together as an economic unit, as in this photo of a farm family in Minnesota in the 1890s. As production moved away from the home, it took with it first the father and, more recently, the mother. One consequence is a major dysfunction, the weakening of family ties.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 27 11/19/15 7:02 AM

28 Chapter 1

global system. The fewer functions that family members share, the fewer are their “ties that bind”—and these ties are what help husbands and wives get through the problems they inevitably experience.

Conflict Theory Conflict theory provides a third perspective on social life. Unlike the functionalists, who view society as a harmonious whole with its parts working together, conflict theo- rists stress that society is composed of groups that compete with one another for scarce resources. If you look at the surface, you might see cooperation, but scratch that surface and you will find a struggle for power.

KArl mArx AnD conflict thEory Karl Marx, the founder of conflict theory, witnessed the Industrial Revolution that transformed Europe. He saw that peasants who had left the land to work in cities earned barely enough to eat. Things were so bad that the average worker died at age 30, the average wealthy person at age 50 (Edgerton 1992:87). Shocked by this suffering and exploitation, Marx began to analyze society and history. As he did so, he developed conflict theory. He concluded that the key to human history is class conflict. In each society, some small group controls the means of produc- tion and exploits those who are not in control. In industrialized societies, the struggle is between the bourgeoisie, the small group of capitalists who own the means to produce wealth, and the proletariat, the mass of workers who are exploited by the bourgeoisie. The capitalists control the legal and political system: If the workers rebel, the capitalists call on the power of the state to subdue them.

When Marx made his observations, capitalism was in its infancy and workers were at the mercy of their employers. There was none of what many workers take for granted today—minimum wages, eight-hour days, coffee breaks, five-day work weeks, paid vacations and holidays, medical benefits, sick leave, unemployment compensation, Social Security, and, for union workers, the right to strike. Marx’s analysis reminds us that these benefits came not from generous hearts but from workers forcing concessions by their employers.

conflict thEory toDAy Many sociologists extend conflict theory beyond the rela- tionship of capitalists and workers. They examine how opposing interests run through every layer of society—whether in a small group, an organization, a community, or an entire society. For example, when teachers, parents, or the police try to enforce con- formity, this creates resentment and resistance. It is the same when a teenager tries to “change the rules” to gain more independence. Throughout society, then, there is a con- stant struggle to determine who has authority or influence and how far that dominance goes (Turner 1978; Piven 2008; Manza and McCarthy 2011).

Sociologist Lewis Coser (1913–2003) pointed out that conflict is most likely to develop among people who are in close relationships. These people have worked out ways to distribute power and privilege, responsibilities and rewards. Any change in this arrangement can lead to hurt feelings, resentment, and conflict. Even in intimate rela- tionships, then, people are in a constant balancing act, with conflict lying uneasily just beneath the surface.

fEminists AnD conflict thEory Just as Marx examined conflict between cap- italists and workers, many feminists analyze conflict between men and women. Their primary focus is the historical, contemporary, and global inequalities of men and women—and how the traditional dominance by men can be overcome to bring about equality of the sexes. Feminists are not united by the conflict perspective, however. They tackle a variety of topics and use whatever theory applies. (Feminism is discussed in Chapter 11.)

conflict theory a theoretical framework in which society is viewed as composed of groups that are competing for scarce resources

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 28 11/19/15 7:02 AM

The Sociological Perspective 29

Applying conflict thEory To explain why the U.S. divorce rate is high, conflict theorists focus on how men’s and women’s relationships have changed. For millennia, men dominated women, and women had few alternatives other than to accept that dom- inance. As industrialization transformed the world, it brought women the ability to meet their basic survival needs without depending on a man. This new ability gave them the power to refuse to bear burdens that earlier generations accepted as inevitable. The result is that today’s women are likely to dissolve a marriage that becomes intolerable—or even just unsatisfactory.

in sum The dominance of men over women was once considered natural and right. As women gained education and earnings, however, they first questioned and then rejected this assumption. As wives strove for more power and grew less inclined to put up with relationships that they defined as unfair, the divorce rate increased. From the conflict perspective, then, our high divorce rate does not mean that marriage has weakened but, rather, that women are making headway in their historical struggle with men.

Putting the Theoretical Perspectives Together Which of these theoretical perspectives is the right one? As you have seen, each is a lens that produces a contrasting picture of divorce. The pictures that emerge are quite differ- ent from the commonsense understanding that two people are simply “incompatible.” Because each theory focuses on different features of social life, each provides a distinct interpretation. Consequently, we need to use all three theoretical lenses to analyze human behavior. By combining the contributions of each, we gain a more comprehensive picture of social life.

Levels of Analysis: Macro and Micro A major difference between these three theoretical perspectives is their level of analysis. Functionalists and conflict theorists focus on the macro level; that is, they examine large- scale patterns of society. In contrast, symbolic interactionists usually focus on the micro level, on social interaction—what people do when they are in one another’s presence. These levels are summarized in Table 1.1.

macro-level analysis an examination of large-scale patterns of society; such as how Wall Street and the political establishment are interrelated

micro-level analysis an examination of small-scale patterns of society; such as how the members of a group interact

social interaction one person’s actions influencing someone else; usually refers to what people do when they are in one another’s presence, but also includes communications at a distance

Table 1.1 Three Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology Theoretical Perspective

usual Level of Analysis

Focus of Analysis

Key Terms

Applying the Perspective to the u.S. Divorce rate

Symbolic Interactionism Microsociological: examines small-scale patterns of social interaction

Face-to-face interaction, how people use symbols to create social life

Symbols Interaction Meanings Definitions

Industrialization and urbanization changed marital roles and led to a redefinition of love, marriage, children, and divorce.

Functional Analysis (also called functionalism and structural functionalism)

Macrosociological: examines large-scale patterns of society

Relationships among the parts of society; how these parts are functional (have beneficial consequences) or dysfunctional (have negative consequences)

Structure Functions (manifest and latent) Dysfunctions Equilibrium

As social change erodes the traditional functions of the family, family ties weaken, and the divorce rate increases.

conflict Theory Macrosociological: examines large-scale patterns of society

The struggle for scarce resources by groups in a society; how the elites use their power to control the weaker groups

Inequality Power Conflict Competition Exploitation

When men control economic life, the divorce rate is low because women find few alternatives to a bad marriage. The high divorce rate reflects a shift in the balance of power between men and women.

Source: By the author.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 29 11/19/15 7:02 AM

30 Chapter 1

To make this distinction between micro and macro levels clearer, let’s return to the example of the homeless, with which we opened this chapter. To study homeless peo- ple, symbolic interactionists would focus on the micro level. They would analyze what homeless people do when they are in shelters and on the streets. They would also ana- lyze their communications, both their talk and their nonverbal interactions (gestures, use of space, and so on). The observations I made at the beginning of this chapter about the silence in the homeless shelter, for example, would be of interest to symbolic interac- tionists.

This micro level would not interest functionalists and conflict theorists. They would focus instead on the macro level, how changes in some parts of society increase home- lessness. Functionalists might stress that jobs have dried up—how there is less need for unskilled labor and that millions of jobs have been transferred to workers overseas. Or they might focus on changes in the family, that families are smaller and divorce more common. This means that many people who can’t find work end up on the streets because they don’t have others to fall back on. For their part, conflict theorists would stress the struggle between social classes. They would be interested in how the decisions of international elites affect not only global production and trade but also the local job market, unemployment, and homelessness.

Trends Shaping the Future of Sociology 1.8 Explain how research versus reform and globalization are likely to influence

sociology.

Two major trends indicate changing directions in sociology. Let’s look again at the rela- tionship of sociology to social reform, and then at globalization.

Sociology’s Tension: Research versus Reform

thrEE stAgEs in sociology As you have seen, a tension between social reform and social analysis runs through the history of sociology. To better understand this ten- sion, we can divide sociology into three time periods (Lazarsfeld and Reitz 1989). During the first phase, which lasted until the 1920s, the primary purpose of sociological research was to improve society. During the second phase, from the 1920s until the 1960s, the con- cern switched to developing abstract knowledge. We are still in the third phase in which sociologists seek ways to apply their research findings. Many sociology departments offer courses in applied sociology, with some offering internships in applied sociology at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.

DivErsity of oriEntAtions I want to stress that sociology is filled with diverse opinions. (From my observations, I would say that when two sociologists meet, they will express three firmly held, contradictory opinions on the same topic.) In any event, to divide sociology into three separate phases overlooks as much as it reveals. During the first phase, for example, some leading sociologists campaigned against helping the poor, saying that their deaths were good for the progress of soci- ety (Stokes 2009). Similarly, during the second phase, many sociologists wanted to reform society. They chafed that knowledge should be the goal of research. And today, many sociologists want the emphasis to remain on basic sociology. Some say that applied sociology is not “real” sociology; it is just social work or psychology masquerading as sociology. As you can see, sociologists do not move in lockstep toward a single goal.

nonverbal interaction communication without words through gestures, use of space, silence, and so on

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 30 11/19/15 7:02 AM

The Sociological Perspective 31

Summary and Review

Each particular period, however, does have basic emphases, and this division of sociology into three phases pinpoints major trends. The tension that has run through sociology—between gaining knowledge and applying knowledge—will continue. During this current phase, the pendulum is swinging toward applying sociological knowledge.

Globalization A second major trend, globalization, is also leaving its mark on sociology. globalization is the breaking down of national boundaries because of advances in communications, trade, and travel. Because the United States dominates sociology and we U.S. sociol- ogists tend to concentrate on events and relationships that occur in our own coun- try, most of our findings are based on research in the United States. Globalization is destined to broaden our horizons, directing us to a greater consideration of global issues. This, in turn, is likely to motivate us to try more vigorously to identify universal principles.

ApplicAtion of gloBAlizAtion to this tExt You are living at a time of major turning points in history, and great historical moments don’t make life easy. You are per- sonally experiencing globalization, one of the most significant events in all of world his- tory. This process is shaping your life, your hopes, and your future—sometimes even twisting them. As globalization shrinks the globe, that is, as people around the world become more interconnected within the same global village, your welfare is increasingly tied to that of people in other nations. From time to time in the following pages, you will also explore how the globalization of capitalism—capitalism becoming the world’s dominant economic system—is having profound effects on your life. You will also con- front the developing new world order, which, if it can shave off its rough edges, also appears destined to play a significant role in your future.

To help broaden your horizons, in the following chapters you will visit many cul- tures around the world, looking at what life is like for the people who live in those cul- tures. Seeing how their society affects their behavior and orientations to life should help you understand how your society influences what you do and how you feel about life. This, of course, takes you to one of the main goals of this book.

I wish you a fascinating sociological journey, one with new insights around every corner.

globalization the growing interconnections among nations due to the expan- sion of capitalism

globalization of capitalism capitalism (investing to make profits within a rational system) becoming the globe’s dominant economic system

The Sociological Perspective 1.1 Explain why both history and biography are

essential for the sociological perspective.

What is the sociological perspective?

The sociological perspective stresses that people’s social experiences—the groups to which they belong and their experiences within those groups—underlie their behavior. C. Wright Mills referred to this as the intersection of biog- raphy (the individual) and history (broad conditions that influence the individual).

Sociology and the Other Sciences 1.2 Know the focus of each social science.

What is science, and where does sociology fit in?

science is the application of systematic methods to obtain knowledge and the knowledge obtained by those methods. The sciences are divided into the natural sciences, which seek to explain and predict events in the natural environ- ment, and the social sciences, which seek to understand the social world objectively by means of controlled and repeated observations. sociology is the scientific study of society and human behavior.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 31 11/19/15 7:02 AM

32 Chapter 1

Origins of Sociology 1.3 trace the origins of sociology, from tradition to max

Weber.

When did sociology first appear as a separate discipline?

Sociology emerged as a separate discipline in the mid- 1800s in western Europe during the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Industrialization affected all aspects of human existence—where people lived, the nature of their work, their relationships, and how they viewed life. Early sociologists who focused on these social changes include Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Harriet Martineau, and W. E. B. Du Bois.

Values in Sociological Research 1.4 summarize the opposing arguments in the debate

about values in sociological research.

should the purpose of sociological research be only to advance human understanding or also to reform society?

Sociologists agree that research should be objective, that is, the researcher’s values and beliefs should not influence conclusions. But sociologists do not agree on the uses and purposes of sociological research. Some say that its purpose should be only to advance understanding of human behav- ior; others say that its goal should be to reform harmful social arrangements.

Verstehen and Social Facts 1.5 state what Verstehen is and why it is valuable.

how do sociologists use Verstehen and social facts to study human behavior?

According to Weber, to understand why people act as they do, sociologists must try to put themselves in their shoes. He used the German verb Verstehen, “to grasp by insight,” to describe this subjective approach. Although not denying the importance of Verstehen, Emile Durkheim emphasized the importance of uncovering social facts, the patterns of soci- ety that influence how people behave. Contemporary sociol- ogists use both approaches to understand human behavior.

Sociology in North America 1.6 trace the development of sociology in north

America and explain the tension between objective analysis and social reform.

When were the first academic departments of sociology established in the united states?

The earliest departments of sociology were established in the late 1800s at the University of Kansas, University of Chicago, Catholic University, and Atlanta University.

What was the position of women and minorities in early sociology?

Sociology developed during a historical period of deep sexism and racism, and the contributions of women and minorities were largely ignored. The few women, such as Harriet Martineau, and minorities, such as W. E. B. Du Bois, who received the education necessary to become sociolo- gists, felt the sting of discrimination.

What are the differences between basic (or pure) sociology, public sociology, and applied sociology?

Basic (or pure) sociology is sociological research whose purpose is to make discoveries. Applied sociology is sociology used to solve problems. public sociology is using sociology to benefit the public or large numbers of people.

Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology 1.7 Explain the basic ideas of symbolic interactionism,

functional analysis, and conflict theory.

What is a theory?

A theory is a general statement about how facts are related to one another. A theory provides a conceptual framework for interpreting facts.

What are sociology’s major theoretical perspectives?

Sociologists use three primary theoretical frameworks to interpret social life. symbolic interactionists examine how people use symbols to develop and share their views of the world. Symbolic interactionists usually focus on the micro level—on small-scale, face-to-face interaction. functional- ists, in contrast, focus on the macro level—on large-scale patterns of society. They stress that a social system is made up of interrelated parts. When working properly, each part fulfills a function that contributes to the system’s stabil- ity. conflict theorists also focus on large-scale patterns of society. They stress that society is composed of competing groups that struggle for scarce resources.

With each perspective focusing on different features of social life and each providing a unique interpretation, no sin- gle theory is adequate. The combined insights of all three per- spectives yield a more comprehensive picture of social life.

Trends Shaping the Future of Sociology 1.8 Explain how research versus reform and

globalization are likely to influence sociology.

What trends are likely to have an impact on sociology?

Sociology has gone through three phases: The first was an emphasis on reforming society; the second had its focus on basic sociology; the third, today’s phase, is taking us closer to our roots of applying sociology to social change. Public sociology is the most recent example of this change. A sec- ond major trend, globalization, is likely to broaden socio- logical horizons, refocusing research and theory away from its concentration on U.S. society.

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 32 11/19/15 7:02 AM

The Sociological Perspective 33

Thinking Critically about Chapter 1 1. Do you think that sociologists should try to reform

society or to study it dispassionately?

2. Of the three theoretical perspectives, which one would you prefer to use if you were a sociologist? Why?

3. Considering the macro- and micro-level approaches in sociology, which one do you think better explains social life? Why?

M01_HENS5571_13_SE_C01.indd 33 11/19/15 7:02 AM

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 34 11/19/15 7:08 AM

35

Chapter 2

Culture

“Everyone stared. No matter where I went, they stared.”

Learning Objectives

2.1 Explain what culture is, how culture provides orientations to life, and what practicing cultural relativism means. (p. 36)

2.2 Know the components of symbolic culture: gestures, language, values, norms, sanctions, folkways, mores, and taboos; also explain the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. (p. 42)

2.3 Distinguish between subcultures and countercultures. (p. 49)

2.4 Discuss the major U.S. values and explain value clusters, value contradictions, value clashes, how values are lenses of perception, and ideal versus real culture. (p. 52)

2.5 Explain what cultural universals are and why they do not seem to exist. (p. 56)

2.6 Explain why most sociologists consider genes to be an inadequate explanation of human behavior. (p. 57)

2.7 Explain how technology changes culture and what cultural lag and cultural leveling are. (p. 58)

When I first arrived in Morocco, I found the sights that greeted me exotic—not unlike the scenes in Casablanca or Raiders of the Lost Ark. The men, women, and even the children really did wear those white robes that reach down to their feet. What was especially striking was that the women were almost totally covered. Despite the heat, they wore not only full-length gowns but also head coverings that reached down over their foreheads with veils that covered their faces from the nose down. You could see nothing but their eyes—and every eye seemed the same shade of brown.

And how short everyone was! The Arab women looked to be, on average, 5 feet, and the men only about 3 or 4 inches taller. As the only blue-eyed, blond, 6-foot-plus person around and the only one who was wearing jeans and a pullover shirt, in a world of white-robed short people I stood out like a creature from another planet. Everyone stared. No matter where I went, they stared. Wherever I looked, I saw people watching me intently. Even staring back had no effect. It was so different from home, where, if you caught someone staring at you, that person would look embarrassed and immediately glance away.

And lines? The concept apparently didn’t even exist. Buying a ticket for a bus or train meant pushing and shoving toward the ticket man, always a man—no women were visible in any public position. He took the money from whichever outstretched hand he decided on.

And germs? That notion didn’t seem to exist here either. Flies swarmed over the food in the restaurants and the unwrapped loaves of bread in the stores. Shopkeepers would consid- erately shoo off the flies before handing me a loaf. They also offered home delivery. I watched a bread vendor deliver a loaf to a woman who was standing on a second-floor balcony. She first threw her money to the bread vendor, and he then threw the unwrapped bread up to her. Unfortunately, his throw was off. The bread bounced off the wrought-iron balcony railing

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 35 11/19/15 7:08 AM

36 Chapter 2

and landed in the street, which was filled with people, wandering dogs, and the ever- present urinating and defecating donkeys. The vendor simply picked up the unwrapped loaf and threw it again. This certainly wasn’t his day: He missed again. But he made it on his third attempt. The woman smiled as she turned back into her apartment, apparently to prepare the noon meal for her family.

What Is Culture? 2.1 Explain what culture is, how culture provides orientations to life, and what

practicing cultural relativism means.

What is culture? The concept is sometimes easier to grasp by description than by defini- tion. For example, suppose you meet a young woman from India who has just arrived in the United States. That her culture is different from yours is immediately evident. You first see it in her clothing, jewelry, makeup, and hairstyle. Next, you hear it in her speech. It then becomes apparent by her gestures. Later, you might hear her express unfamil- iar beliefs about relationships or what is valuable in life. All of these characteristics are indicative of culture—the language, beliefs, values, norms, behaviors, and even material objects that are passed from one generation to the next.

In northern Africa, I was surrounded by a culture quite different from mine. It was evident in everything I saw and heard. The material culture—such things as jewelry, art, buildings, weapons, machines, and even eating utensils, hairstyles, and clothing— provided a sharp contrast to what I was used to seeing. There is nothing inherently “natural” about material culture. That is, it is no more natural (or unnatural) to wear gowns on the street than it is to wear jeans.

I also found myself immersed in an unfamiliar nonmaterial culture, that is, a group’s ways of thinking (its beliefs, values, and other assumptions about the world) and doing (its common patterns of behavior, including language, gestures, and other forms of interaction). North African assumptions that it is acceptable to stare at others in public and to push people aside to buy tickets are examples of nonmaterial culture. So are U.S. assumptions that it is wrong to do either of these things. Like material culture, neither custom is “right.” People simply become comfortable with the customs they learn during childhood, and—as happened to me in northern Africa—uncomfortable when their basic assumptions about life are challenged.

Culture and Taken-for-Granted Orientations to Life “The last thing a fish would ever notice would be water.”

Ralph Linton, anthropologist, 1936

To develop a sociological imagination, it is essential to understand how culture affects people’s lives. If we meet someone from a different culture, the encounter can make us aware of how culture influences all aspects of someone else’s life. Attaining the same level of awareness regarding our own culture, however, is quite another matter. We usu- ally take our speech, our gestures, our beliefs, and our customs for granted. We assume that they are “normal” or “natural,” and we almost always follow them without question. Ralph Linton made the comment about fish to get this point across: Except in unusual circumstances, most characteristics of our own culture remain imperceptible to us.

Yet culture’s significance is profound; it touches almost every aspect of who and what we are. We came into this life without a language; without values and morality; with no ideas about religion, war, money, love, use of space, and so on. We possessed none of these fundamental orientations that are so essential in determining the type of

culture the language, beliefs, values, norms, behaviors, and even material objects that characterize a group and are passed from one generation to the next

material culture the material objects that distinguish a group of people, such as their art, buildings, weapons, utensils, machines, hairstyles, clothing, and jewelry

nonmaterial culture a group’s ways of thinking (including its beliefs, values, and other assumptions about the world) and doing (its common patterns of behavior, including language and other forms of interaction); also called symbolic culture

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 36 11/19/15 7:08 AM

Culture 37

people we become. Yet by this point in our lives, we all have acquired them—and take them for granted. Sociologists call this culture within us. These learned and shared ways of believing and of doing (another definition of culture) penetrate our being at an early age and quickly become part of our taken-for-granted assumptions about what normal behavior is. Culture becomes the lens through which we perceive and evaluate what is going on around us. Seldom do we question these assumptions: Like water to a fish, the lens through which we view life remains largely beyond our perception.

The rare instances in which these assumptions are challenged, however, can be upsetting. Although as a sociologist I should be able to look at my own culture “from the outside,” my trip to Africa quickly revealed how fully I had internalized my own culture. My upbringing in Western culture had given me assumptions about aspects of social life that had become rooted deeply in my being—”appropriate” eye contact, hygiene, and the use of space. But in this part of Africa, these assumptions were use- less in helping me navigate everyday life. No longer could I count on people to stare only surreptitiously, to take precautions against invisible microbes, or to stand in line, one behind the other.

As you can tell from the opening vignette, I found these unfamiliar behaviors unset- tling—they violated my basic expectations of “the way people ought to be”—and I did not even realize how firmly I held these expectations until they were challenged so abruptly. When my nonmaterial culture failed me—when it no longer enabled me to make sense out of the world—I experienced a disorientation known as culture shock. In the case of buying tickets, the fact that I was several inches taller than most Moroccans and thus able to outreach others helped me to adjust partially to their different ways of doing things. But I never did get used to the idea that pushing ahead of others was “right,” and I always felt guilty when I used my size to receive preferential treatment.

An important consequence of culture within us is ethnocentrism, a tendency to use our own group’s ways of doing things as a yardstick for judging others. All of us learn that the ways of our own group are good, right, and even superior to other ways of life. As sociologist William Sumner (1906), who developed this concept, said, “One’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.” Ethnocentrism has both positive and negative consequences. On the positive side, it

What a tremendous photo for sociol- ogists! Seldom are we treated to such cultural contrasts. Can you see how the cultures of these women have given them not only different orien- tations concerning the presentation of their bodies but also of gender relations?

culture shock the disorientation that people experience when they come in contact with a fundamentally different culture and can no longer depend on their taken-for-granted assumptions about life

ethnocentrism the use of one’s own culture as a yardstick for judging the ways of other individuals or societies, generally leading to a negative evaluation of their values, norms, and behaviors

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 37 11/19/15 7:08 AM

38 Chapter 2

creates in-group loyalties. On the negative side, ethnocentrism can lead to discrimination against people whose ways differ from ours.

The many ways in which culture affects our lives fascinate sociologists. In this chapter, we’ll examine how profoundly culture influences everything we are and whatever we do. This will serve as a basis from which you can start to analyze your own assumptions of reality. I should give you a warning at this point: You might develop a changed perspective on social life and your role in it. If so, life will never look the same.

In Sum To avoid losing track of the ideas under discussion, let’s pause for a moment to summarize and, in some instances, clarify the principles we have covered.

1. There is nothing “natural” about material culture. Arabs wear gowns on the street and feel that it is natural to do so. Americans do the same with jeans.

2. There is nothing “natural” about nonmaterial culture. It is just as arbitrary to stand in line as to push and shove.

3. Culture penetrates deeply into our thinking, becoming a taken-for-granted lens through which we see the world and obtain our perception of reality.

4. Culture provides implicit instructions that tell us what we ought to do and how we ought to think. Culture establishes a fundamental basis for our decision making.

5. Culture also provides a “moral imperative”; that is, the culture that we internalize becomes the “right” way of doing things. (I, for example, believed deeply that it was wrong to push and shove to get ahead of others.)

6. Coming into contact with a radically different culture challenges our basic assump- tions about life. (I experienced culture shock when I discovered that my deeply ingrained cultural ideas about hygiene and the use of personal space no longer applied.)

7. Although the particulars of culture differ from one group of people to another, culture itself is universal. That is, all people have culture, for a society cannot ex-

ist without developing shared, learned ways of dealing with the challenges of life.

8. All people are ethnocentric, which has both positive and negative conse- quences.

I think you’ll enjoy the Cultural Diversity box on the next page. Beyond seeing why sociology is such a pleasure, it will also help you better under- stand how culture shapes ideas and behavior.

Practicing Cultural Relativism To counter our tendency to use our own culture as the standard by which we judge other cultures, we can practice cultural relativism; that is, we can try to understand a culture on its own terms. This means looking at how the ele- ments of a culture fit together, without judging those elements as inferior or superior to our own way of life.

With our own culture embedded so deeply within us, practicing cultural rel- ativism is difficult to do. It is likely that it seems strange to you to think that the dead need money and wrong to you for matadors to stab bulls to death in front of joyful crowds that shout “Olé!” If we practice cultural relativism, however, we will view both giving money to the dead and bullfighting from the perspective of the cultures in which they take place. It will be their history, their folklore, their ideas of mortality and bravery and sex roles that we will use to understand their behavior.

You may still regard bullfighting as wrong, of course, particularly if your culture, which is deeply ingrained in you, has no history of bullfighting. We

Many Americans perceive bullfighting as a cruel activity that should be illegal everywhere. To most Spaniards, bullfighting is a sport that pits matador and bull in a unifying image of power, courage, and glory. Cultural relativism requires that we suspend our own perspectives in order to grasp the perspectives of others, something easier described than attained.

cultural relativism not judging a culture but trying to understand it on its own terms

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 38 11/19/15 7:08 AM

Culture 39

all possess culturally specific ideas about how to treat animals, ideas that have evolved slowly and match other elements of our culture. In some areas of the United States, cock fighting, dog fighting, and bear–dog fighting were once common. Only as the culture changed were they gradually eliminated.

Cultural relativism is an attempt to refocus our lens of perception so we can appreciate other ways of life rather than simply asserting, “Our way is right.” Although

Cultural Diversity around the World Why the Dead Need Money Ideas and beliefs about what happens to people after they

die vary remarkably among the world’s cultures. Common to

many cultures are beliefs about ghosts, that the spirits of the

dead, especially the recent dead, continue an existence of

some sort on the Earth. Some cultures have built elaborate systems of beliefs

about ghosts. One of the most elaborate is that of the traditional Chinese. Their view is that the afterlife closely mirrors the real world (Chen 2013). When people die, their ghosts live in a place just like the one they lived in when they were alive. There, the ghosts have the same needs as living people: food, clothing, houses, and entertainment.

Since these things cost money in the world of the living, they also cost money in the world of the departed. To obtain money, the ghosts depend on the living, and one of the obligations of descendants is to provide that money.

For hundreds of years, traditional Chinese have provided money for their ancestors. Today, they shop in specialized stores that sell ghost money. This money, featuring an image of the Emperor of Hell, looks like an elaborate version of Monopoly money. They get the money to the ghosts by burning it. The ghosts then spend the money on what they need to enjoy life.

As you and I live out our lives, our ideas of what we need keep increasing. This means that we need more and more money. Earlier generations didn’t know about cars, televisions, and cell phones, so they had no need of them. These things aren’t free for us, so to keep up with our changing needs, we have to keep increasing our incomes.

Like us, those in the ghost world also want to keep up with changing times, so they, too, need computers, iPads, flat-screen televisions, sports cars, and bigger houses. The ghost stores have come up with a solution to these changing needs, and they sell paper replicas of these items. Just as with the ghost money, to send these items to their ancestors, the purchasers burn the replicas.

Unfortunately, just like in the land of the living, prices in the ghost world also keep increasing. The ghost world has been especially hard hit, though, and it is experiencing hyperinflation. A few years ago, a $100 ghost bill would have gone a long way. Now the ghosts need hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars. Sometimes they need a

billion dollars. Inflation in the ghost world is so out of control that the stores now sell a trillion dollar ghost bill.

As economists do, one Hong Kong economist has come up with a plan to bring ghost inflation to a screaming halt. Citing Milton Friedman that the cause of inflation is an increase in the money supply, he suggests that people burn real money instead of ghost money. This, he says, would immediately reduce the amount of cash flowing into hell.

For Your Consideration → How do the traditional Chinese customs regarding the

dead differ from your culture’s customs?

→ Why do these customs seem strange to Americans and ordinary to traditional Chinese?

→ How has your culture shaped your ideas about death and the relationship of the dead and the living?

A woman at a temple in Liuzhou, south China, burning ghost money for her deceased relatives to spend in the afterlife.

U.S.A.U.S.A.ChinaChina

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 39 11/19/15 7:08 AM

40 Chapter 2

none of us can be entirely successful at practicing cultural relativism, look at the photos on the next page and try to appreciate the cultural differences they illustrate about stan- dards of beauty. I think you will enjoy the Cultural Diversity box below, too, but my best guess is that you will evaluate these “strange” foods through the lens of your own culture.

Cultural Diversity around the World You Are What You Eat? An Exploration in Cultural Relativity Here is a chance to test your ethnocentrism and ability

to practice cultural relativity. You probably know that the

French like to eat snails and that in some Asian cultures,

chubby dogs and cats are considered a delicacy (“Ah, lightly

browned with a little doggy sauce!”). You might also know

that in some cultures, the bull’s penis and testicles are prized

foods (Jakab 2012). But did you know that cod sperm is a

delicacy in Japan (Halpern 2011)? That flies and scorpions

are on the menu of restaurants in parts of Thailand (Gampbell

2006)? That on the Italian island of Sardinia, casu marzi, a

cheese filled with live maggots, is popular (Herz 2012)? Marston Bates (1967), a zoologist, noted this

ethnocentric reaction to food:

I remember once, in the llanos of Colombia, sharing a dish of toasted ants at a remote farmhouse. . . . My host and I fell into conversation about the general question of what people eat or do not eat, and I remarked that in my country people eat the legs of frogs.

The very thought of this filled my ant-eating friends with horror; it was as though I had mentioned some repulsive sex habit.

Then there is the experience of a friend, Dusty Friedman, who told me:

When traveling in Sudan, I ate some interesting things that I wouldn’t likely eat now that I’m back in our society. Raw baby camel’s liver with chopped herbs was a delicacy. So was camel’s milk cheese patties that had been cured in dry camel’s dung.

You might be able to see yourself eating frog legs and toasted ants, beetles, even flies. (Or maybe not.) Perhaps you could even stomach cod sperm and raw camel liver, maybe even dogs and cats, but here’s another test of your ethnocentrism and cultural relativity. Maxine Kingston (1975), an English professor whose parents grew up in China, wrote:

“Do you know what people in [the Nantou region of] China eat when they have the money?” my mother began. “They buy into a monkey feast. The eaters sit around a thick wood table with a hole in the middle. Boys bring in the monkey at the end of a pole. Its neck is in a collar at the end of the pole, and it is screaming. Its hands are tied behind it. They clamp the monkey into the table; the whole table fits like another collar around its neck. Using a surgeon’s saw, the cooks cut a clean line in a circle at the top of its head. To loosen the bone, they tap with a tiny hammer and wedge here and there with a silver pick. Then an old woman reaches out her hand to the monkey’s face and up to its scalp, where she tufts some hairs and lifts off the lid of the skull. The eaters spoon out the brains.”

For Your Consideration → What is your opinion about eating toasted ants? Beetles?

Flies? Fried frog legs? Cod sperm? Maggot cheese? About eating puppies and kittens? About eating brains scooped out of a living monkey?

→ If you were reared in U.S. society, more than likely you think that eating frog legs is okay; eating ants or flies is disgusting; and eating cod sperm, maggot cheese, monkey brains, and cats and dogs is downright repugnant. How would you apply the concepts of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism to your perceptions of these customs?

What some consider food, even delicacies, can turn the stomach of others. Grilled guinea pigs are served in restaurants in the Peruvian Andes.

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 40 11/19/15 7:08 AM

Angola

China

USA

Kenya

Thailand

Ecuador

Standards of Beauty

Standards of beauty vary so greatly from one culture to another that what one group finds attractive, another may not. Yet, in its ethnocentrism, each group thinks that its standards are the best— that the appearance reflects what beauty “really” is.

As indicated by these photos, around the world men and women aspire to their group’s norms of physical attrac- tiveness. To make themselves appealing to others, they try to make their appear- ance reflect those standards.

Tibet New Guinea

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 41 11/19/15 7:09 AM

42 Chapter 2

AttAck on culturAl rElAtIvISm Although cultural relativism helps us avoid cul- tural smugness, this view has come under attack (Mitchum 2013). In a provocative book, Sick Societies, anthropologist Robert Edgerton (1992) suggested that we develop a scale for evaluating cultures on their “quality of life,” much as we do for U.S. cities. He asks why we should consider cultures that practice genital cutting, gang rape, or wife beating, or cultures that sell little girls into prostitution, as morally equivalent to those that do not. Cultural values that result in exploitation, he says, are inferior to those that enhance people’s lives.

The sharp questions and incisive examples of critics bring us to a topic that comes up repeatedly in this text: the disagreements that arise among scholars as they confront contrasting views of reality. It is such questioning of assumptions that keeps sociology interesting.

Components of Symbolic Culture 2.2 know the components of symbolic culture: gestures, language, values, norms,

sanctions, folkways, mores, and taboos; also explain the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

Sociologists often refer to nonmaterial culture as symbolic culture, because it consists of the symbols that people use. A symbol is something to which people attach meaning and that they use to communicate with one another. Symbols include gestures, language, values, norms, sanctions, folkways, and mores. Let’s look at each of these components of symbolic culture.

Gestures Gestures, movements of the body to communicate with others, are shorthand ways to convey messages without using words. Although people in every culture of the world use gestures, a gesture’s meaning may change completely from one culture to another. North Americans, for example, communicate a succinct message by raising the middle finger in a short, upward stabbing motion. I wish to stress “North Americans,” because this gesture does not convey the same message in most parts of the world.

I had internalized this finger gesture to such an extent that I thought everyone knew what it meant, but in Mexico I was surprised to find that it is not universal. When I was comparing gestures with friends in Mexico, this gesture drew a blank look. After I explained its meaning, they laughed and said they would show me their rudest gesture. They placed one hand under an armpit, brought their other hand to the opposite shoulder, and moved their upper arm up and down. To me, they simply looked as if they were imi- tating a monkey, but to my Mexican hosts the gesture meant “Your mother is a whore”— the worst possible insult in their culture.

Some gestures are so closely associated with emotional messages that the gestures themselves summon up emotions. For example, my introduction to Mexican gestures took place at a dinner table. It was evident that my husband-and-wife hosts were try- ing to hide their embarrassment at using their culture’s obscene gesture at their dinner table. And I felt the same way—not about their gesture, of course, which meant nothing to me—but about the one I was teaching them.

mISundErStAndInG And offEnSE Gestures not only facilitate communication, but because they differ around the world they also can lead to misunderstanding, embar- rassment, or worse. One time in Mexico, for example, I raised my hand to a certain height to indicate how tall a child was. My hosts began to laugh. It turned out that Mexicans use three hand gestures to indicate height: one for people, a second for animals, and yet another for plants. They were amused because I had used the plant gesture to indicate the child’s height. (See Figure 2.1.)

symbolic culture another term for nonmaterial culture

symbol something to which people attach meaning and then use to communicate with one another

gestures the ways in which people use their bodies to communicate with one another

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 42 11/19/15 7:09 AM

Culture 43

Although most gestures are learned, and therefore vary from culture to culture, some gestures that represent fundamental emotions such as sadness, anger, and fear appear to be inborn. This crying child whom I photographed in India differs little from a crying child in China—or the United States or anywhere else on the globe. In a few years, however, this child will demonstrate a variety of gestures highly specific to his Hindu culture.

To get along in another culture, then, it is important to learn the gestures of that culture. If you don’t, you will fail to achieve the simplicity of communication that ges- tures allow. You may also overlook or misunderstand much of what is happening, run the risk of appearing foolish, and possibly offend people. In some cultures, for example, you would provoke deep offense if you were to offer food or a gift with your left hand, because the left hand is reserved for dirty tasks, such as wiping after going to the toilet. Left-handed Americans visiting Arabs, please note!

Suppose for a moment that you are visiting southern Italy. After eating one of the best meals in your life, you are so pleased that when you catch the waiter’s eye, you smile broadly and use the standard U.S. “A-OK” gesture of putting your thumb and forefinger together and making a large “O.” The waiter looks horrified, and you are struck speechless when the manager marches over and angrily asks you to leave. What have you done? Nothing on purpose, of course, but in that culture this gesture refers to a lower part of the human body that is not mentioned in polite company. (Ekman et al. 1984)

unIvErSAl GESturES? Is it really true that there are no universal ges- tures? There is some disagreement on this point. Some anthropologists claim that no gesture is universal. They point out that even nodding the head up and down to indicate “yes” is not universal. In an area of Turkey, nodding the head up and down means “no” (Ekman et al. 1984). However, ethologists, researchers who study the biological bases of behavior, claim that expressions of anger, pouting, fear, and sadness are built into our biological makeup and are universal (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1970:404; Horwitz and Wakefield 2007). They point out that even infants who are born blind and deaf, who have had no chance to learn these gestures, express themselves in the same way.

Although the details of what is learned and what is inborn is not yet settled, we can note that gestures tend to vary remarkably around the world.

Language The primary way in which people communicate with one another is through language—symbols that can be combined in an infinite number of ways for the pur- pose of communicating abstract thought. Each word is actually a symbol, a sound to

Figure 2.1 Gestures to Indicate Height, Southern Mexico

Source: By the author.

language a system of symbols that can be combined in an infinite number of ways and can represent not only objects but also abstract thought

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 43 11/19/15 7:09 AM

44 Chapter 2

which we have attached some particular meaning. Although all human groups have language, there is nothing universal about the meanings given to particular sounds. Like gestures, in different cultures the same sound may mean something entirely dif- ferent—or may have no meaning at all. In German, for example, gift means “poison,” so if you give a box of chocolates to a non-English-speaking German and say, “Gift, eat,”. . . .

Because language allows culture to exist, its significance for human life is difficult to overstate. Consider the following effects of language.

lAnGuAGE AlloWS HumAn ExpErIEncE to BE cumulAtIvE By means of language, we pass ideas, knowledge, and even attitudes on to the next generation. This allows others to build on experiences in which they may never directly participate. As a result, humans are able to modify their behavior in light of what earlier generations have learned. This takes us to the central sociological significance of language: Language allows culture to develop by freeing people to move beyond their immediate experiences.

Without language, human culture would be little more advanced than that of the lower primates. If we communicated by grunts and gestures, we would be limited to a short time span—to events now taking place, those that have just taken place, or those that will take place immediately—a sort of slightly extended present. You can grunt and gesture, for example, that you are thirsty or hungry, but in the absence of language, how could you share ideas concerning past or future events? There would be little or no way to communicate to others what event you had in mind, much less the greater complexi- ties that humans communicate—ideas and feelings about events.

lAnGuAGE provIdES A SocIAl or SHArEd pASt Without language, we would have few memories, since we associate experiences with words and then use those words to recall the experience. In the absence of language, how would we communicate the few memories we had to others? By attaching words to an event, however, and then using those words to recall it, we are able to discuss the event. This is highly significant: Our talking is far more than “just talk.” As we talk about past events, we develop shared understandings about what those events mean. In short, through talk, people develop a shared past.

lAnGuAGE provIdES A SocIAl or SHArEd futurE Language also extends our time horizons forward. Because language enables us to agree on times, dates, and places, it allows us to plan activities with one another. Think about it for a moment. Without lan- guage, how could you ever plan future events? How could you possibly communicate goals, times, and plans? Whatever planning could exist would be limited to rudimentary communications, perhaps to an agreement to meet at a certain place when the sun is in a certain position. But think of the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, of conveying just a slight change in this simple arrangement, such as “I can’t make it tomorrow, but my neighbor can take my place, if that’s all right with you.”

lAnGuAGE AlloWS SHArEd pErSpEctIvES Our ability to speak, then, provides us with a social (or shared) past and future. This is vital for humanity. It is a watershed that distinguishes us from animals. But speech does much more than this. When we talk with one another, we are exchanging ideas about events; that is, we are sharing ideas and perspectives. Our words are the embodiment of our experiences, distilled into a readily exchangeable form, one that is mutually understandable to people who have learned that language. Talking about events allows us to arrive at the shared understandings that form the basis of social life.

Not sharing a language while living alongside one another, however, invites mis- communication and suspicion. This risk, which comes with a diverse society, is discussed in the following Cultural Diversity box.

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 44 11/19/15 7:09 AM

Culture 45

lAnGuAGE AlloWS SHArEd, GoAl-dIrEctEd BEHAvIor. Common under- standings enable us to establish a purpose for getting together. Let’s suppose you want to go on a picnic. You use speech not only to plan the picnic but also to decide on rea- sons for having the picnic—which may be anything from “because it’s a nice day and it shouldn’t be wasted studying” to “because it’s my birthday.” Language permits you to blend individual activities into an integrated sequence. In other words, as you talk, you decide when and where you will go; who will drive; who will bring the hamburgers, the potato chips, the soda; where and when you will meet. Only because of language can you participate in such a common yet complex event as a picnic—or build roads and bridges or attend college classes.

Cultural Diversity in the United States Miami—Continuing Controversy over Language

Immigration from Cuba and other Spanish-speaking countries has been so vast that most residents of Miami are Latinos. Sixty percent of Miamians speak English at home, and half have trouble speaking English. Immigration has so changed Miami that one debate among the candidates for mayor of Miami was held only in Spanish.

English-speaking Miamians were upset. “They need to learn English,” they said. Pedro Falcon, an immigrant from Nicaragua, replied, “Miami is the capital of Latin America. The population speaks Spanish.” As the English- speakers see it, this pinpoints the problem: Miami, they stress, is in the United States, not in Latin America.

Controversy over immigrants and language isn’t new. The millions of Germans who moved to the United States in the 1800s brought their language with them. Not only did they hold religious services in German but they also opened schools where the students were taught in German; published German- language newspapers; and spoke German at home, in the stores, and in the taverns.

Some of their English-speaking neighbors didn’t like this one bit. “Why don’t those Germans assimilate?” they wondered. “Just whose side would they fight on if we had a war?”

This question was answered with the participation of German Americans in two world wars. It was even a general descended from German immigrants (Eisenhower) who led the armed forces that defeated Hitler.

What happened to all this German language? The first generation of immigrants spoke German almost exclusively. The second generation assimilated, speaking English at home, but also speaking German when visiting their parents.

For the most part, the third generation knew German only as “that language” that their grandparents spoke.

The same thing is happening with the Latino immigrants, but at a slower pace. Spanish is being kept alive longer because Mexico borders the United States, and there is constant traffic between the countries. The continuing migration from Mexico and other Spanish- speaking countries also feeds the language.

If Germany bordered the United States, there would still be a lot of German spoken here.

SourceS: Based on Kent and Lalasz 2007; Salomon 2008; Costantini 2011; Nelson 2013.

For Your Consideration → Do you think that Miami points to the future of the United

States? → Like the grandchildren of the European immigrants who

lost the ability to speak their grandparent’s native language, when do you think the grandchildren of Mexican and South American immigrants will be unable to speak Spanish?

FloridaFlorida

Mural from Miami.

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 45 11/19/15 7:09 AM

46 Chapter 2

In Sum The sociological significance of language is that it takes us beyond the world of apes and allows culture to develop. Language frees us from the present, actually giving us a social past and a social future. That is, language gives us the capacity to share understandings about the past and to develop shared perceptions about the future. Language also allows us to establish underlying purposes for our activities. In short, language is the basis of culture.

Language and Perception: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis In the 1930s, two anthropologists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, were intrigued when they noticed that the Hopi Indians of the southwestern United States had no words to distinguish the past, the present, and the future. English, in contrast—as well as French, Spanish, Swahili, and other languages—carefully distinguishes these three time frames. From this observation, Sapir and Whorf began to think that words might be more than labels that people attach to things. Eventually, they concluded that language has embedded within it ways of looking at the world. In other words, language not only expresses our thoughts and perceptions, but language also shapes the way we think and perceive (Sapir 1949; Whorf 1956).

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis challenges common sense: It indicates that rather than objects and events forcing themselves onto our consciousness, it is our language that determines our consciousness and hence our perception of objects and events. Sociolo- gist Eviatar Zerubavel (1991) points out that his native language, Hebrew, does not have separate words for jam and jelly. Both go by the same term, and only when Zerubavel learned English could he “see” this difference, which is “obvious” to native English speakers. Similarly, if you learn to classify students as Jocks, Goths, Stoners, Skaters, Band Geeks, and Preps, you will perceive students in entirely different ways from some- one who does not know these classifications.

When I lived in Spain, I was struck by the relevance of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. As a native English speaker, I had learned that the term dried fruits refers to apricots, apples, and so on. In Spain, I found that frutos secos refers not only to such objects but also to things like almonds, walnuts, and pecans. My English makes me see fruits and nuts as very different types of objects. This seems “natural” to me, while combining them into one unit seems “natural” to Spanish speakers. If I had learned Spanish first, my percep- tion of these objects would be different.

Although Sapir and Whorf’s observation that the Hopi do not have tenses was wrong (Edgerton 1992:27), they did stumble onto a major truth about social life. Learning a language means not only learning words but also acquiring the perceptions embedded in that language. In other words, language both reflects and shapes our cultural experi- ences (Boroditsky 2010). The racial–ethnic terms that our culture provides, for example, influence how we see both ourselves and others, a point that is discussed in the Cultural Diversity box on the next page.

Values, Norms, and Sanctions To learn a culture is to learn people’s values, their ideas of what is desirable in life. When we uncover people’s values, we learn a great deal about them, since values are the stan- dards by which people define what is good and bad, beautiful and ugly. Values underlie our preferences, guide our choices, and indicate what we hold worthwhile in life.

Every group develops expectations concerning the “right” way to reflect its values. Sociologists use the term norms to describe those expectations (or rules of behavior) that develop out of a group’s values. The term sanctions refers to the reactions people receive for following or breaking norms. A positive sanction expresses approval for following a norm, and a negative sanction reflects disapproval for breaking a norm. Positive sanc- tions can be material, such as a prize, a trophy, or money, but in everyday life they usually

Sapir–Whorf hypothesis Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf’s hypothesis that language creates ways of thinking and perceiving

values the standards by which people define what is desirable or undesirable, superior or inferior good or bad, beautiful or ugly

norms expectations of “right” behavior

sanctions either expressions of approval given to people for following norms or expressions of disapproval for violating them

positive sanction a reward or positive reaction for following norms, ranging from a smile to a material reward

negative sanction an expression of disapproval for breaking a norm, ranging from a mild, informal reaction such as a frown to a formal reaction such as a prize or a prison sentence

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 46 11/19/15 7:09 AM

Culture 47

consist of hugs, smiles, a pat on the back, or even handshakes and “high fives.” Negative sanctions can also be material—being fined in court is one example—but negative sanc- tions, too, are more likely to be symbolic: harsh words, or gestures such as frowns, stares, clenched jaws, or raised fists. Getting a raise at work is a positive sanction, indicating that you have followed the norms clustering around work values. Getting fired, in con- trast, is a negative sanction, indicating that you have violated these norms. The North American finger gesture discussed earlier is, of course, a negative sanction.

Because people can find norms stifling, some cultures relieve the pressure through moral holidays, specified times when people are allowed to break norms. Moral holidays such as Mardi Gras often center on getting rowdy. Some activities for which people would otherwise be arrested are permitted—and expected—including public drunkenness and

Cultural Diversity in the United States Race and Language: Searching for Self-Labels The groups that dominate society often determine the names that are used to refer to racial–ethnic groups. If those names become associated with oppression, they take on negative meanings. For example, the terms Negro and colored people came to be associated with submissiveness and low status. To overcome these meanings, those referred to by these terms began to identify themselves as black or African American. They infused these new terms with respect—a basic source of self-esteem that they felt the old terms denied them.

In a twist, African Americans—and to a lesser extent Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans—have changed the rejected term colored people to people of color. Those who embrace this modified term are imbuing it with meanings that offer an identity of respect. The term also has political meanings. It implies bonds that cross racial–ethnic lines, mutual ties, and a sense of identity rooted in historical oppression.

There is always disagreement about racial–ethnic terms, and colored people is no exception. Although most rejected the term, some found in it a sense of respect and claimed it for themselves. The acronym NAACP, for example, stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The new term, people of color, arouses similar feelings. Some individuals whom this term would include point out that this new label still makes color the primary identifier of people—and it assumes that white people have no color. They stress that humans transcend race–ethnicity, that what we have in

common as human beings goes much deeper than what you see on the surface. They stress that we should avoid

terms that focus on differences in the pigmentation of our skin.

The language of self-reference in a society that is so conscious of skin color is an ongoing issue. As long as our society continues to emphasize such superficial differences, the search for adequate terms is not likely to ever be “finished.” In this quest for terms that strike the right chord, the term people of color may become a historical footnote. If it does, the term that replaces it will also indicate changing self-identities within a changing culture.

For Your Consideration → What terms do you use to refer to

your race–ethnicity? What “bad” terms do you know that others have used to refer to your race–ethnicity? What is the difference in meaning between the terms you use and the “bad” terms? Where does that meaning come from?

U.S.A.U.S.A.

The ethnic terms we choose— or which are given to us—are major self-identifiers. They indicate both membership in some group and a separation from other groups.

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 47 11/19/15 7:09 AM

48 Chapter 2

some nudity. The norms are never completely dropped, however—just loosened a bit. Go too far, and the police step in.

Some societies have moral holiday places, locations where norms are expected to be broken. The red-light district of a city is one example. There, prostitutes are allowed to work the streets, bothered only when political pressure builds to “clean up” the area. If these same prostitutes attempt to solicit customers in adjacent areas, however, they are promptly arrested. Each year, the hometown of the team that wins the Super Bowl becomes a moral holiday place—for one night.

One of the more interesting examples is “Party Cove” at Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri, a fairly straitlaced area of the country.

During the summer, hundreds of boaters—those oper- ating everything from cabin cruisers to jet skis—moor their vessels together in a highly publicized cove, where many get drunk, take off their clothes, and dance on the boats. In one of the more humorous incidents, boat- ers complained that a nude woman was riding a jet ski outside of the cove. The water patrol investigated but

refused to arrest the woman because she was within the law—she had sprayed shaving cream on certain parts of her body.

The Missouri Water Patrol has even given a green light to Party Cove, announcing in the local newspaper that officers will not enter this cove, supposedly because “there is so much traffic that they might not be able to get out in time to handle an emergency elsewhere.”

Folkways, Mores, and Taboos Norms that are not strictly enforced are called folkways. We expect people to follow folk- ways, but we are likely to shrug our shoulders and not make a big deal about it if they don’t. If someone insists on passing you on the right side of the sidewalk, for example, you are unlikely to take corrective action, although if the sidewalk is crowded and you must move out of the way, you might give the person a dirty look.

Other norms, however, are taken much more seriously. We think of them as essential to our core values, and we insist on conformity. These are called mores (MORE-rays). A person who steals, rapes, or kills has violated some of society’s most important mores. As sociologist Ian Robertson (1987:62) put it:

A man who walks down a street wearing nothing on the upper half of his body is violat- ing a folkway; a man who walks down the street wearing nothing on the lower half of his body is violating one of our most important mores, the requirement that people cover their genitals and buttocks in public.

You can see, then, that one group’s folkways can be another group’s mores: The man walking down the street with the upper half of his body uncovered is deviating from a folkway, but a woman doing the same thing is violating the mores. In addition, the folk- ways and mores of a subculture (discussed in the next section) may be the opposite of mainstream culture. For example, to walk down the sidewalk in a nudist camp with the entire body uncovered would conform to that subculture’s folkways.

As with Spring Break in Florida, many societies relax their norms during specified occasions. At these times, known as moral holidays, behavior that is ordinarily not permitted is allowed. When a moral holiday is over, the usual enforcement of rules follows.

folkways norms that are not strictly enforced

mores norms that are strictly enforced because they are thought essential to core values or the wellbeing of the group

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 48 11/19/15 7:09 AM

Culture 49

The violation of mores is a serious matter. In this case, it is serious enough that the security at a football match in Edmonton, Alberta (Canada), have swung into action to protect the public from seeing a “disgraceful” sight, at least one so designated by this group.

A taboo refers to a norm so strongly ingrained that even the thought of its violation is greeted with revulsion. Eating human flesh and parents having sex with their children are examples of such behaviors. When someone breaks a taboo, the individual is usually judged unfit to live in the same society as others. The sanctions are severe and may include prison, banishment, or death.

Many Cultural Worlds 2.3 distinguish between subcultures and

countercultures.

Subcultures Groups of people who occupy some small corner in life, such as an occupation, tend to develop specialized ways of communicating with one another. To outsiders, their talk, even if it is in English, can sound like a for- eign language. Here is one of my favorite quotations by a politician:

There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns; there are things we do not know we don’t know. (Donald Rumsfeld, quoted in Dickey and Barry 2006:38)

Whatever Rumsfeld, the former secretary of defense under George W. Bush, meant by his statement probably will remain a known unknown. (Or would it be an unknown unknown?)

We have a similar problem in sociology. Try to figure out what this means:

The interaction of world market dynamics and state capacities is shaped by the contin- ued separation of the profit-oriented, market-mediated dimension of accumulation from its crucial extra-economic supports in the legal and political system (among other insti- tutional orders) and, notwithstanding this variable institutional separation, the contin- ued reciprocal interdependence of ‘market’ and ‘state ‘as complementary moments of the capital relation. (Jessop 2010)

As much as possible, I will spare you from such “insider” talk. Sociologists and politicians form a subculture, a world within the larger world of

the dominant culture. Subcultures are not limited to occupations. They include any corner in life in which people’s experiences lead them to have distinctive ways of looking at the world. Even if we cannot understand the quotation from Donald Rumsfeld, it makes us aware that politicians don’t view life in quite the same way most of us do.

U.S. society contains thousands of subcultures. Some are as broad as the way of life we associate with teenagers, others as narrow as those we associate with bodybuilders— or with politicians. Some U.S. ethnic groups also form subcultures: Their values, norms, and foods set them apart. So might their religion, music, language, and clothing. Even sociologists form a subculture. As you are learning, they also use a unique language in their efforts to understand the world.

For a visual depiction of subcultures, see the photo essay on the next two pages.

taboo a norm so strong that it brings extreme sanctions, even revulsion, if violated

subculture the values and related behaviors of a group that distinguish its members from the larger culture; a world within a world

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 49 11/19/15 7:09 AM

Each subculture provides its members with values and distinctive ways of viewing the world. What values and perceptions do you think are common among bodybuilders?

With their specialized language and activities,

surfers are highly recognized as members

of a subculture. This surfer is “in the tube.”

Why would anyone decorate herself like this? Among the many reasons,

one is to show solidarity (appreciation, shared interest) with the subculture

that centers on comic book characters.

Looking at Subcultures

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 50 11/19/15 7:09 AM

Membership in this subculture is not easily awarded. Not only must high-steel ironworkers prove that they are able to work at great heights but also that they fit into the group socially. Newcomers are tested by members of the group, and they must demonstrate that they can take joking without offense.

Specialized values and interests are two of the characteristics that mark subcultures. What values and interests distinguish the modeling subculture?

Even subcultures can have subcultures. The rodeo subculture is a subculture of “western” subculture. The values that unite its members are reflected in their speech, clothing, and specialized activities, such as the one shown here.

The cabbies’ subculture, centering on their occupational activites and interests, is also broken into smaller subcultures that reflect their experiences of race-ethnicity.

The subculture that centers around tattooing previously existed on the fringes of society, with seamen and circus folk its main participants. It now has entered mainstream society, but not to this extreme.

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 51 11/19/15 7:09 AM

52 Chapter 2

Countercultures Look what a different world this person is living in:

If everyone applying for welfare had to supply a doctor’s certificate of sterilization, if every- one who had committed a felony were sterilized, if anyone who had mental illness to any degree were sterilized—then our economy could easily take care of these people for the rest of their lives, giving them a decent living standard—but getting them out of the way. That way there would be no children abused, no surplus population, and, after a while, no pollution. . . .

When the . . . present world system collapses, it’ll be good people like you who will be shooting people in the streets to feed their families. (Zellner 1995:58, 65)

Welcome to the world of the Aryan supremacist survivalists, where the message is much clearer than that of politicians—and much more disturbing.

The values and norms of most subcultures blend in with mainstream society. In some cases, however, as with the survivalists quoted above, some of the group’s values and norms place it at odds with the dominant culture. Sociologists use the term counterculture to refer to such groups. To better see this distinction, consider motorcycle enthusiasts and motorcycle gangs.

Motorcycle enthusiasts—who emphasize personal freedom and speed and affirm cultural values of success through work or education—are mem- bers of a subculture. In contrast, the Hell’s Angels, Pagans, and Bandidos not only stress freedom and speed but also value dirtiness and contempt toward women, work, and education. This makes them a counterculture.

An assault on core values is always met with resistance. To affirm their own values, members of the mainstream culture may ridicule, iso- late, or even attack members of the counterculture. The Mormons, for example, were driven out of several states before they finally settled in Utah, which was at that time a wilderness. Even there, the federal gov- ernment would not let them practice polygyny (one man having more than one wife), and Utah’s statehood was made conditional on its accep- tance of monogamy (Anderson 1942/1966; Williams 2007).

Values in U.S. Society 2.4 discuss the major u.S. values and explain value clusters, value contradictions,

value clashes, how values are lenses of perception, and ideal versus real culture.

An Overview of U.S. Values As you know, the United States is a pluralistic society, made up of many different groups. The United States has numerous religious and racial–ethnic groups, as well as countless interest groups that focus on activities as divergent as hunting deer or collecting Barbie dolls. Within this huge diversity, sociologists have tried to identify the country’s core values, those that are shared by most of the groups that make up U.S. society. Here are ten core values that sociologist Robin Williams (1965) identified:

1. Achievement and success. Americans praise personal achievement, especially outdoing others. This value includes getting ahead at work and school and attaining wealth, power, and prestige.

2. Individualism. Americans cherish the ideal that an individual can rise from the bot- tom of society to its very top. If someone fails to “get ahead,” Americans generally find fault with that individual rather than with the social system for placing road- blocks in his or her path.

3. Hard work. Americans expect people to work hard to achieve financial success and material comfort.

4. Efficiency and practicality. Americans award high marks for getting things done effi- ciently. Even in everyday life, Americans consider it important to do things fast, and they seek ways to increase efficiency.

Why are the Outlaws part of a counterculture and not a subculture? This photo was taken in Mettenheim, Germany, as 1,000 Outlaws attended the burial of their leader, who had just been murdered.

counterculture a group whose values, beliefs, norms, and related behaviors place its members in opposition to the broader culture

pluralistic society a society made up of many different groups

core values the values that are central to a group, those around which a group builds a common identity

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 52 11/19/15 7:10 AM

Culture 53

5. Science and technology. Americans have a passion for applied science, for using science to control nature—to tame rivers and harness winds—and to develop new technology, from iPads to self-driving cars.

6. Material comfort. Americans expect a high level of material comfort. This includes not only plentiful food, fashionable clothing, and ample housing but also good medical care, late-model cars, and recreational playthings—from smartphones to motor homes.

7. Freedom. This core value pervades U.S. life. It underscored the American Revolution, and Americans pride themselves on their personal freedom.

8. Democracy. By this term, Americans refer to majority rule, to the right of everyone to express an opinion, and to representative government.

9. Equality. It is impossible to understand Americans without being aware of the central role that the value of equality plays in their lives. Equality of opportunity (part of the ideal culture discussed later) has significantly influenced U.S. history and continues to mark relations between the groups that make up U.S. society.

10. Group superiority. Although it contradicts the values of freedom, democracy, and equality, Americans regard some groups more highly than others and have done so throughout their history. The denial of the vote to women, the slaughter of Native Americans, and the enslavement of Africans are a few examples of how dominant groups considered themselves superior and denied equality, freedom, and even life to others.

In an earlier publication, I updated Williams’ analysis by adding these three values.

1. Education. Americans are expected to go as far in school as their abilities and finances allow. Over the years, the definition of an “adequate” education has changed, and today a college education is considered an appropriate goal for most Americans. Those who have an opportunity for higher education and do not take it are some- times viewed as doing something “wrong”—not merely as making a bad choice, but as somehow being involved in an immoral act.

2. Religiosity. There is a feeling that “every true American ought to be religious.” This does not mean that everyone is expected to join a church, synagogue, or mosque, but that everyone ought to acknowledge a belief in a Supreme Being and follow some set of matching precepts. This value is so pervasive that Americans stamp “In God We Trust” on their money and declare in their national pledge of allegiance that they are “one nation under God.”

3. Romantic love. Americans feel that the only proper basis for marriage is romantic love. Songs, literature, mass media, and folk beliefs all stress this value. Americans grow misty-eyed at the theme that “love conquers all.”

Value Clusters As you can see, values are not independent units; some cluster together to form a larger whole. In the value cluster that surrounds success, for example, we find education, hard work, material comfort, and individualism bound up together. Americans are expected to go far in school, to work hard afterward, and then to attain a high level of material comfort, which, in turn, demonstrates success. Success is attributed to the individual’s efforts; lack of success is blamed on his or her faults.

Value Contradictions You probably were surprised to see group superiority on the list of dominant Ameri- can values. This is an example of what I mentioned in Chapter 1, how sociology upsets people and creates resistance. Few people want to bring something like this into the open. It violates today’s ideal culture, a concept we will discuss shortly. But this is what sociologists do—they look beyond the façade to penetrate what is really going on. And when you look at our history, there is no doubt that group superiority has been a domi- nant value. It still is, but values change, and this one is diminishing.

value cluster values that together form a larger whole

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 53 11/19/15 7:10 AM

54 Chapter 2

value contradictions, then, are part of culture. Not all values come wrapped in neat, pretty packages, and you can see how group superiority contradicts freedom, democracy, and equality. There simply cannot be a full expression of freedom, democracy, and equal- ity along with racism and sexism. Something has to give. One way in which Americans in the past sidestepped this contradiction was to say that freedom, democracy, and equality applied only to some groups. The contradiction was bound to surface over time, however, and so it did with the Civil War and the women’s liberation movement. It is precisely at the point of value contradictions, then, that you can see a major force for social change in a society.

An Emerging Value Cluster A value cluster of four interrelated core values—leisure, self-fulfillment, physical fitness, and youthfulness—is emerging in the United States. So is a fifth core value—concern for the environment.

1. Leisure. The emergence of leisure as a value is reflected in a huge recreation indus- try—from computer games, boats, vacation homes, and spa retreats to sports arenas, home theaters, adventure vacations, and luxury cruises.

2. Self-fulfillment. This value is reflected in the “human potential” movement, which emphasizes becoming “all you can be,” and in magazine articles, books, and talk shows that focus on “self-help,” “relating,” and “personal development.”

3. Physical fitness. Physical fitness is not a new U.S. value, but the greater emphasis on it is moving it into this emerging cluster. You can see this trend in the emphasis placed on nutrition, organic foods, weight, and diet; the many joggers, cyclists, and back- packers; the marathons; and the countless health clubs and physical fitness centers.

Physical fitness, as with this Zumba class, is part of an emerging value cluster.

value contradiction values that contradict one another; to follow the one means to come into conflict with the other

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 54 11/19/15 7:10 AM

Culture 55

4. Youthfulness. Valuing youth and disparaging old age are also not new, but some an- alysts note a sense of urgency in today’s emphasis on youthfulness. They attribute this to the huge number of aging baby boomers, who, aghast at the physical changes that accompany their advancing years, are attempting to deny or at least postpone their biological fate. Some physicians even claim that aging is not a normal life event but a disease (Nieuwenhuis-Mark 2011).

5. Concern for the environment. During most of U.S. history, the environment was viewed as something to be exploited—a wilderness to be settled, forests to be cleared for farm- land and lumber, rivers and lakes to be fished, and animals to be hunted. One result was the near extinction of the bison and the extinction in 1914 of the passenger pigeon, a species of bird previously so numerous that its annual migration would darken the skies for days. With their pollution laws and lists of endangered species, today’s Americans have developed an apparently long-term concern for the environment.

In Sum Values don’t “just happen.” They are related to conditions of society. This emerging value cluster is a response to fundamental changes in U.S. culture. Earlier generations of Americans were focused on forging a nation and fighting for economic survival. But today, millions of Americans are freed from long hours of work, and mil- lions retire from work at an age when they anticipate decades of life ahead of them. This new value cluster centers on helping people maintain their health and vigor during their younger years and enabling them to enjoy their years of retirement.

Only when an economy produces adequate surpluses can a society afford these emerging values. To produce both longer lives and retirement, for example, requires a certain stage of economic development. Concern for the environment is another remark- able example. People act on environmental concerns only after they have met their basic needs. The world’s poor nations have a difficult time “affording” this value at this point in their development (MacLennan 2012).

When Values Clash Challenges in core values are met with strong resistance by the people who hold them dear. They see change as a threat to their way of life, an undermining of both their pres- ent and their future. Efforts to change gender roles, for example, arouse intense con- troversy, as do same-sex marriages. Alarmed at such onslaughts against their values, traditionalists fiercely defend the family relationships and gender roles they grew up with. Some use the term culture wars to refer to the clash in values between traditionalists and those advocating change, a term that is highly exaggerated. Compared with the vio- lence directed against the Mormons, today’s culture clashes are but mild disagreements.

Values as Distorting Lenses Values and their supporting beliefs are lenses through which we see the world. The views that these lenses provide are often of what life ought to be like, not what it is. For exam- ple, Americans value individualism so highly that they tend to see almost everyone as free and equal in pursuing the goal of success. This value blinds them to the significance of the circumstances that keep people from achieving success. The dire consequences of family poverty, parents’ low education, and dead-end jobs tend to drop from sight. Instead, Americans see the unsuccessful as not taking advantage of opportunities, or as having some inherent flaw, such as laziness or dull minds. And they “know” they are right, because the mass media dangle before their eyes enticing stories of individuals who have succeeded despite the greatest of handicaps.

“Ideal” Versus “Real” Culture Many of the norms that surround cultural values are followed only partially. Differences always exist between a group’s ideals and what its members actually do. Consequently, sociologists use the term ideal culture to refer to the values, norms, and goals that a

ideal culture a people’s ideal values and norms; the goals held out for them

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 55 11/19/15 7:10 AM

56 Chapter 2

group considers ideal, worth aiming for. Success, for example, is part of ideal culture. Americans glorify academic progress, hard work, and the display of material goods as signs of individual achievement. What people actually do, however, usually falls short of the cultural ideal. Compared with their abilities, for example, most people don’t work as hard as they could or go as far as they could in school. Sociologists call the norms and values that people actually follow real culture.

Cultural Universals 2.5 Explain what cultural universals are and why they do not seem to exist.

With the amazing variety of human cultures around the world, are there any cultural universals—values, norms, or other cultural traits that are found everywhere?

To answer this question, anthropologist George Murdock (1945) combed through the data that anthropologists had gathered on hundreds of groups around the world. He compared their customs concerning courtship, marriage, funerals, games, laws, music, myths, incest taboos, and even toilet training. He found that these activities are present in all cultures, but the specific customs differ from one group to another. There is no universal form of the family, no universal way of toilet training children, no universal music, and no universal way of disposing of the deceased.

Incest is another remarkable example. Groups don’t even agree on what incest is. The Mundugumors of New Guinea extend the incest taboo so far that for each man, seven of every eight women are ineligible marriage partners (Mead 1935/1950). Other groups go in the opposite direction and allow some men to marry their own daughters (La Barre 1954). Some groups even require that brothers and sisters marry one another,

cultural universal a value, norm, or other cultural trait that is found in every group

Values, both those held by individuals and those that represent a nation or people, can undergo deep shifts. It is difficult for many of us to grasp the pride with which earlier Americans destroyed trees that took thousands of years to grow, are located only on one tiny speck of the globe, and that we today consider part of the nation’s and world’s heritage. But this is a value statement, representing current views. The pride expressed on these woodcutters’ faces represents another set of values entirely.

real culture the norms and values that people actually follow; as opposed to ideal culture

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 56 11/19/15 7:10 AM

Culture 57

although only in certain circumstances (Beals and Hoijer 1965). The Burundi of Africa even insist that a son have sex with his mother—but only to remove a certain curse (Albert 1963). Such sexual relations, so surprising to us, are limited to special people (royalty) or to extraordinary situations (such as the night before a dangerous lion hunt). No society permits generalized incest for its members.

In Sum Although there are universal human activities (singing, playing games, story- telling, preparing food, marrying, child rearing, disposing of the dead, and so on), there is no universal way of doing any of them.

Sociobiology and Human Behavior 2.6 Explain why most sociologists consider genes to be an inadequate explanation

of human behavior.

A controversial view of human behavior, called sociobiology (also known as neo- Darwinism and evolutionary psychology), provides a sharp contrast to the perspective of this chapter, that the key to human behavior is culture. Sociobiologists believe that because of natural selection, biology is a basic cause of human behavior (Wade 2014). In the following Thinking Critically section, let’s consider this view.

sociobiology a framework of thought in which human behavior is considered to be the result of natural selection and biological factors: a fundamental cause of human behavior

Unlike this beautiful ant, we humans are not controlled by instincts. Sociobiologists, though, are exploring the extent to which genes influence our behavior.

Thinking Critically Are We Prisoners of Our Genes? Charles Darwin (1859), who, as we saw in Chapter 1, adopted Spencer’s idea of natural selection, pointed out that the genes of a species—the units that contain an individual’s traits—are not distributed evenly among a population. The characteristics that some members inherit make it easier for them to survive their environment, increasing the likelihood that they will pass their genetic traits to the next generation. Over thousands of generations, the genetic traits that aid survival become common in a species, while those that do not aid survival become less common or even disappear. Natural selection explains not only the physical characteristics of animals but also their behavior, since over countless generations, instincts emerged.

Edward Wilson (1975), an insect specialist, set off an

uproar when he claimed that human behavior is like the

behavior of cats, rats, bats, and gnats—bred into Homo

sapiens through evolutionary principles. Wilson went on

to claim that sociobiology can explain competition and

cooperation, envy and altruism—even religion, slavery,

genocide, and war and peace. He provocatively added that

because genetic programming can explain human behavior,

sociobiology will eventually absorb sociology, as well as

anthropology and psychology. Most sociologists think that this view is ridiculous. It

is not that sociologists deny that biology is important in human behavior—at least in the sense that there would be no speech if humans had no tongue or larynx and that it takes a highly developed brain to develop human culture and abstract thought. We all know that to stay alive we must eat and keep from freezing and that this certainly motivates some of our behavior. Biology is so significant that it could

even underlie the origin of gender inequality, one of the theories we discuss in Chapter 11.

Some sociologists do emphasize the influence of genes on human behavior. Developing what they call genetics- informed sociology, they are coming up with interesting findings. For example, people with the gene DRD2 are more likely than people without this gene to abuse alcohol (“The Interaction of…” 2012). Similarly, males who have the gene 9R/9R average fewer sexual partners than people without this gene. The 9R/9R individuals are also less likely to binge drink and more likely to wear seat belts (Guo et al. 2008).

The response of most sociologists to this research is, where is the social? Simply put, the genes don’t determine people’s behavior. Rather, the influence of genes is modified

(continued)

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 57 11/19/15 7:10 AM

58 Chapter 2

Technology in the Global Village 2.7 Explain how technology changes culture and what cultural lag and cultural

leveling are.

The New Technology The gestures, language, values, folkways, and mores that we have discussed—all are part of symbolic (nonmaterial) culture. Culture, as you recall, also has a material aspect: a group’s things, from its houses to its toys. Central to a group’s material culture is its tech- nology. In its simplest sense, technology can be equated with tools. In a broader sense, technology also includes the skills or procedures necessary to make and use those tools.

We can use the term new technology to refer to an emerging technology that has a significant impact on social life. Although people develop minor technologies all the time, most are only slight modifications of existing technologies. Occasionally, however, they develop a technology that makes a major impact on human life. It is primarily to these innovations that the term new technology refers. Five hundred years ago, the new tech- nology was the printing press. For us, the new technology consists of the microchip, computers, satellites, and the Internet.

The sociological significance of technology goes far beyond the tool itself. Technology sets the framework for a group’s nonmaterial culture. It is obvious that if a group’s technology changes, so do the ways people do things. But the effects of technology go far beyond this. Technology also influences how people think and how they relate to one another. An example is gender relations. Through the centuries and throughout the world, it has been the custom (nonmaterial culture) for men to dominate women. Today’s global com- munications (material culture) make this custom more difficult to maintain. For example, when Arab women watch Western television, they observe an unfamiliar freedom in gen- der relations. As these women use e-mail and cell phones to talk about what they have seen, they both convey and create discontent, as well as feelings of sisterhood. These communications motivate some of them to agitate for social change. (If you want to jump ahead and read about an incipient women’s movement in an Arab country, see page 302.)

In today’s world, the long-accepted idea that it is proper to withhold rights on the basis of someone’s sex can no longer be sustained. What usually lies beyond our aware- ness in this revolutionary change is the role of the new technology, which joins the world’s nations into a global communications network.

The changes are so extensive that we can hardly keep up with them. For a glimpse of technology being developed that will affect your life, read the Sociology and the New Technology box on the next page.

Cultural Lag and Cultural Change Three or four generations ago, sociologist William Ogburn (1922/1950) coined the term cultural lag. By this, Ogburn meant that not all parts of a culture change at the same pace. When one part of a culture changes, other parts lag behind.

cultural lag Ogburn’s term for human behavior lagging behind technological innovations

technology in its narrow sense, tools; its broader sense includes the skills or procedures necessary to make and use those tools

new technology the emerging technologies of an era that have a significant impact on social life

by social experiences. On the obvious level, Arabs with the gene DRD2 who live in a society where alcohol is difficult to find are less likely to abuse alcohol than are Americans with this gene who hang around bars. Similarly, subcultures that encourage sexual behavior override the 9R/9R gene. To their surprise, researchers have even found that social experiences can change how genes influence behavior (Sapolsky 2014b).

In Sum To say that genes have an influence on human behav- ior is a far cry from saying that genes determine human behavior,

that we act as we do because of our genes. On the contrary, pigs act like pigs and spiders act like spiders because instincts control their behavior. We humans, in contrast, possess a self and engage in abstract thought. We develop purposes and goals and discuss the reasons that we do things. Unlike pigs and spiders, we are immersed in a world of symbols that we use to consider, reflect, and make reasoned choices. Because we humans are not prison- ers of our genes, we have developed fascinatingly diverse ways of life around the world—which we will be exploring in this text.

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 58 11/19/15 7:10 AM

Culture 59

Ogburn pointed out that a group’s material culture usually changes first, with the nonmaterial culture lagging behind. This leaves the nonmaterial (or symbolic) culture playing a game of catch-up. For example, when we get sick, we can type our symptoms into a computer and get an instant diag- nosis and recommended course of treatment. In some tests, computer programs outperform physicians. Yet our customs have not caught up with our technology, and we continue to visit the doctor’s office.

Sometimes nonmaterial culture never does catch up. We can rigorously hold onto some outmoded form—one that once was needed but that long ago was bypassed by technology. Have you ever won- dered why our “school year” is nine months long, and why we take summers off? For most of us, this is “just the way it is,” and we have never questioned it. But there is more to this custom than meets the eye. In the late 1800s, when uni- versal schooling came about, the school year matched the tech- nology of the time. Most parents were farmers, and for survival they needed their children’s help at the crucial times of plant- ing and harvesting. Today, generations later, when few people

Sociology and the New Technology How Smart Is Your Clothing? “Google Glass” is world famous. Though a bit awkward, it does allow instantaneous communications via the Internet. A tremendous advancement: Eye movements become cursors.

But we have barely touched the surface. Despite its heralded advancements, today’s Google Glass is destined to be a relic of the past, much as computers from the 1980s have become prized museum pieces.

Certainly not many of us want to walk around wearing this monstrosity. Although sleeker, more chic models are in the works, Google Glass remains an awkward device. In contrast, how about wearable computing items that are invisible? Ones that don’t interfere with movement or appearance? They’re on the way.

How about your T-shirt talking to you? Already developed. A company makes one that reports your heart beat, measures your breathing, and tells you how many calories you are burning (Bilton 2014).

How about a wonder bra? No that name was taken long ago. This coming “smart bra,” which will give the wearer feedback about her physical fitness, is yet to be given a unique name.

“Smart textiles,” clothing with sensors woven into them, are already in production. Some predict that within a decade all of our clothing will contain biofeedback sensors. First will

come smart textiles for fitness buffs, then those for people with health problems. From there, smart clothing will go mainstream. The microsensors woven into smart clothing will be so fine that neither the wearer nor anyone else will be aware of them.

Unless the wearer wants someone to be aware, that is. In development is a marvelously strange item that stirs the imagination, a dress called Intimacy. The dress has an opaque fabric that turns transparent when its wearer becomes sexually aroused.

You can see that the term personal computing is likely to gain an entirely different meaning.

“Intimacy” is probably a specialty item that won’t be in huge demand. Or it could indicate that society is on the cusp of another vast change.

We’ll see—in more ways than one.

For Your Consideration → How do you think your life will be different in ten years

because of developments in computing?

→ How do you think society will be different ten years from now because of developments in computing?

The implications of technology go far beyond “the thing,” what you can see, such as this robot that serves food and drinks in a seafood restaurant in China. As technology changes, so do our ideas, values, and relationships.

Language is the basis of human culture. Our new technology makes it easy to talk with people across the globe, something new in human history. This development is changing cultures. Shown here is a Kayapo Indian talking on his cell phone at the National Indigenous Mobilization conference in Brazil.

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 59 11/19/15 7:10 AM

60 Chapter 2

farm and there is no need for the “school year” to be so short, we still live with this cultural lag.

Technology and Cultural Leveling For most of human history, communication was limited and travel was slow. Consequently, in their smaller groups living in relative isolation, people developed highly distinctive ways of life as they responded to the particular situations they faced. The unique characteristics they developed that distinguished one culture from another tended to change little over time. The Tasmanians, who live on a remote island off the coast of Australia, provide an extreme example. For thousands of years, they had no contact with other people. They were so isolated that they did not even know how to make clothing or fire (Edgerton 1992).

Except in such rare instances, humans have always had some contact with other groups. During these contacts, people learned from one another, adopting things they found desirable. In this process, called cultural diffusion, groups are most open to changes in their technology or material culture. They usually are eager, for example, to adopt superior weapons and tools. In remote jungles

in South America, one can find metal cooking pots, steel axes, and even bits of cloth- ing spun in mills in South Carolina. Although the direction of cultural diffusion today is primarily from the West to other parts of the world, cultural diffusion is not a one-way street—as bagels, woks, hammocks, and sushi in the United States attest.

Cultural leveling is occurring rapidly, with some strange twists. These men from an Amazon tribe have just come back from a week hunting in the jungle. They are wearing traditional headdress and using traditional weapons, but you can easily spot things that are jarringly out of place.

cultural diffusion the spread of cultural traits from one group to another; includes both material and nonmaterial cultural traits

Technological advances are now so rapid that there can be cultural gaps between generations.

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 60 11/19/15 7:10 AM

Culture 61

Summary and Review What Is Culture? 2.1 Explain what culture is, how culture provides

orientations to life, and what practicing cultural relativism means.

How do sociologists understand culture?

All human groups possess culture—language, beliefs, values, norms, and material objects that they pass from one generation to the next. material culture consists of objects such as art, buildings, clothing, weapons, and tools. nonmaterial (or symbolic) culture is a group’s ways of thinking and its patterns of behavior. Ideal culture is a group’s ideal values, norms, and goals. real culture is people’s actual behavior, which often falls short of their cultural ideals.

What are cultural relativism and ethnocentrism?

People are ethnocentric; that is, they use their own culture as a yardstick for judging the ways of others. In contrast,

those who embrace cultural relativism try to understand other cultures on those cultures’ own terms.

Components of Symbolic Culture 2.2 know the components of symbolic culture:

gestures, language, values, norms, sanctions, folkways, mores, and taboos; also explain the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

What are the components of nonmaterial culture?

The central component of nonmaterial culture is symbols, anything to which people attach meaning and that they use to communicate with others. Universally, the symbols of nonmaterial culture are gestures, language, values, norms, sanctions, folkways, and mores.

Why is language so significant to culture?

language allows human experience to be goal-directed, cooperative, and cumulative. It also lets humans move beyond

With today’s trade, travel, and communications, cultural diffusion is occurring rapidly. Jet planes have made it possible to journey around the globe in a matter of hours. Daily, we use products from around the world. In the not-so-distant past, a trip from the United States to Africa was so unusual that only a few adventurous people made it, so few that newspapers would herald their feat. Today, hundreds of thousands make the trip each year.

The changes in communication are no less vast. Communication used to be limited to face-to-face speech, written messages that were passed from hand to hand, and visual sig- nals such as smoke or light reflected from mirrors. Despite newspapers and even the tele- graph, people in some parts of the United States did not hear that the Civil War had ended until weeks and even months after it was over. Today’s electronic communications transmit messages across the globe in seconds, and we learn almost instantaneously what is hap- pening on the other side of the world. Reporters travel with U.S. soldiers, and the public is able to view videos of battles as they take place. When Navy Seals executed Osama bin Laden under President Obama’s orders, Obama and Hillary Clinton watched the helicopter land in bin Laden’s compound, listened to reports of the killing, and watched the Seals leave (Schmiddle 2011).

Travel and communication bridge time and space to such an extent that there is almost no “other side of the world” anymore. One result is cultural leveling, a process by which cultures become more and more similar to one another. The globalization of capitalism brings with it both technology and Western culture. Japan, for example, has adopted not only capitalism but also Western forms of dress and music, transforming it into a blend of Western and Eastern cultures.

Cultural leveling is apparent to any international traveler. The golden arches of McDonald’s welcome visitors to Tokyo, Paris, London, Madrid, Moscow, Hong Kong, and Beijing. When I visited a jungle village in India—no electricity, no running water, and so remote that the only entrance was by a footpath—I saw a young man sporting a cap with the Nike emblem.

Although the bridging of geography, time, and culture by electronic signals and the adoption of Western icons do not in and of themselves mark the end of traditional cul- tures, the inevitable result is some degree of cultural leveling. We are producing a blander, less distinctive way of life—U.S. culture with French, Japanese, and Brazilian accents, so to speak. Although the “cultural accent” remains, something vital is lost forever.

cultural leveling the process by which cultures become similar to one another; refers especially to the process by which Western culture is being exported and diffused into other nations

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 61 11/19/15 7:10 AM

62 Chapter 2

the present and share a past, a future, and other common perspectives. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, language even shapes our thoughts and perceptions.

How do values, norms, sanctions, folkways, and mores reflect culture?

All groups have values, standards by which they define what is desirable or undesirable, and norms, expectations (or rules) about behavior. Groups use positive sanctions to show approval of those who follow their norms and negative sanctions to show disapproval of those who violate them. Norms that are not strictly enforced are called folkways, while mores are norms to which groups demand conformity because they reflect core values.

Many Cultural Worlds 2.3 distinguish between subcultures and

countercultures.

How do subcultures and countercultures differ?

A subculture is a group whose values and related behav- iors distinguish its members from the general culture. A counterculture holds some values that stand in opposition to those of the dominant culture.

Values in U.S. Society 2.4 discuss the major u.S. values and explain value

clusters, value contradictions, value clashes, how values are lenses of perception, and ideal versus real culture.

What are some core u.S. values?

Although the United States is a pluralistic society, made up of many groups, each with its own set of values, certain values dominate. These are called core values. Core values do not change without opposition. Some values cluster together to form a larger whole called value clusters. value contradictions (such as equality versus sexism and racism) indicate areas of tension, which are likely points

of social change. Leisure, self-fulfillment, physical fitness, youthfulness, and concern for the environment form an emerging value cluster.

Cultural Universals 2.5 Explain what cultural universals are and why they

do not seem to exist.

do cultural universals exist?

cultural universal refers to a value, norm, or other cul- tural trait that is found in all cultures. Although all human groups have customs concerning cooking, childbirth, funerals, and so on, because these customs differ from one culture to another, there are no cultural universals.

Sociobiology and Human Behavior 2.6 Explain why most sociologists consider genes to be

an inadequate explanation of human behavior.

Why don’t sociologists say that genes control human behavior?

Genes certainly influence human behavior, but the rich diversity of human behavior indicates that culture over- rides genetic influences.

Technology in the Global Village 2.7 Explain how technology changes culture and what

cultural lag and cultural leveling are.

How is technology changing culture?

William Ogburn coined the term cultural lag to describe how a group’s nonmaterial culture lags behind its changing technology. With today’s technological advances in trade, travel, and communications, cultural diffusion is occurring rapidly. This leads to cultural leveling, groups becoming similar as they adopt items from other cultures. Much of the richness of the world’s diverse cultures is being lost in the process.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 2 1. Do you favor ethnocentrism or cultural relativism?

Explain your position.

2. Do you think that the language change in Miami, Florida, indicates the future of the United States? Why or why not?

3. What subculture are you a member of? Why do you think that your group is a subculture and not a counterculture? What is your group’s relationship to the mainstream culture?

M02_HENS5571_13_SE_C02.indd 62 11/19/15 7:10 AM

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 63 11/19/15 7:12 AM

64

Chapter 3

Socialization

Her behavior toward strangers, especially men, was almost that of a wild animal, manifesting much fear and hostility.

Learning Objectives

3.1 Explain how feral, isolated, and institutionalized children help us understand that “society makes us human.” (p. 65)

3.2 Use the ideas and research of Cooley (looking-glass self), Mead (role taking), and Piaget (reasoning) to explain socialization into the self and mind. (p. 70)

3.3 Explain how the development of personality and morality and socialization into emotions are part of how “society makes us human.” (p. 73)

3.4 Discuss how gender messages from the family, peers, and the mass media teach us society’s gender map. (p. 77)

3.5 Explain why the family, the neighborhood, religion, day care, school, peer groups, and the workplace are agents of socialization. (p. 83)

3.6 Explain what total institutions are and how they resocialize people. (p. 88)

3.7 Identify major divisions of the life course and discuss the sociological significance of the life course. (p. 90)

3.8 Understand why we are not prisoners of socialization. (p. 93)

The old man was horrified when he found out. Life never had been good since his daughter lost her hearing when she was just 2 years old. She couldn’t even talk—just fluttered her hands around trying to tell him things.

Over the years, he had gotten used to this. But now . . . he shuddered at the thought of her being pregnant. No one would be willing to marry her; he knew that. And the neighbors, their tongues would never stop wagging. Everywhere he went, he could hear people talking behind his back.

If only his wife were still alive, maybe she could come up with something. What should he do? He couldn’t just kick his daughter out into the street.

After the baby was born, the old man tried to shake his feelings, but they wouldn’t let loose. Isabelle was a pretty name, but every time he looked at the baby he felt sick to his stomach.

He hated doing it, but there was no way out. His daughter and her baby would have to live in the attic.

Unfortunately, this is a true story. Isabelle was discovered in Ohio in 1938 when she was about 6-and-a-half years old, living in a dark room with her deaf-mute mother. Isabelle couldn’t talk, but she did use gestures to communicate with her mother. An inadequate diet and lack of sunshine had given Isabelle a disease called rickets.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 64 11/19/15 7:12 AM

Socialization 65

[Her legs] were so bowed that as she stood erect the soles of her shoes came nearly flat together, and she got about with a skittering gait. Her behavior toward strangers, espe- cially men, was almost that of a wild animal, manifesting much fear and hostility. In lieu of speech she made only a strange croaking sound. (Davis 1940/2016)

When the newspapers reported this case, sociologist Kingsley Davis decided to find out what had happened to Isabelle after her discovery. We’ll come back to that later, but first let’s use the case of Isabelle to gain insight into human nature.

Society Makes Us Human 3.1 Explain how feral, isolated, and institutionalized children help us understand

that “society makes us human.”

“What do you mean, society makes us human?” is probably what you are asking. “That sounds ridiculous. I was born a human.” The meaning of this statement will become more apparent as we get into the chapter. Let’s start by considering what is human about human nature. How much of a person’s characteristics comes from “nature” (heredity) and how much from “nurture” (the social environment, contact with others)? Experts are trying to answer the nature–nurture question by studying identical twins who were separated at birth and were reared in different environments, such as those discussed in the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

Another way is to examine children who have had little human contact. Let’s con- sider such children.

Feral Children The naked child was found in the forest, walking on all fours, eating grass and lapping water from the river. When he saw a small animal, he pounced on it. Growling, he ripped at it with his teeth. Tearing chunks from the body, he chewed them ravenously.

This is an accurate description of reports that have come in over the centuries. Sup- posedly, these feral (wild) children could not speak; they bit, scratched, growled, and walked on all fours. They drank by lapping water, ate grass, tore eagerly at raw meat, and showed insensitivity to pain and cold.

Why am I even mentioning stories that sound so exaggerated? Consider what hap- pened in 1798. In that year, such a child was found in the forests of Aveyron, France. “The wild boy of Aveyron,” as he became known, would have been written off as another folk myth, except that French scientists took the child to a laboratory and stud- ied him. Like the feral children in the earlier informal reports, this child gave no indi- cation of feeling the cold. Most startling, though, when he saw a small animal, the boy would growl, pounce on it, and devour it uncooked. Even today, the scientists’ detailed reports make fascinating reading (Itard 1962).

Ever since I read Itard’s account of this boy, I’ve been fascinated by the seemingly fantastic possibility that animals could rear human children. In 2002, I received a report from a contact in Cambodia that a feral child had been found in the jungle. When I had the opportunity the following year to visit the child and interview his caregivers, I grabbed it. The boy’s photo is to the right.

If we were untouched by society, would we be like feral children? By nature, would our behavior be like that of wild animals? This is the sociological question. Unable to study feral children, sociologists have studied isolated children, like Isabelle in our opening vignette. Let’s see what we can learn from them.

One of the reasons I went to Cambodia was to interview a feral child—the boy shown here—who supposedly had been raised by monkeys. When I arrived at the remote location where the boy was living, I was disappointed to find that the story was only partially true. When the boy was about two months old, the Khmer Rouge killed his parents and abandoned him. Months later, villagers shot the female monkey who was carrying the baby. Not quite a feral child—but Mathay is the closest I’ll ever come to one.

social environment the entire human environment, including interaction with others

feral children children assumed to have been raised by animals, in the wilderness, isolated from humans

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 65 11/19/15 7:12 AM

66 Chapter 3

Isolated Children What can isolated children tell us about human nature? We can first conclude that humans have no natural language, for Isabelle in our opening vignette and others like her are unable to speak.

But maybe Isabelle was mentally impaired. Perhaps she simply was unable to progress through the usual stages of development. It certainly looked that way—she scored practi- cally zero on her first intelligence test. But after a few months of language training, Isabelle

Down-to-Earth Sociology Heredity or Environment? The Case of Jack and Oskar, Identical Twins Identical twins are almost identical in their genetic makeup. They are the result of one fertilized egg dividing to produce two embryos. (Some differences can occur as genetic codes are copied.) If heredity determines personality—or attitudes, temperament, skills, and intelligence—then identical twins should be identical, or almost so, not only in their looks but also in these characteristics.

The fascinating case of Jack and Oskar helps us unravel this mystery. From their experience, we can see the far-reaching effects of the environment—how social experiences override biology.

Jack Yufe and Oskar Stohr are identical twins. Born in 1932 to a Roman Catholic mother and a Jewish father, they were separated as babies after their parents divorced. Jack was reared in Trinidad by his father. There, he learned loyalty to Jews and hatred of Hitler and the Nazis. After the war, Jack and his father moved to Israel. When he was 17, Jack joined a kibbutz and later served in the Israeli army.

Oskar’s upbringing was a mirror image of Jack’s. Oskar was reared in Czechoslovakia by his mother’s mother, who was a strict Catholic. When Oskar was a toddler, Hitler annexed this area of Czechoslovakia, and Oskar learned to love Hitler and to hate Jews. He joined the Hitler Youth. Like the Boy Scouts, this organization was designed to instill healthy living, love of the outdoors, friendships, and patriotism—but this one added loyalty to Hitler and hatred for Jews.

In 1954, the two brothers met. It was a short meeting, and Jack had been warned not to tell Oskar that they were Jews. Twenty-five years later, in 1979, when they were 47 years old, social scientists at the University of Minnesota brought them together again. These researchers figured

that because Jack and Oskar had the same genes, any differences they showed would have to be the result of their environment—their different social experiences.

Not only did Jack and Oskar hold different attitudes toward the war, Hitler, and Jews, but their basic orientations to life were also different. In their politics, Jack was liberal, while Oskar was more conservative. Jack was a workaholic, while Oskar enjoyed leisure. And, as you can predict, Jack was proud of being a Jew. Oskar, who by this time knew that he was a Jew, wouldn’t even mention it.

That would seem to settle the matter. But there were other things. As children, Jack and Oskar had both excelled at sports but had difficulty with math. They also had the same rate of speech, and both liked sweet liqueur and spicy foods. Strangely, each flushed the toilet both before

and after using it, and they each enjoyed startling people by sneezing in crowded elevators.

For Your Consideration Heredity or environment? How much influence does each have? The question is far from settled, but at this point it seems fair to conclude that the limits of certain physical and mental abilities are established by heredity (such as ability at sports and aptitude for mathematics), while attitudes are the result of the environment. Basic temperament, though, seems to be inherited. Although the answer is still fuzzy, we can put it this way: For some parts of life, the blueprint is drawn by heredity; but even here the environment can redraw those lines. For other parts, the individual is a blank slate, and it is up to the environment to determine what is written on that slate.

SOURCES: Based on Begley 1979; Chen 1979; Wright 1995; Segal and Hershberger 2005; Ledger 2009; Johnson et al. 2009; Segal and Mulligan 2014.

The relative influence of heredity and the environment in human behavior has fascinated and plagued researchers. Twins intrigue researchers, especially twins who were separated at birth.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 66 11/19/15 7:12 AM

Socialization 67

was able to speak in short sentences. In just a year, she could write a few words, do simple addition, and retell stories after hearing them. Seven months later, she had a vocabulary of almost 2,000 words. In just two years, Isabelle reached the intellectual level that is normal for her age. She then went on to school, where she was “bright, cheerful, energetic . . . and participated in all school activities as normally as other children” (Davis 1940/2016).

As discussed in the previous chapter, language is the key to human development. Without language, people have no mechanism for developing thought and communi- cating their experiences. Unlike animals, humans have no instincts that take the place of language. If an individual lacks language, he or she lives in a world of internal silence, without shared ideas, lacking connections to others.

Without language, there can be no culture—no shared way of life—and culture is the key to what people become. Each of us possesses a biological heritage, but this heritage does not determine specific behaviors, attitudes, or values. It is our culture that superimposes the specifics of what we become onto our biological heritage.

Institutionalized Children Other than language, what else is required for a child to develop into what we consider a healthy, balanced, intelligent human being? We find part of the answer in two intriguing experiments.

ThE OrphanagE ExpErimEnT in ThE UniTEd STaTES Back in the 1930s, orphanages were common because parents were more likely than now to die before their children were grown. Children reared in orphanages tended to have low IQs. “Common sense” (which we noted in Chapter 1 is unreliable) made it seem obvious that their low intelligence was because of poor brains (“They’re just born that way”). But two psycholo- gists, H. M. Skeels and H. B. Dye (1939), began to suspect a social cause.

Listen to Skeels (1966) describe a “good” orphanage in Iowa, one where he and Dye were consultants:

Until about six months, they were cared for in the infant nursery. The babies were kept in standard hospital cribs that often had protective sheeting on the sides, thus effectively limiting visual stimulation; no toys or other objects were hung in the infants’ line of vision. Human interactions were limited to busy nurses who, with the speed born of practice and necessity, changed diapers or bedding, bathed and medicated the infants, and fed them efficiently with propped bottles.

“Maybe it isn’t the children’s brains,” thought Skeels and Dye. “It could be the absence of stimulating social interaction.” To test their controversial idea, they left a con- trol group of twelve infants at the orphanage and placed thirteen infants in an institution for low IQ women. They assigned each of these infants, then about 19 months old, to a separate ward of women who were between the ages of 18 and 50 but whose mental age was just 5 to 12. The women enjoyed taking care of the infants’ physical needs— diapering, feeding, and so on—and they also loved the children. They played with them, cuddled them, and showered them with attention. They even competed to see which ward would have “its baby” walking or talking first. In each ward, one woman became particularly attached to the child and figuratively adopted him or her:

As a consequence, an intense one-to-one adult–child relationship developed, which was supplemented by the less intense but frequent interactions with the other adults in the environment. Each child had some one person with whom he [or she] was identi- fied and who was particularly interested in him [or her] and his [or her] achievements. (Skeels 1966)

Two-and-a-half years later, Skeels and Dye tested all the children’s intelligence. Their findings are startling: Those who were cared for by the women in the institution gained an average of 28 IQ points while those who remained in the orphanage lost 30 points.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 67 11/19/15 7:12 AM

68 Chapter 3

A child in an orphanage in Juba, Sudan. The treatment of this child is likely to affect his ability to reason and to function as an adult.

What happened after these children were grown? Did these initial differences matter? Twenty-one years later, Skeels and Dye did a follow-up study. The

twelve in the control group, those who had remained in the orphanage, averaged less than a third-grade education. Four still lived in state

institutions, and the others held low-level jobs. Only two had mar- ried. The thirteen in the experimental group, those cared for by

the institutionalized women, had an average education of twelve grades (about normal for that period). Five had completed

one or more years of college. One had even gone to graduate school. Eleven had married. All thirteen were self-supporting or were homemakers (Skeels 1966). Apparently, “high intelli- gence” depends on early, close relations with other humans.

ThE OrphanagE ExpErimEnT in rOmania Under Romania’s communist regime, tens of thousands of

unwanted children were placed in government orphanages. After the people rose up against the hated dictator, Nicolae

Ceausescu, and executed him and his wife in 1989, people were horrified when they learned how extensively these children had

been neglected and abused. In an experiment reminiscent of that by Skeels and Dye, doctors randomly

divided the 2-year-old orphans in Bucharest into experimental and control groups. The sixty-nine  children in the experimental group were placed in foster families, while the sixty-seven 2-year-olds in the control group remained in the orphanages. When they tested the children six years later, the children who had been placed in foster care were better adjusted socially. They even had more brain cells than the children who remained in the orphanage (Hamilton 2014; Bick et al. 2015).

Note the integrated looping—how social interaction influences physical develop- ment, which, in turn, influences social interaction. Attention from caring adults, their reassurances, and living with security apparently allow the brain to get “wired” in ways that produce more secure, caring people.

Timing and hUman dEvElOpmEnT The longer that children lack stimulating interaction, the more difficulty they have intellectually (Meese 2005; Li et al. 2013). Let’s consider a classic, heart-wrenching case. From it, you can see how important timing is in the development of “human” characteristics.

Genie, a child in California, had been locked in a small room and tied to a potty chair since she was 20 months old. She was discovered when she was 13 years old:

Apparently, Genie’s father (70 years old when Genie was discovered in 1970) hated children. He probably had caused the death of two of Genie’s siblings. Her 50-year-old mother was partially blind and frightened of her husband. Genie could not speak, did not know how to chew, was unable to stand upright, and could not straighten her hands and legs. On intelligence tests, she scored at the level of a 1-year-old. After intensive training, Genie learned to walk and to put garbled, three-word sentences together. Genie’s lan- guage remained primitive as she grew up. She would take anyone’s property if it appealed to her, and she went to the bathroom wherever she wanted. At the age of 21, she was sent to a home for adults who cannot live alone. (Pines 1981)

in SUm From the research on institutionalized and deprived children, we can conclude that the basic human traits of intelligence and the ability to establish close bonds with others depend on early interaction with other humans. From Genie’s pathetic story, it also seems that children must learn language and experience human bonding before age 13 if they are to develop normal intelligence and the ability to be sociable and follow social norms.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 68 11/19/15 7:12 AM

Socialization 69

Deprived Animals Finally, let’s consider animals that have been deprived of normal inter- action. In a series of experiments with rhesus monkeys, psychologists Harry and Margaret Harlow demonstrated the importance of early learning. The Harlows (1962) raised baby monkeys in isolation. As shown in the photo on this page, they gave each monkey two artifi- cial mothers. One “mother” was only a wire frame with a wooden head, but it did have a nipple from which the baby could nurse. The frame of the other “mother,” which had no bottle, was covered with soft terrycloth. To obtain food, the baby monkeys nursed at the wire frame.

When the Harlows (1965) frightened the baby monkeys with a mechanical bear or dog, the babies did not run to the wire frame “mother.” Instead, they would cling pathetically to their terrycloth “mother.” The Harlows concluded that infant–mother bonding is not the result of feeding but, rather, of what they termed “intimate physical con- tact.” To most of us, this phrase means cuddling.

The monkeys raised in isolation could not adjust to monkey life. Placed with other monkeys when they were grown, they didn’t know how to partici- pate in “monkey interaction”—to play and to engage in pretend fights—and the other monkeys rejected them. Despite their futile attempts, they didn’t even know how to have sexual intercourse. The experimenters designed a special device that allowed some females to become pregnant. Their isola- tion, however, made them “ineffective, inadequate, and brutal mothers.” They “struck their babies, kicked them, or crushed the babies against the cage floor.”

In one of their many experiments, the Harlows isolated baby monkeys for different lengths of time and then put them in with other monkeys. Monkeys that had been isolated for shorter periods (about three months) were able to adjust to normal monkey life. They learned to play and engage in pretend fights. Those isolated for six months or more, however, couldn’t make the adjustment, and the other monkeys rejected them. In other words, the longer the period of isolation, the more dif- ficult its effects are to overcome. In addition, there seems to be a critical learning stage: If this stage is missed, it may be impossible to compensate for what has been lost. This seems to have been the case with Genie.

Because humans are not monkeys, we must be careful about extrapolating from ani- mal studies to human behavior. The Harlow experiments, however, support what we know about children who are reared in isolation.

In Sum Society Makes Us Human Babies do not develop “naturally” into social adults. If children are reared in isolation, their bodies grow, but they become lit- tle more than big animals. Without the concepts that language provides, they can’t grasp relationships between people (the “connections” we call brother, sister, parent, friend, teacher, and so on). And without warm, friendly interactions, they can’t bond with others. They don’t become “friendly” or cooperate with others. In short, it is through human contact that people learn to be members of the human community. This process by which we learn the ways of society (or of particular groups), called socialization, is what sociologists have in mind when they say, “Society makes us human.”

To add to our understanding of how society makes us human, let’s look at how we develop our self-concept, our ability to “take the role of others,” and our ability to reason.

Like humans, monkeys need interaction to thrive. Those raised in isolation are unable to interact with other monkeys. In this photograph, we see one of the monkeys described in the text. Purposefully frightened by the experimenter, the monkey has taken refuge in the soft terrycloth draped over an artificial “mother.”

socialization the process by which people learn the characteristics of their group—the knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, norms, and actions thought appropriate for them

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 69 11/19/15 7:12 AM

70 Chapter 3

Socialization into the Self and Mind 3.2 Use the ideas and research of Cooley (looking-glass self), mead (role

taking), and piaget (reasoning) to explain socialization into the self and mind.

When you were born, you had no ideas. You didn’t know that you were a son or daughter. You didn’t even know that you were a he or she. How did you develop a self, your image of who you are? And how did you develop your ability to reason? Let’s find out.

Cooley and the Looking-Glass Self About a hundred years ago, Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929), a symbolic interactionist who taught at the University of Michigan, concluded that producing a self is an essential part of how society makes us human. He said that our sense of self develops from interaction with others. To describe the process by which this unique aspect of “humanness” develops, Cooley (1902) coined the term looking-glass self.

He summarized this idea in the following couplet:

Each to each a looking-glass Reflects the other that doth pass.

The looking-glass self contains three elements:

1. We imagine how we appear to those around us. For example, we may think that others perceive us as witty or dull.

2. We interpret others’ reactions. We come to conclusions about how others evaluate us. Do they like us for being witty? Do they dislike us for being dull?

3. We develop a self-concept. How we interpret others’ reactions to us frames our feelings and ideas about ourselves. A favorable reflection in this social mir- ror leads to a positive self-concept; a negative reflection leads to a negative self-concept.

in SUm Although the self-concept begins in childhood, it is never a finished product. All of our lives, we monitor how others react to us. Whether we are accurate in how we think others evaluate us does not change the process. Even if we grossly misinterpret how others think about us, those misjudgments become part of our self-concept. Because we are always monitoring others’ reactions to us, we are continually modifying the self, even in our old age.

Mead and Role Taking Another symbolic interactionist, George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), who taught at the University of Chicago, pointed out how important play is in developing a self. As we play with others, we learn to take the role of the other. That is, we learn to put our- selves in someone else’s shoes—to understand how someone else feels and thinks and to anticipate how that person will act.

This doesn’t happen overnight. We develop this ability over a period of years (Mead 1934; Denzin 2007). Psychologist John Flavel (1968) asked 8- and 14-year-olds to explain a board game to children who were blindfolded and also to others who were not. The 14-year-olds gave more detailed instructions to those who were blindfolded, but the 8-year-olds gave the same instructions to everyone. The younger children could not yet take the role of the other, while the older children could.

As we develop this ability, at first we can take only the roles of significant others, individuals who significantly influence our lives, such as parents or siblings.

self the unique human capacity of being able to see ourselves “from the outside”; the views we internalize of how we think others see us

looking-glass self a term coined by Charles Horton Cooley to refer to the process by which our self develops through internalizing others’ reactions to us

significant other an individual who significantly influences someone else

taking the role of the other putting yourself in someone else’s shoes; understanding how someone else feels and thinks, so you anticipate how that person will act

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 70 11/19/15 7:12 AM

Socialization 71

By  assuming their roles during play, such as dressing up in our parents’ clothing, we cultivate the ability to put ourselves in the place of significant others.

As our self gradually develops, we internalize the expectations of more and more people. Our ability to take the role of others eventually extends to being able to take the role of “the group as a whole.” Mead used the term generalized other to refer to our perception of how people in general think of us.

Taking the role of others is essential if we are to become cooperative members of human groups— whether they are family, friends, or co-workers. This ability allows us to modify our behavior by anticipat- ing how others will react—something Genie never learned.

As Figure 3.1 illustrates, we go through three stages as we learn to take the role of the other:

1. Imitation. Under the age of 3, we can only mimic others. We do not yet have a sense of self separate from others, and we can only imitate people’s gestures and words. (This stage is actually not role taking, but it prepares us for it.)

2. Play. During the second stage, from the ages of about 3 to 6, we pretend to take the roles of specific people. We might pretend that we are a firefighter, a wrestler, a nurse, Supergirl, Spider-Man, a princess, and so on. We like costumes at this stage and enjoy dressing up in our parents’ clothing or tying a towel around our neck to “become” Superman or Wonder Woman.

3. Team Games. This third stage, organized play, or team games, begins roughly when we enter school. The significance for the self is that to play these games, we must be able to take multiple roles. Baseball was one of Mead’s favorite examples. To play baseball, each player must be able to take the role of any other player. It isn’t enough that players know their own role; they also must be able to anticipate what everyone else on the field will do when the ball is hit or thrown.

Mead also said that the self has two parts, the “I” and the “me.” The “I” is the self as subject, the active, spontaneous, creative part of the self. In contrast, the “me” is the self as object. It is made up of attitudes we internalize from our interactions with others. Mead chose these pronouns because in English, “I” is the active agent, as in “I shoved him,” while “me” is the object of action, as in “He shoved me.” Mead stressed that we are not passive in the socialization process. We are not like robots, with pro- grammed software shoved into us. Rather, our “I” actively evaluates the reactions of others and organizes them into a unified whole. Mead added that the “I” even moni- tors the “me,” fine-tuning our ideas and attitudes to help us better meet what others expect of us.

in SUm In studying these details, be careful not to miss the main point, which some find startling: Both our self and our mind are social products. Mead stressed that we can- not think without symbols. But where do these symbols come from? Only from soci- ety, which gives us our symbols by giving us language. If society did not provide the symbols, we would not be able to think and so would not possess a self-concept or that entity we call the mind. The self and mind, then, like language, are products of society.

Mead analyzed taking the role of the other as an essential part of learning to be a full-fledged member of society. At first, we are able to take the role only of significant others, as this child is doing. Later we develop the capacity to take the role of the generalized other, which is essential not only for cooperation but also for the control of antisocial desires.

Figure 3.1 How We Learn to Take the Role of the Other: Mead’s Three Stages

Stage 1: Imitation Children under age 3

No sense of self Imitate others

Stage 2: Play Ages 3 to 6

Play “pretend” others (princess, Spider-Man, etc.)

Stage 3: Team Games After about age 6 or 7

Team games     (“organized play”)

Learn to take multiple roles

SOURCE: By the author.

generalized other the norms, values, attitudes, and expectations of people “in general”; the child’s ability to take the role of the generalized other is a significant step in the development of a self

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 71 11/19/15 7:12 AM

72 Chapter 3

Piaget and the Development of Reasoning The development of the mind—specifically, how we learn to reason—was studied in detail by Jean Piaget (1896–1980). This Swiss psychologist noticed that when young children take intelligence tests, they often give similar wrong answers. This set Piaget to thinking that the children might be using some consistent, but incorrect, reasoning. It might even indicate that children go through some natural process as they learn how to reason.

Stimulated by this intriguing possibility, Piaget set up a laboratory where he could give children of different ages problems to solve (Piaget 1950, 1954; Flavel et al. 2002). After years of testing, Piaget concluded that children go through a natural process as they develop their ability to reason. This process has four stages. (If you mentally substi- tute “reasoning” or “reasoning skills” for the term operational as you review these stages, Piaget’s findings will be easier to understand.)

1. The sensorimotor stage (from birth to about age 2). During this stage, our understanding is limited to direct contact—sucking, touching, listening, looking. We aren’t able to “think.” During the first part of this stage, we do not even know that our bodies are separate from the environment. Indeed, we have yet to discover that we have toes. Neither can we recognize cause and effect. That is, we do not know that our actions cause something to happen.

2. The preoperational stage (from about age 2 to age 7).

During this stage, we develop the ability to use symbols. However, we do not yet understand common concepts such as size, speed, or causation. Although we are learning to count, we do not really understand what numbers mean.

3. The concrete operational stage (from about age 7 to age 12).

Although our reasoning abilities are more developed, they remain concrete. We can now understand numbers, size, causation, and speed, and we are able to take the role of the other. We can even play team games. Unless we have concrete examples, however, we are unable to talk about concepts such as truth, honesty, or justice. We can explain why Jane’s answer was a lie, but we cannot describe what truth itself is.

4. The formal operational stage (after the age of about 12).

We now are capable of abstract thinking. We can talk about concepts, come to conclusions based on general principles, and use rules to solve abstract problems.

To help his students understand the term generalized other, Mead used baseball as an illustration. Why are team sports and organized games excellent examples to use in explaining this concept?

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 72 11/19/15 7:12 AM

Socialization 73

Jean Piaget in his office.

During this stage, we are likely to become young philosophers (Kagan 1984). If we were shown a photo of a slave during our concrete operational stage, we might have said, “That’s wrong!” Now at the formal operational stage we are likely to add, “If our country was founded on equality, how could anyone own slaves?”

Global Aspects of the Self and Reasoning Cooley’s conclusions about the looking-glass self appear to be true for everyone around the world. So do Mead’s conclusions about role taking and the mind and self as social products, although researchers are find- ing that the self may develop earlier than Mead indicated. Piaget’s theory is also being refined (Burman 2013). Although children everywhere begin with the concrete and move to the abstract, researchers have found that the stages are not as distinct as Piaget concluded. The ages at which individ- uals enter the stages also differ from one person to another (Flavel et al. 2002). Even during the sensorimotor stage, for example, children show early signs of reasoning, which may indicate an innate ability that is wired into the brain.

Interestingly, some people seem to get stuck in the concreteness of the third stage and never reach the fourth stage of abstract thinking (Kohlberg and Gilligan 1971; Suizzo 2000). College, for example, nur- tures the fourth stage, and people with this experience apparently have more ability for abstract thought. Social experiences, then, can modify these stages.

Learning Personality, Morality, and Emotions 3.3 Explain how the development of personality and morality and socialization into

emotions are part of how “society makes us human.”

As you know so well, our personality, morality, and emotions are also vital aspects of who we are. Let’s look at how we learn these essential aspects of our being.

Freud and the Development of Personality As the mind and the self develop, so does the personality. Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) developed a theory of the origin of personality that had a major impact on Western thought. Freud, a physician in Vienna in the early 1900s, founded psychoanalysis, a tech- nique for treating emotional problems through long-term exploration of the subcon- scious mind. Let’s look at his theory.

Freud believed that personality consists of three elements. Each child is born with the first element, an id. This was Freud’s term for inborn drives that cause us to seek self-gratification. The pleasure-seeking id operates throughout life. It demands the immediate fulfillment of basic needs: food, safety, attention, sex, and so on. The id of the newborn is evident in its cries of hunger or pain.

The id’s drive for immediate gratification, however, runs into a roadblock: primarily the needs of other people, especially those of the parents. To adapt to these constraints, a second component of the personality emerges, which Freud called the ego. The ego is the balancing force between the id and the demands of society that suppress it. The ego also

id Freud’s term for our inborn basic drives

ego Freud’s term for a balancing force between the id and the demands of society

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 73 11/19/15 7:12 AM

74 Chapter 3

serves to balance the id and the superego, the third component of the personality, more commonly called the conscience.

The superego represents culture within us, the norms and val- ues we internalize from our social groups. As the moral component of the personality, the superego provokes feelings of guilt or shame when we break social rules or pride and self-satisfaction when we follow them.

According to Freud, when the id gets out of hand, we fol- low our desires for pleasure and break society’s norms. When the superego gets out of hand, we become overly rigid in follow- ing those norms and end up wearing a straitjacket of rules that can make our lives miserable. The ego, the balancing force, tries to prevent either the superego or the id from dominating. In the emotionally healthy individual, the ego succeeds in balancing these conflicting demands of the id and the superego. In the mal- adjusted individual, the ego fails to control the conflict between the id and the superego. Either the id or the superego domi- nates this person, leading to internal confusion and problem behaviors.

SOCiOlOgiCal EvalUaTiOn Sociologists appreciate Freud’s emphasis on socialization—his assertion that the social

group into which we are born transmits norms and values that restrain our biolog- ical drives. Sociologists, however, object to the view that inborn and subconscious motivations are the primary reasons for human behavior. This denies the central principle of sociology: that factors such as social class (income, education, and occu- pation) and people’s roles in groups underlie their behavior (Epstein 1988; Bush and Simmons 1990).

Feminist sociologists have been especially critical of Freud. Although what I just summarized applies to both females and males, Freud assumed that “male” is “ normal.” He even referred to females as inferior, castrated males (Chodorow 1990; Gerhard 2000). It is obvious that sociologists need to continue to research how we develop personality.

Kohlberg and the Development of Morality If you have observed young children, you know that they want immediate gratification and show little or no concern for others. (“Mine!” a 2-year-old will shout, as she grabs a toy from another child.) Yet, at a later age, this same child will be considerate of others and try to be fair in her play. How does this change happen?

KOhlbErg’S ThEOry Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1975, 1984, 1986; Reed 2008) concluded that we go through a sequence of stages as we develop moral- ity. Building on Piaget’s work, he found that children start in the amoral stage I just described. For them, there is no right or wrong, just personal needs to be satisfied. From about ages 7 to 10, children are in what Kohlberg called a preconventional stage. They have learned rules, and they follow them to stay out of trouble. They view right and wrong as what pleases or displeases their parents, friends, and teachers. Their concern is to get rewards and to avoid punishment. At about age 10, they enter the conventional stage. During this period, morality means following the norms and values they have learned. Then comes the postconventional stage: People are able to reflect on abstract principles of right and wrong and judge people’s behavior according to these principles.

Shown here is Sigmund Freud in 1931 as he poses for a sculptor in Vienna, Austria. Although Freud was one of the most influential theorists of the twentieth century, most of his ideas have been discarded.

superego Freud’s term for the conscience; the internalized norms and values of our social groups

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 74 11/19/15 7:12 AM

Socialization 75

CriTiCiSmS Of KOhlbErg To test Kohlberg’s theory, researchers checked how it applies in different cultures. They found that the preconventional and conventional stages apply around the world. Most societies, though, do not have the postconven- tional stage of universal reasoning. This stage appears to be mostly a Western concept (Jensen 2009). Apparently, there is no universal, abstract way of figuring what is moral. Instead, different cultures have their own ways to determine morality, and each teaches its members to use its norms in deciding what is moral.

rESEarCh wiTh babiES Researchers have developed ingenious experiments to see if babies have a morality (Bloom 2010; Hamlin and Wynn 2011). In one experiment, they showed babies a puppet that helps another puppet and one that interferes with that pup- pet. They found that babies—even under 1 year of age—prefer the “good” puppet and want the “bad” puppet punished. From these experiments, some draw the intriguing conclusion that we are born with a basic morality and a desire to punish those who break our moral codes. Others suggest that the experiments are flawed (Scarf et al. 2012). More research should eventually settle the question.

ThE CUlTUral rElaTiviTy Of mOraliTy If babies do have an inborn sense of fairness, it indicates that, like language, morality is a capacity hardwired in the brain. Just as society lays a particular language onto the child’s linguistic capacity, so society lays its particular ideas of what is moral onto the child’s moral capacity. As languages differ around the world, so do moralities. When people violate whatever morality they have learned, it arouses the emotions of guilt and shame. Sociologists are studying how people’s sense of identity is connected to morality and these emotions (Stets and Carter 2012).

Let’s turn to how we learn emotions, another essential element of who we are as humans.

Socialization into Emotions Like our mind, personality, and morality, our emotions also reflect our socialization (Hochschild 2008; Stets 2012). Let’s see why.

glObal EmOTiOnS At first, it may look as though socialization is not relevant to our emotions, that we simply express feelings that everyone has. The research of Paul Ekman, a psychologist, seems to support this idea. After studying emotions in several countries, Ekman (1980) found that everyone experiences six basic emotions: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. Ekman also found that people show the same facial expressions when they feel these emotions. A person from Peru, for example, can tell from just the look on an American’s face that she is angry, disgusted, or fearful, and she can tell from the Peruvian’s face that he is happy, sad, or surprised. Because we all show the same facial expressions when we experience these six emotions, Ekman concluded that they are hardwired into our biology.

A study of facial expressions at the Paralympics supports this observation ( Matsumoto and Willingham 2009). Upon learning if they had won or lost, people who were blind from birth showed the same facial expressions as those of sighted people, something they could not have learned.

ExprESSing EmOTiOnS: “gEndEr rUlES.” What, then, does sociology have to do with emotions? If we have universal facial expressions to express our emotions, then this is biology. Facial expressions, however, are only one way by which we show our feelings. We also use our bodies, voices, and gestures.

Jane and Sushana have been best friends since high school. They were hardly ever apart until Sushana married and moved to another state a year ago. Jane has been waiting eagerly at the arrival gate for Sushana’s flight, which has been delayed. When Sushana exits, she and Jane hug one another, giving out “squeals of glee” and even jumping a bit.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 75 11/19/15 7:12 AM

76 Chapter 3

whaT wE fEEl

Joan, a U.S. woman who had been married for seven years, had no children. When she finally gave birth and the doctor handed her a healthy girl, she was almost overcome with joy. Tafadzwa, in Zimbabwe, had been married for seven years and had no children. When the doctor handed her a healthy girl, she was almost overcome with sadness.

You can easily understand why the U.S. woman felt happy, but why did the woman in Zimbabwe feel sad? The effects of socialization on our emotions go much deeper than guiding how, where, and when we express our feelings. Socialization also affects what we feel (Clark 1997). In Zimbabwe culture, to not give birth to a male child lowers a woman’s social status. It is even considered a good reason for her husband to divorce her (Horwitz and Wakefield 2007:43).

rESEarCh nEEdEd Ekman identified only six emotions as universal in facial expres- sion, but I suspect there are more. It could be that the emotions of confusion, despair, disgust, helplessness, and shock also produce similar facial expressions around the world. This is a hypothesis, and we need cross-cultural research to find out whether the facial expressions of these emotions are universal. We also need more research into how culture guides people in how they express their feelings, even in what they feel—and how these might differ from one culture to another as well as by age, gender, social class, and race–ethnicity.

What emotions are these people expressing? Are these emotions global? Is their way of expressing them universal?

If you couldn’t tell from their names that these were women, you could tell from their behavior. To express delight, U.S. women are allowed to give “out squeals of glee” in public places and to jump as they hug. In contrast, in the same circumstances, U.S. men are expected to shake hands or to give a brief hug. If they gave “squeals of glee,” they would be violating fundamental “feeling rules” based on gender.

ThE ExTEnT Of “fEEling rUlES.” Not only do the norms about how we express our feelings change with gender, but “feeling rules” are also based on culture, social class, relationships, and settings. Consider culture. Two close Japanese friends who meet after a long separation don’t shake hands or hug—they bow. Two Arab men will kiss. Social class is so significant that it, too, cuts across other lines, even gender. Upon seeing a friend after a long absence, upper-class women and men are likely to be more reserved in expressing their delight than are lower-class women and men. Relationships also make a big difference. We express our feelings more openly if we are with close friends, more guardedly if we are at a staff meeting with the corporate CEO. The setting, then, is also important, with different settings having different “rules” about emotions. As you know, the emotions you can express at a rock concert differ considerably from those you express in a classroom. If you think about your childhood, you will realize that a good part of your early socialization centered on learning your culture’s feeling rules.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 76 11/19/15 7:13 AM

Socialization 77

Society within Us: The Self and Emotions as Social Control Much of our socialization is intended to turn us into conforming members of society. Socialization into the self and emotions is essential in this process, for both the self and our emotions mold our behavior. Although we like to think that we are “free,” consider for a moment some of the factors that influence how you act: the expectations of your friends and parents; of neighbors and teachers; classroom norms and college rules; city, state, and federal laws. For example, if in a moment of intense frustration or out of a devilish desire to shock people, you wanted to tear off your clothes and run naked down the street, what would stop you?

The answer is your socialization—society within you. Your experiences in society have resulted in a self that thinks along certain lines and feels particular emotions. This helps to keep you in line. Thoughts such as “Would I get kicked out of school?” and “What would my friends (parents) think if they found out?” represent an awareness of the self in relationship to others. So does the desire to avoid feelings of shame and embarrassment. Your social mirror, then—the result of your being socialized into a self and emotions— sets up effective internal controls over your behavior. In fact, socialization into self and emotions is so effective that some people feel embarrassed just thinking about running naked in public!

in SUm Socialization is essential for our development as human beings. From our interaction with others, we learn how to think, reason, and feel. The net result is the shaping of our behavior—including our thinking, morality, and emotions—according to cultural standards. This is what sociologists mean when they refer to society within us.

Do you remember how we began this chapter—that society makes us human? Socialization into emotions is part of this process.

Socialization into Gender 3.4 discuss how gender messages from the family, peers, and the mass media teach

us society’s gender map.

As we just saw with emotions and gender, socialization into gender is part of the way that society turns us into certain types of people—and sets up deep controls over us. Let’s get a glimpse of how this happens.

Learning the Gender Map For a child, society is unexplored territory. A major signpost on society’s map is gender, the attitudes and behaviors that are expected of us because we are a male or a female. In learning the gender map (called gender socialization), we are nudged into different lanes in life—into contrasting attitudes and behaviors. We take direction so well that, as adults, most of us act, think, and even feel according to our culture’s guidelines regarding what is appropriate for our sex.

The significance of gender is emphasized throughout this book, and we focus on gender in Chapter 11. For now, though, let’s briefly consider some of the gender messages that we get from our family and the mass media.

Gender Messages in the Family parEnTS Our parents are the first to introduce us to the gender map. Sometimes they do this consciously, perhaps by bringing into play pink and blue, colors that have no meaning in themselves but that are now associated with gender. Our parents’ own

gender the behaviors and attitudes that a society considers proper for its males and females; masculinity or femininity

gender socialization learning society’s “gender map,” the paths in life set out for us because we are male or female

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 77 11/19/15 7:13 AM

78 Chapter 3

gender orientations are embedded so firmly that they do most of their gender teaching without being aware of what they are doing.

This is illustrated in a classic study by psychol- ogists Susan Goldberg and Michael Lewis (1969), whose results have been confirmed by other research- ers (Connors 1996; Clearfield and Nelson 2006; Best 2010).

Goldberg and Lewis asked mothers to bring their 6-month-old infants into their laboratory, supposedly to observe the infants’ development. Covertly, how- ever, they also observed the mothers. They found that the mothers kept their daughters closer to them. They also touched their daughters more and spoke to them more frequently than they did to their sons. By the time the children were 13 months old, the girls stayed closer to their mothers during play, and they returned to their mothers sooner and more often than the boys did.

Then Goldberg and Lewis did a little experiment. They set up a barrier to separate the children from their mothers, who were holding toys. The girls were more likely to cry and motion for help; the boys, to try to climb over the barrier.

Goldberg and Lewis concluded that the mothers had subconsciously rewarded their daughters for being passive and dependent, their sons for being active and inde- pendent.

TOyS and play Our family’s gender lessons are thorough. On the basis of our sex, our parents give us different kinds of toys. Boys are more likely to get guns and “action figures” that destroy enemies. Girls are more likely to be given dolls and jewelry. Some parents try to choose “gender neutral” toys, but kids know what is popular, and they feel left out if they don’t have what the other kids have. The significance of toys in gender socialization can be summarized this way: Most parents would be upset if someone gave their son Barbie dolls.

We also learn gender through play. Parents subtly “signal” to their sons that it is okay for them to participate in more rough-and-tumble play. In general, parents expect their sons to get dirtier and to be more defiant, their daughters to be daintier and more compliant (Gilman 1911/1971; Nordberg 2010). And in large part, parents get what they expect.

Our experiences in socialization lie at the heart of the sociological explanation of male–female differences. For a fascinating account of how socialization can trump biol- ogy, read the following Cultural Diversity box.

It is in the family that we first learn how to do gender, how to match our ideas, attitudes, and behaviors to those expected of us because of our sex. This photo is from Papua New Guinea.

The gender roles that we learn during childhood become part of our basic orientations to life. Although we refine these roles as we grow older, they remain built around the framework established during childhood.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 78 11/19/15 7:13 AM

Socialization 79

Cultural Diversity around the World When Women Become Men: The Sworn Virgins “I will become a man,” said Pashe. “I will do it.”

The decision was final. Taking a pair of scissors, she soon had her long, black curls lying at her feet. She took off her dress—never to wear one again in her life—and put on her father’s baggy trousers. She armed herself with her father’s rifle. She would need it.

Going before the village elders, she swore to never marry, to never have children, and to never have sex.

Pashe had become a sworn virgin—and a man. There was no turning back. The penalty for violating the

oath was death.

In northern Albania, where Pashe Keqi lives, and in parts of Bosnia and Serbia, some women become men. They are neither transsexuals nor lesbians. Nor do they have a sex-change operation, something which is unknown in those parts.

This custom, which goes back centuries, is a practical matter, a way to protect and support the family. In these traditional societies, women stay home and take care of the children and household. They can go hardly anywhere except to the market and mosque. Women depend on men for survival.

And when there is no man? This is the problem.

Pashe’s father was killed in a blood feud. In these traditional groups, when the family patriarch (male head) dies and there are no male heirs, how are the women to survive? In the fifteenth century, people in this area hit upon a solution: One of the women gives an oath of lifelong virginity and takes over the man’s role. She then becomes a social he—she wears male clothing, carries a gun, owns property, and moves freely throughout the society.

She drinks in the tavern with the men. She sits with the men at weddings. She prays with the men at the mosque. When a man wants to marry a girl of the family, she is the one who approves or disapproves of the suitor.

In short, the woman really becomes a man. Actually, a social man, sociologists would add. Her biology does not change, but her gender does. Pashe had become the man of the house, a status she occupied her entire life.

Taking this position at the age of 11—Pashe is in her 70s now—also made her responsible for avenging her father’s murder. But when his killer was released from prison,

her 15-year-old nephew (she is his uncle) rushed in and did the deed instead.

Sworn virgins walk like men, they talk like men, and they hunt with the men. They also take up manly occupations. They become shepherds, security guards, truck drivers, and political leaders. Those around them know that they are biological women, but in all ways they treat them as men. When a sworn virgin talks to women, the women recoil in shyness.

The sworn virgins of Albania are a fascinating cultural contradiction: In the midst of a highly traditional group,

one built around male superiority that severely limits women, we find both the belief and practice that

a biological woman can do the work of a man and function in all of a man’s social roles.

The sole exception is marriage. Under communist rule until

1985, with travel restricted by law and custom, mountainous northern Albania had been cut off from the rest of the world. Now there is a democratic government, and the region is connected to the world by better roads, telephones, and even television. As modern life trickles into these villages, few women want to become men. “Why should we?” they ask. “Now we have freedom. We can go to the city and work and support our families.”

For Your Consideration → How do the sworn virgins of Albania help to explain

what gender is?

→ Apply functionalism: How was the custom and practice of sworn virgins functional for this society?

→ Apply symbolic interactionism: How do symbols underlie and maintain a woman’s shift to becoming a man in this society?

→ Apply conflict theory: How do power relations between men and women underlie the custom of sworn virgins?

SOURCES: Based on Zumbrun 2007; Bilefsky 2008; Paterniti 2014.

Sokol (Zhire) Zmajli, aged 80, changed her name from Zhire to the male name Sokol when she was young. She heads the family household consisting of her nephew, his wife, their sons, and their wives.

AlbaniaAlbania

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 79 11/19/15 7:13 AM

80 Chapter 3

SamE-SEx parEnTS Because parents give gender messages to their children, we might expect that the children of homosexual and heterosexual parents will learn differ- ent gender lessons and display different gender behaviors. Do they? The initial research findings are mixed. Some research indicates that the children of gay and lesbian couples show less gender stereotyping. That is, the boys show more behaviors that are tradition- ally considered feminine, and the girls display more behaviors that are traditionally con- sidered masculine (Goldberg et al. 2012). In contrast, other research indicates that the children of gay and lesbian couples are more likely to reflect traditional ideas of gender (Fedewa et al. 2014).

This research is in its infancy. At this point we don’t even know what gender mes- sages same-sex parents give their children, much less how they give those messages and what the outcome is. We need rigorous research, including matching studies of how both same-sex and opposite-sex parents teach femininity and masculinity. Such research is not likely to be here soon.

Gender Messages from Peers Sociologists stress how this sorting process into gender that begins in the family is reinforced as children are exposed to other aspects of society. Of those other influences, one of the most powerful is the peer group, individuals of roughly the same age who are linked by common interests. Examples of peer groups are friends, classmates, and “the kids in the neighborhood.”

As you grew up, you saw girls and boys teach one another what it means to be female or male. You might not have recognized what was happening, however, so let’s eavesdrop on a conversation between two eighth-grade girls studied by sociologist Donna Eder (2007).

cindy: The only thing that makes her look anything is all the makeup … penny: She had a picture, and she’s standing like this. (Poses with one hand on her

hip and one by her head) cindy: Her face is probably this skinny, but it looks that big ‘cause of all the makeup

she has on it. penny: She’s ugly, ugly, ugly.

Do you see how these girls were giving gender lessons? They were reinforcing images of appearance and behavior that they thought were appropriate for females.

Boys, too, reinforce cultural expectations of gender (Carter 2014). When sociolo- gist Melissa Milkie (1994) studied junior high school boys, she caught a glimpse of this in action. Much of their talk was about movies and TV programs. Of the many images they saw, the boys would single out those associated with sex and violence. They would amuse one another by repeating lines, acting out parts, and joking and laughing at what they had seen.

If you know boys in their early teens, you’ve probably seen a lot of behavior like this. You may have been amused or have even shaken your head in disapproval. But did you peer beneath the surface? Milkie did. What is really going on? The boys, she con- cluded, were using media images to develop their identity as males. They had gotten the message: “Real” males are obsessed with sex and violence. Not to joke and laugh about murder and promiscuous sex would have marked a boy as a “weenie” or a “nerd,” labels to be avoided at all costs.

Gender Messages in the Mass Media As you can see with the boys Milkie studied, a major guide to the gender map is the mass media, forms of communication that are directed to large audiences. Let’s look

peer group a group of individuals, often of roughly the same age, who are linked by common interests and orientations

mass media forms of communication, such as radio, newspapers, and television that are directed to mass audiences

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 80 11/19/15 7:13 AM

Socialization 81

further at how media images help teach us gender, the behaviors and attitudes consid- ered appropriate for our sex.

TElEviSiOn, mOviES, and CarTOOnS If you’ve watched youngsters while they are watching children’s videos or television you’ve probably noticed how engrossed they are. They can hardly lift their eyes from “the action” when you try to get their atten- tion. What are children learning through these powerful media that transmit ideas through words and moving images? One major lesson is that males are more important than females, as male characters outnumber female characters two to one (Ahmed and Wahab 2014).

In children’s cartoons, females used to be portrayed as less brave and more depen- dent. Reflecting women’s changing position in society, cartoons now feature more dominant, aggressive females. Kim Possible divides her time between cheerleading prac- tice and saving the world from evil. With tongue in cheek, the Powerpuff Girls are touted as “the most elite kindergarten crime-fighting force ever assembled.” This changed por- trayal of gender is especially evident in the violent females who play lead characters in action movies, from Furiosa in Mad Max: Fury Road to Katnis Everdeen in The Hunger Games, whose athletic, archery, and fighting skills are nothing short of amazing.

A key part of gender is body image, and the mass media are effective in teaching us what we “should” look like. While girls are presented as more powerful than they used to be, they have to be skinny and gorgeous and wear the latest fashions. Such messages present a dilemma for girls: Continuously thrust before them is a model that is almost impossible to replicate in real life.

vidEO gamES

Chicago’s Robert Morris University is the nation’s first school to offer a sports schol- arship in video games. When the basketball team protested, the sports director said “It used to be considered odd to throw a ball through a hoop, too.” (Belkin 2014)

All over the nation, parents are concerned that their children are wasting their time play- ing video games. To the parent’s dismay, with an athletic scholarship available, children can now mount a stronger defense.

Sociologists have found that the message of male dominance continues in this format, too—and overwhelmingly so. Females are even more underrepresented in video games than on television: 96 percent of the main characters are male—and most females, as usual, are portrayed as sexy (Kuchera 2013). Some video games, though, reflect cutting-edge changes in sex roles, the topic of the Mass Media in Social Life box on the next page.

advErTiSing From an early age, you have been bombarded with stereotypical images of gender. If you are average, you are exposed to a blistering 200,000 commercials a year (Kacen 2011). In commercials geared toward children, boys are more likely to be shown as competing in outdoor settings, while girls are more likely to be portrayed as cooperating in indoor settings. Action figures are pitched to boys, and dolls are directed to girls (Kahlenberg and Hein 2010).

Wasting time? Just fun? Improving hand–eye coordination? Parents’ lament? Now so culturally integrated and gaining respect that a university (Robert Morris in Chicago) now calls playing video games a sport and awards a scholarship in video games. The newest position in coaching is e-sport coach.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 81 11/19/15 7:13 AM

82 Chapter 3

As adults, we are still peppered with ads. Although their purpose is to sell products—from booze and bras to cigarettes and cell phones—these ads continue our gender lessons. The stereotypical images—from cowboys who roam the wide- open spaces to scantily clad women whose physical assets couldn’t possibly be real—become part of our own images of the sexes. So do advertising’s occasional attention-grabbing stereotype-breaking images.

in SUm “Male” and “female” are powerful symbols. When we learn that different behaviors and attitudes are expected of us because we are a girl or a boy, we learn to interpret the world in terms of gender. Whether overt and exaggerated or subtle and below our awareness, the mass media continue the gender lessons begun at home and reinforced by our peers. Gender serves as a primary basis for social inequality— giving privileges and obligations to one group of people while denying them to another, something we will analyze in following chapters.

Mass Media in Social Life Lara Croft, Tomb Raider: Changing Images of Women in the Mass Media With digital advances, video games have crossed the line from games to something that more closely resembles interactive movies. The games cost millions of dollars to produce and market. One game (Grand Theft Auto 5) cost $250 million (McLaughlin 2014). Sociologically, what is significant is not their cost but their content. Video games expose gamers not only to action but also to ideas and images. Just as in other forms of the mass media, the gender images in video games communicate powerful messages.

The message of changing gender is loud and clear with Lara Croft, an adventure-seeking archeologist and star of Tomb Raider and its many sequels. Lara is smart, strong, and able to utterly vanquish foes. With both guns blazing—or whatever weapons she happens to be using— Lara breaks stereotypical gender roles and dominates what usually is the domain of men. She was the first female protagonist in a field of muscle-rippling, gun-toting macho caricatures (the first was Samus Aran, an intergalactic bounty hunter).

Yet the old remains powerfully encapsulated in the new. As the photo here makes evident, Lara is a fantasy

girl for young men of the digital generation. No matter her foe, no matter her predicament, Lara oozes sex. Her form- fitting outfits, which flatter her voluptuous figure, reflect the mental images of the men who created this digital character.

In 2013, these men gave Lara a makeover, presenting what

they said was a “more vulnerable and realistic” Lara (Parker 2012). The new Lara, shown here, doesn’t seem more vulnerable, as she still manages to kill a lot of men. She

is more realistic in the sense that the new graphics make

her look almost human, but she still manages to ooze sex whenever she moves.

My best guess is that her creators have not had a mental makeover.

For Your Consideration → A sociologist who reviewed this text said, “It seems

that for women to be defined as equal, we have to become symbolic males—warriors with breasts.” Why is gender change mostly one-way—females adopting traditional male characteristics? These two questions should help: Who is moving into the traditional territory of the other? Do people prefer to imitate power or weakness?

social inequality a social condition in which privileges and obligations are given to some but denied to others

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 82 11/19/15 7:13 AM

Socialization 83

Agents of Socialization 3.5 Explain why the family, the neighborhood, religion, day care, school, peer

groups, and the workplace are agents of socialization.

Individuals and groups that influence our orientations to life—our self-concept, emotions, attitudes, and behavior—are called agents of socialization. We have already considered how three of these agents—the family, our peers, and the mass media—influence our ideas of gender. Now we’ll look more closely at how agents of socialization prepare us in ways other than gender to take our place in society. We will consider the family, then the neighborhood, religion, day care, school and peers, and the workplace.

The Family As you know, the first group to have a major impact on who you become is your family. Your experiences in the family are so intense that they last a lifetime. These experiences establish your initial motivations, values, and beliefs. In your family, you receive your basic sense of self, ideas about who you are and what you deserve out of life. It is here that you began to think of yourself as strong or weak, smart or dumb, good-looking or ugly—or more likely, somewhere in between.

Not all families are the same, of course. Let’s look at the difference that social class makes in how families socialize their children.

SOCial ClaSS and TypE Of wOrK Sociologist Melvin Kohn (1959, 1963, 1977, 2006) found that the main concern of working-class parents is that their children stay out of trouble. To keep them in line, they tend to use physical punishment. Middle-class parents, in contrast, focus more on developing their children’s curiosity, self-expression, and self-control. They are more likely to reason with their children than to punish them physically.

Why should there be such differences? Kohn wondered. As a sociologist, he knew that the reason was life experiences of some sort, and he found the answer in the world of work. Blue-collar workers are usually told exactly what to do. Since they expect their children’s lives to be like theirs, they stress obedience. In contrast, the work of middle-class parents requires more initiative, and these parents socialize their children into the qualities they find valuable.

Kohn was still puzzled. Some working-class parents act more like middle-class parents, and vice versa. As Kohn probed further, the pieces fell into place. The key turned out to be the parents’ types of jobs. Middle-class office workers are supervised closely, and Kohn found that they follow the working-class pattern of child rearing, emphasizing conformity. And some blue-collar workers, such as those who do home repairs, have a good deal of freedom. These workers follow the middle-class model in rearing their children (Pearlin and Kohn 1966; Kohn and Schooler 1969).

SOCial ClaSS and play Working-class and middle-class par- ents also have different ideas of how children develop, ideas that have fascinating consequences for children’s play (Lareau 2002, 2011; Ste- phens et al. 2014). Working-class parents see their children as being like wildflowers—they develop naturally. Since the child’s develop- ment will take care of itself, good parenting primarily means pro- viding food, shelter, and comfort. These parents set limits on their children’s play (“Don’t go near the railroad tracks”) and let them play as they wish. To middle-class parents, in contrast, children are like tender houseplants—they need a lot of guidance if they are to flower.

This photo captures an extreme form of family socialization. The father seems to be more emotionally involved in the goal—and in more pain—than his daughter, as he pushes her toward the finish line in the Teen Tours of America Kid’s Triathlon.

agents of socialization people or groups that affect our self concept, attitudes, behaviors, or other orientations toward life

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 83 11/19/15 7:13 AM

84 Chapter 3

These parents want their children’s play to accomplish something. They may want them to play baseball, for example, not for the enjoyment of the sport but to help them learn how to be team players.

The Neighborhood As all parents know, some neighborhoods are better than others for children. Parents try to move to the better neighborhoods—if they can afford them. Their commonsense evaluations are borne out by sociological research. Children from poor neighborhoods are more likely to get in trouble with the law, to become pregnant, to drop out of school, and even to have worse mental health (Levanthal and Brooks-Gunn 2000; Wheaton and Clarke 2003; DeLuca and Dayton 2009; Rendon 2014).

Sociologists have found that parenting is easier in the more affluent neighborhoods. Among the major advantages these parents have are more employment, less crime, stronger ties among the neighbors, more support groups, and being able to rely more on one another in times of need (Byrnes and Miller 2012; Rendon 2014). There are also fewer families in transition, so the adults are more likely to know the local children and their parents. This better equips them to help keep the children safe and out of trouble.

Religion How important is religion in your life? Most Americans report that religion is very important to them, but what if you are among the 22 percent who say that religion is not very important (Newport 2013)? We would miss the point if we were to assume that religion influences only people who are “religious.” Religion plays a powerful role even for people who wouldn’t be caught dead near a church, synagogue, or mosque. How? Religious ideas so pervade U.S. society that they provide the foundation of morality for both the religious and the nonreligious.

For many Americans, the influence of religion is more direct. This is especially true for the two of every five Americans who report that during a typical week they attend a religious service (Newport 2013). On the obvious level, through their participation in religious services, they learn doctrines, values, and morality, but the effects of religion on their lives go far beyond this. As they learn beliefs about the hereafter, for example, they also learn what kinds of clothing, speech, and manners are appropriate for formal occa- sions. Life in congregations also provides them a sense of identity, a feeling of belonging. Religious participation also helps to integrate immigrants into their new society, offers an avenue of social mobility for the poor, provides social contacts for jobs, and, for African Americans, has been a powerful influence in social change.

Day Care It is rare for social science research to make national news, but occasionally it does. This is what happened when researchers published their findings on 1,200 kindergarten children they had studied since they were a month old. They observed the children multiple times both at home and at day care. They also videotaped the children’s interactions with their mothers (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 1999; Guensburg 2001). What caught the media’s attention? Children who spend more time in day care have weaker bonds with their mothers and are less affectionate toward them. They are also less cooperative with others and more likely to fight and to be “mean.” By the time they get to kindergarten, they are more likely to talk back to teachers and to disrupt the classroom. This holds true regardless of the quality of the day care, the family’s social class, or whether the child is a girl or a boy (Belsky 2006). On the positive side, the chil- dren scored higher on language tests.

Are we producing a generation of “smart but mean” children? This is not an unrea- sonable question, since the study was well designed and an even larger study of children

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 84 11/19/15 7:13 AM

Socialization 85

in England has come up with similar findings (Belsky 2006). Some point out that the dif- ferences between children who spend a lot of time in day care and those who spend less time are slight. Others stress that with 2 million children in day care (Statistical Abstract 2014:Table 604), slight differences can be significant for society.

The researchers continued to test these children as they went through school, and the surprise is that these initial effects of day care have continued. At age 15, the children who had spent more time in child care had slightly more behavioral problems and did slightly worse academically than those who had spent less time in day care (Vandell et al. 2010).

The School Part of the manifest function, or intended purpose, of formal education is to teach knowledge and skills, such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Schools also have latent functions, unintended consequences that help the social system. Let’s look at this less obvious aspect of education. At home, children learn attitudes and values that match their family’s situation in life. At school, they learn a broader perspective that helps pre- pare them to take a role in the world beyond the family. At home, a child may have been the almost exclusive focus of doting parents, but in school, the child learns universality— that the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of who their parents are or how spe- cial they may be at home. The Cultural Diversity box on the next page explores how these new values and ways of looking at the world sometimes even replace those the child learns at home.

Sociologists have also identified a hidden curriculum in our schools. This term refers to values that, although not taught explicitly, are part of a school’s “cultural message.” For example, the stories and examples that are used to teach math and English may bring with them lessons in patriotism, democracy, justice, and honesty. There is also a corri- dor curriculum, what students teach one another outside the classroom. The corridor cur- riculum is strikingly different: It includes racism, sexism, illicit ways to make money, coolness, and superiority (Hemmings 1999; Cross and Fletcher 2013). You can determine for yourself how each of these is functional and dysfunctional.

Conflict theorists point out that social class separates children into different educa- tional worlds. Children of wealthy parents go to private schools, where they learn skills and values that match their higher position. Children of middle-class parents go to pub- lic schools, where they learn that good jobs, even the professions, beckon, while children from blue-collar families learn that not many of “their kind” will become professionals or leaders. This is one of the many reasons that children from blue-collar families are less likely to take college prep courses or to go to college. In short, our schools reflect and reinforce our social class divisions. We will return to this topic in Chapter 17.

Peer Groups As a child’s experiences with agents of socialization broaden, the influence of the family decreases. Entry into school marks one of many steps in this transfer of allegiance. One of the most significant aspects of education is that it exposes children to peer groups whose influences conflict with how parents and schools are trying to socialize them.

When sociologists Patricia and Peter Adler (1998) observed children at two ele- mentary schools in Colorado, they saw how children separate themselves by sex and develop separate gender worlds. The norms that made boys popular were athletic abil- ity, coolness, and toughness. For girls, popularity came from family background, phys- ical appearance (clothing and use of makeup), and the ability to attract popular boys. In this children’s subculture, academic achievement pulled in opposite directions: High grades lowered the popularity of boys, but for girls, good grades increased their standing among peers.

Schools are a primary agent of socialization. One of their functions is to teach children the attitudes and skills they are thought to need as adults.

manifest functions the intended beneficial consequences of people’s actions

latent functions unintended beneficial consequences of people’s actions

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 85 11/19/15 7:13 AM

86 Chapter 3

Cultural Diversity in the United States Immigrants and Their Children: Caught between Two Worlds It is a struggle to adapt to a new culture, to learn behaviors and ways of thinking that are at odds with those already learned. This exposure to two worlds can lead to inner turmoil. One way to handle the conflict is to cut ties with your first culture. Doing so, however, can create a sense of loss, one that is perhaps recognized only later in life.

Richard Rodriguez, a literature professor and essayist, was born to working-class Mexican immigrants. Wanting their son to be successful in their adopted land, his parents named him Richard instead of Ricardo. Although his English– Spanish hybrid name indicates his parents’ aspirations for their son, it was also an omen of the conflict that Richard would experience.

Like other children of Mexican immigrants, Richard first spoke Spanish—a rich mother tongue that introduced him to the world. Until the age of 5, when he began school, Richard knew only fifty words in English. He describes what happened when he began school:

The change came gradually but early. When I was beginning grade school, I noted to myself the fact that the classroom environment was so different in its styles and assumptions from my own family environment that survival would essentially entail a choice between both worlds. When I became a student, I was literally “remade”; neither I nor my teachers considered anything I had known before as relevant. I had to forget most of what my culture had provided, because to remember it was a disadvantage. The past and its cultural values became detachable, like a piece of clothing grown heavy on a warm day and finally put away.

As happened to millions of immigrants before him, whose parents spoke German, Polish, Italian, and so on, learning English eroded family and class ties and ate away at his ethnic roots. For Rodriguez, language and education were not simply devices that eased the transition to the dominant culture. They also slashed at the roots that had given him life.

To face conflicting cultures is to confront a fork in the road. Some turn one way and withdraw from the new culture—a clue that helps to explain why so many Latinos drop out of U.S. schools. Others turn the other way. Cutting ties with their family and cultural roots, they embrace the new culture.

Rodriguez took the second road. He excelled in his new language—so much, in fact, that he graduated from Stanford University and then became a graduate student in English at

the University of California at Berkeley. He was even awarded a Fulbright fellowship to study English Renaissance literature at the University of London.

But the past shadowed Rodriguez. Prospective employers were impressed with his knowledge of Renaissance literature. At job interviews, however, they would skip over the Renaissance training and ask him if he would teach the Mexican novel and be an advisor to Latino

students. Rodriguez was also haunted by the image of his grandmother, the warmth of the culture he had left behind, and the language and ways of thinking to which he had become a stranger.

Richard Rodriguez represents tens of millions of immigrants—not just those of Latino origin but those from other cultures, too—who want to integrate into U.S. culture yet not betray their past. Fearing loss of their roots, they are caught between two cultures, each beckoning, each offering rich rewards. The choice is painful.

From his most recent writings, it is evident that even as he ages, the past and cultural contradictions still plague Rodriguez.

SOURCES: Based on Rodriguez 1975, 1982, 1990, 1991, 1995; Herrera and Rodriguez 2014.

For Your Consideration → I saw this conflict firsthand with my father, who did not

learn English until after the seventh grade (his last in school). He left German behind, eventually coming to the point that he could no longer speak it, but broken English and awkward expressions remained for a lifetime. Then, too, there were the lingering emotional connections to old ways, as well as the haughtiness and slights of more assimilated Americans. He grasped security by holding on to the past, its ways of thinking and feeling, but at the same time he wanted to succeed in the everyday reality of the new culture. Have you seen similar conflicts?

U.S.A.U.S.A.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 86 11/19/15 7:13 AM

Socialization 87

Down-to-Earth Sociology Gossip and Ridicule to Enforce Adolescent Norms Adolescence is not known as the turbulent years for nothing. During this period of our lives, the security of a self identity rooted in parental relations and family life is being ripped from us as we attempt to piece together a strong sense of individual identity. This sense of who we are apart from our parents and siblings does not come easily. At this stage of life, we simply don’t know who we yet are, and seldom do we have a good sense of whom we will become. The process of developing a sense of self by evaluating the reflections we receive from others is not new, but its severity at this point of life grows acute. Here is what sociologist Donna Eder said about her research on adolescent girls.

I became concerned while reading studies on adolescent girls. Many of these studies reported a drop in girls’ self-esteem and self- image when they entered junior high school. I hired both female and male assistants to observe lunchtime interaction along with me as I wanted to study both girls and boys from different social class backgrounds. We also attended after-school sports events and cheerleading practices. All of us took field notes after we left the setting and tape-recorded lunchtime conversations.

Some of the things we observed were painful to watch. Through our recordings of gossip and ridicule, we learned a lot about what might make girls so insecure. For one thing, much of the gossip involved negative comments on other girls’ appearances as well as their “stuck up” behavior. The only time that anyone disagreed with someone’s negative evaluation was if they did so early on, right after the remark was made. Once even one other person agreed with it, no one seemed willing

to challenge the “group” view. So in order to participate in the gossip, you pretty much needed to join in with the negative comments or else be sure to speak up quickly.

When we studied teasing, we also saw the power of a response to shape the meaning of an exchange. One day during volleyball practice, a girl said that another girl was showing off her new bra through her white T-shirt. The girl

responded by saying, “If I want to show off my bra, I’ll do it like this,” lifting her shirt up. By responding playfully, she disarmed the insulter, and her teammates all joined in on the laughter.

In this large middle school, status hierarchies were based on appearance, social class, and intelligence. Those at the bottom of the status rankings were isolates, eating lunch by themselves or with other low status students. As isolates, they were frequent targets of ridicule from students trying

to build themselves up by putting others down. Both boys and girls picked on the isolates, most of whom lacked the skills to turn the exchanges into playful ones.

SOURCE: Redacted from Eder 2014.

For Your Consideration → What was school like for you at this age?

→ Did you observe anything like this?

→ Why do you think peer groups at this stage in life are so critical, even vicious?

→ Why do peer groups, at all stages of life, produce isolates?

Gossip and ridicule increase the status insecurity of this time of life.

You know from your own experience how compelling peer groups are. It is almost impossible to go against a peer group, whose cardinal rule seems to be “conformity or rejection.” Anyone who doesn’t do what the others want becomes an “outsider,” a “non- member,” an “outcast.” For preteens and teens just learning their way around in the world, it is not surprising that the peer group rules. As you know, peer groups can be vicious in enforcing their norms, the focus of the following Down-to-Earth Sociology box.

As a result, the standards of our peer groups tend to dominate our lives. If your peers, for example, listen to rap, Nortec, death metal, rock and roll, country, or gospel, it is almost inevitable that you also prefer that kind of music. In high school, if your friends take math courses, you probably do, too (Crosnoe et al. 2008). It is the same for clothing styles and dating standards. Peer influences also extend to behaviors that violate social norms. If your peers are college-bound and upwardly striving, this is most likely what you will be; but if they use drugs, cheat, and steal, you are likely to do so, too.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 87 11/19/15 7:13 AM

88 Chapter 3

The Workplace Another agent of socialization that comes into play somewhat later in life is the work- place. Those initial jobs that we take in high school and college are much more than just a way to earn a few dollars. From the people we rub shoulders with at work, we learn not only a set of skills but also perspectives on the world.

Most of us eventually become committed to some particular type of work, often after trying out many jobs. This may involve anticipatory socialization, learning to play a role before entering it. Anticipatory socialization is a sort of mental rehearsal for some future activity. We may talk to people who work in a particular career, read novels about that type of work, or take a summer internship in that field. Such activities allow us to become aware of what would be expected of us. Sometimes this helps people avoid committing themselves to an empty career, as with some of my students who tried student teaching, found that they couldn’t stand it, and then moved on to other fields more to their liking.

An intriguing aspect of work as a socializing agent is that the more you participate in a line of work, the more this work becomes part of your self-concept. Eventually, you come to think of yourself so much in terms of the job that if someone asks you to describe yourself, you are likely to include the job in your self-description. You might say, “I’m a teacher,” “I’m a nurse,” or “I’m a sociologist.”

Resocialization 3.6 Explain what total institutions are and how they resocialize people.

What does a woman who has just become a nun have in common with a man who has just divorced? The answer is that they both are undergoing resocialization; that is, they are learning new norms, values, attitudes, and behaviors to match their new situation in life. In its most common form, resocialization occurs each time we learn something contrary to our previous experiences. A new boss who insists on a different way of doing things is resocializing you. Most resocialization is mild—only a slight modification of things we have already learned.

Resocialization can also be intense. People who join Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), for example, are surrounded by reformed drinkers who affirm the destructive conse- quences of excessive drinking. Some students experience an intense period of resocial- ization when they leave high school and start college—especially during those initially scary days before they find companions, start to fit in, and feel comfortable. The experi- ences of people who join a cult or begin psychotherapy are even more profound: They learn views that conflict with their earlier socialization. If these ideas “take,” not only does the individual’s behavior change but he or she also learns a fundamentally different way of looking at life.

Total Institutions Relatively few of us experience the powerful agent of socialization that sociologist Erv- ing Goffman (1961) called the total institution. He coined this term to refer to a place where people are cut off from the rest of society and where they come under almost total control of the officials who are in charge. Boot camps, prisons, concentration camps, con- vents, and some military schools, such as West Point, are total institutions.

A person entering a total institution is greeted with a degradation ceremony (Garfinkel 1956), an attempt to remake the self by stripping away the individual’s current identity and stamping a new one in its place. This unwelcome greeting may involve fingerprinting, photographing, or shaving the head. Newcomers may be ordered to strip, undergo an examination (often in a humiliating, semipublic setting), and then put on a uniform that designates their new status. Officials also take away the individual’s personal identity kit, items such as jewelry, hairstyles, clothing, and other body decorations used to express individuality.

anticipatory socialization the process of learning in advance an anticipated future role or status

resocialization the process of learning new norms, values, attitudes, and behaviors

total institution a place that is almost totally controlled by those who run it, in which people are cut off from the rest of society and the society is mostly cut off from them

degradation ceremony a term coined by Harold Garfinkel to refer to a ritual whose goal is to remake someone’s self by stripping away that individual’s self-identity and stamping a new identity in its place

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 88 11/19/15 7:13 AM

Socialization 89

Total institutions are isolated from the public. The bars, walls, gates, and guards not only keep the inmates in but also keep outsiders out. Staff members supervise the day-to-day lives of the residents. Eating, sleeping, showering, recreation—all are standardized. Inmates learn that their previous statuses—student, worker, spouse, parent—mean nothing. The only thing that counts is their current status.

No one leaves a total institution unscathed: The experience brands an indelible mark on the individual’s self and colors the way he or she sees the world. Boot camp, as described in the Down-to-Earth Sociology box below, is brutal but swift. Prison, in contrast, is brutal and prolonged. Neither recruit nor prisoner, however, has difficulty in knowing that the institution has had profound effects on their attitudes and orientations to life.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Boot Camp as a Total Institution The bus arrives at Parris Island, South Carolina, at 3 a.m. The early hour is no accident. The recruits are groggy, confused. Up to a few hours ago, the young men were ordinary civilians. Now, as a sergeant sneeringly calls them “maggots,” their heads are buzzed (25 seconds per recruit), and they are quickly thrust into the harsh world of Marine boot camp.

Buzzing the boys’ hair is just the first step in stripping away their identity so that the Marines can stamp a new one in its place. The uniform serves the same purpose. There is a ban on using the first person “I.” Even a simple request must be made in precise Marine style or it will not be acknowledged. (“Sir, Recruit Jones requests permission to make a head call, Sir.”)

Every intense moment of the next eleven weeks reminds the recruits, men and women, that they are joining a subculture of self-discipline. Here, pleasure is suspect, and sacrifice is good. As they learn the Marine way of talking, walking, and thinking, they are denied the diversions they once took for granted: television, cigarettes, cars, candy, soft drinks, video games, music, alcohol, drugs, and sex.

Lessons are taught with fierce intensity. When Sergeant Carey checks brass belt buckles, Recruit Robert Shelton nervously blurts, “I don’t have one.” Sergeant Carey’s face grows red as his neck cords bulge. “I?” he says, his face just inches from the recruit. With spittle flying from his mouth, he screams, “‘I’ is gone!”

“Nobody’s an individual” is the lesson that is driven home again and again. “You are a team, a Marine. Not a civilian. Not black or white, not Hispanic or Indian or some hyphenated American—but a Marine. You will live like a Marine, fight like a Marine, and, if necessary, die like a Marine.”

Each day begins before dawn with close-order formations. The rest of the day is filled with training in

hand-to-hand combat, marching, running, calisthenics, Marine history, and—always—following orders.

“An M-16 can blow someone’s head off at 500 meters,” Sergeant Norman says. “That’s beautiful, isn’t it?”

“Yes, sir!” shout the platoon’s fifty-nine voices. “Pick your nose!” Simultaneously fifty-nine index fingers

shoot into nostrils. The pressure to conform is

intense. Those who are sent packing for insubordination or suicidal tendencies are mocked in cadence during drills. (“Hope you like the sights you see/Parris Island casualty.”) As lights go out at 9 p.m., the exhausted recruits perform the day’s last task: The entire platoon, in unison, chants the virtues of the Marines.

Recruits are constantly scrutinized. Subpar performance is not accepted, whether a dirty rifle or a loose thread on a uniform. The underperformer is shouted at, derided, humiliated. The group suffers for the individual. If one recruit is slow, the entire platoon is punished.

The system works. One of the new Marines (until graduation, they are

recruits, not Marines) says, “I feel like I’ve joined a new society or religion.”

He has.

SOURCES: Based on Garfinkel 1956; Goffman 1961; Ricks 1995; Dyer 2007.

For Your Consideration Use concepts in this chapter to explain why the Marine system works.

→ Of what significance is the recruits’ degradation ceremony?

→ Why are recruits not allowed video games, cigarettes, or calls home?

→ Why are the Marines so unfair as to punish an entire platoon for the failure of an individual?

A recruit with a drill instructor.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 89 11/19/15 7:13 AM

90 Chapter 3

Socialization through the Life Course 3.7 identify major divisions of the life course and discuss the sociological

significance of the life course.

You are at a particular stage in your life now, and college is a major part of it. You know that you have more stages ahead as you go through life. These stages, from birth to death, are called the life course. The sociological significance of the life course is twofold. First, as you pass through a stage, it affects your behavior and orientations. You simply don’t think about life in the same way when you are 35, are married, and have a baby and a mortgage as you do when you are 18 or 20, single, and in college. (Actually, you don’t even see life the same way as a freshman and as a senior.) Second, your life course differs by social location. Your social class, race–ethnicity, and gender, for example, map out dis- tinctive worlds of experience.

This means that the typical life course differs for males and females, the rich and the poor, and so on. To emphasize this major sociological point, in the sketch that follows I will stress the historical setting of people’s lives. Because of your particular social loca- tion, your own life course may differ from this sketch, which is a composite of stages that others have suggested (Levinson 1978; Carr et al. 1995; Quadagno 2010).

Childhood (from birth to about age 12) Consider how remarkably different your childhood would have been if you had grown up in Europe a few hundred years ago. Historian Philippe Ariès (1965) noticed that in European paintings from about a.d. 1000 to 1800, children were always dressed in adult clothing. If they were not depicted stiffly posed, as in a family portrait, they were shown doing adult activities.

From this, Ariès drew a conclusion that sparked a debate among historians. He said that Europeans of this era did not regard childhood as a special time of life. They viewed children as miniature adults and put them to work at an early age. At the age of 7, for example, a boy might leave home for good to learn to be a jeweler or a stonecutter. A girl, in contrast, stayed home until she married, but by the age of 7, she assumed her share of the household tasks. Historians do not deny that these were the customs of that time, but some say that Ariès’ conclusion is ridiculous, that other evidence indicates that these people viewed childhood as a special time of life (Orme 2002).

Until about 1900, having children work like adults was common around the world. Even today, children in the Least Industrialized Nations work in many occupations— from blacksmiths to waiters. As tourists are shocked to discover, children in these nations also work as street peddlers, hawking everything from shoelaces to chewing gum.

Child rearing, too, used to be remarkably different. Three hundred years ago, par- ents and teachers considered it their moral duty to terrorize children. To keep children from “going bad,” they would frighten them with bedtime stories of death and hellfire, lock them in dark closets, and force them to witness events like this:

A common moral lesson involved taking children to visit the gibbet [an upraised post on which executed bodies were left hanging], where they were forced to inspect the rotting corpses as an example of what happens to bad children when they grow up. Whole classes were taken out of school to witness hangings, and parents would often whip their children afterwards to make them remember what they had seen. (DeMause 1975)

Industrialization transformed the way we perceive children. When children had the leisure to go to school and postpone taking on adult roles, parents and officials came to think of them as tender and innocent, as needing more care, comfort, and protection.

life course the stages of our life as we go from birth to death

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 90 11/19/15 7:13 AM

Socialization 91

Such attitudes of dependency grew, and today we view children as needing gentle guidance if they are to develop emotionally, intellectu- ally, morally, even physically. We take our view for granted—after all, it is only “common sense.” Yet, as you can see, our view is not “natural.” It is rooted in society—in geography, history, and economic development.

in SUm Childhood is more than biology. Everyone’s childhood occurs at some point in history and is embedded in specific social locations, espe- cially social class and gender. These social factors are as vital as our biology, for they determine what our childhood will be like. Although a child’s biologi- cal characteristics (such as being small and dependent) are universal, the child’s social experiences (the kind of life the child lives) are not. Because of this, sociologists say that childhood varies from culture to culture.

Adolescence (ages 13–17) It might seem strange to you, but adolescence is a social invention, not a “natural” age division. In earlier centuries, people simply moved from childhood to young adulthood, with no stopover in between. The Indus- trial Revolution allowed adolescence to be invented. It brought such an abundance of material surpluses that for the first time in history people in their teens were not needed as workers. At the same time, education became more important for achieving success. As these two forces in industrialized societies converged, they created a gap between childhood and adulthood. The term adolescence was coined to indicate this new stage in life (Hall 1904), one that has become renowned for uncertainty, rebel- lion, and inner turmoil.

To mark the passage of children into adulthood, tribal societies hold initiation rites. This grounds the self-identity, showing these young people how they fit in the society. In the industrialized world, however, adoles- cents must “find” themselves. They grapple with the dilemma of “I am neither a child nor an adult. Who am I?” As they attempt to carve out an identity that is dis- tinct from both the “younger” world being left behind and the “older” world that still lingers out of reach, adolescents develop their own subcultures, with dis- tinctive clothing, hairstyles, language, gestures, and music. We usually fail to realize that contemporary soci- ety, not biology, created this period of inner turmoil that we call adolescence.

Transitional Adulthood (ages 18–29) If society invented adolescence, can it also invent other periods of life? As Figure 3.2 illustrates, this is actually happening now. Postindustrial societies are adding a period of extended youth to the life course, which sociologists call transitional adulthood (also known as adultolescence). After high school, millions of young adults postpone adult responsibilities by going to college. They are mostly freed from the con- trol of their parents, yet they don’t have to support themselves. After college, many return home, so they

In many societies, manhood is not bestowed upon males simply because they reach a certain age. Manhood, rather, signifies a standing in the community that must be achieved. Shown here is an initiation ceremony in Indonesia, where boys, to lay claim to the status of manhood, must jump over this barrier.

Figure 3.2 Transitional Adulthood: A New Stage in the Life Course

Who has completed the transition?

60%

40%

20%

0

80%

31

9

2

65

30 3030Age 30 30 30

1960

20 20 20 20

2000 2010

20 20

Men Women

5 2

28

46

29

6

42

77

The bars show the percentage who have completed the transition to adulthood, as measured by leaving home, �nishing school, getting married, having a child, and being �nancially independent.

The bars show the percentage who have completed the transition to adulthood, as measured by leaving home, finishing school, getting married, having a child, and being financially independent.

SOURCE: Furstenberg et al. 2004. Year 2010 is the author’s estimate based on Sironi and Furstenberg 2014.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 91 11/19/15 7:13 AM

92 Chapter 3

can live cheaply while they establish themselves in a career—and, of course, con- tinue to “find themselves.” During this time, people are “neither psychological ado- lescents nor sociological adults” (Keniston 1971). At some point during this period of extended youth, young adults ease into adult responsibilities. They take full-time jobs, become serious about a career, engage in courtship rituals, get married—and go into debt.

“bring yOUr parEnTS TO wOrK day.” With this new stage of life come longer attachments to parents. Some companies find that worker morale and productivity increase if they incorporate the parents in the workplace. Some companies even send Mom and Dad notes when their child achieves work goals, and LinkedIn has begun a Bring Your Parents to Work Day (Hopschneider 2013).

The Middle Years (ages 30–65)

ThE Early middlE yEarS (agES 30–49) During their early middle years, most peo- ple are more sure of themselves and of their goals in life. As with any point in the life course, however, the self can receive severe jolts. Common upheavals during this period are divorce and losing jobs. It may take years for the self to stabilize after such ruptures.

The early middle years pose a special challenge for many U.S. women, who have been given the message, especially by the media, that they can “have it all.” They can be superworkers, superwives, and supermoms—all rolled into one superwoman. Reality, however, hits them in the face: too little time, too many demands, even too little sleep. Something has to give, and attempts to resolve this dilemma are anything but easy.

ThE laTEr middlE yEarS (agES 50–65) During the later middle years, health issues and mortality begin to loom large as people feel their bodies change, especially if they watch their parents become frail, fall ill, and die. The consequence is a fundamental reori- entation in thinking—from time since birth to time left to live (Neugarten 1976). With this changed orientation, people attempt to evaluate the past and come to terms with what lies ahead. They compare what they have accomplished with what they had hoped to achieve. Many people also find themselves caring not only for their own children but also for their aging parents. Because of this double burden, which is often crushing, people in the later middle years are sometimes called the “sandwich generation.”

In contrast, many people experience few of these stresses and find the late middle years to be the most comfortable period of their lives. They enjoy job security or secure marriages and a standard of living higher than ever before. They live in a bigger house (one that may even be paid for), drive newer cars, and take longer and more exotic vacations. The children are grown, the self is firmly planted, and fewer upheavals are likely to occur.

As they anticipate the next stage of life, however, most people do not like what they see.

The Older Years (about age 65 on)

ThE TranSiTiOnal OldEr yEarS (agES 65–74) In agricultural societies, when death came early, old age was thought to begin at around age 40. As indus- trialization brought improved nutrition, medicine, and public health, more people lived longer, and the beginning of “old age” gradually receded. Today, people who enjoy good health don’t think of their 60s as old age but as an extension of their mid- dle years. This change is so recent that another new stage of life seems to be evolving, the period between retirement and old age—which people are increasingly coming to see as beginning around age 75 (“Schwab Study” 2008). We can call this stage the transitional older years.

A son at “Bring Your Parents to Work Day” showing his parents the hi-tech equipment he uses at work.

transitional adulthood a term that refers to a period following high school when young adults have not yet taken on the responsibilities ordinarily associated with adulthood; also called adultolescence

transitional older years an emerging stage of the life course between retirement and when people are considered old; about age 65 to 74

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 92 11/19/15 7:13 AM

Socialization 93

Researchers who are focusing on this transitional stage of life have found that social isolation harms both the body and brain, that people who are more integrated into social networks stay mentally sharper (Cacioppo and Cacioppo 2013). With improved health, most people between their late 60s and age 75 (two-thirds of the men and two-fifths of the women) continue to be sexually active (Lindau et al. 2007). Not only are people in this stage of life having more sex but they also are enjoying it more (Beckman et al. 2008).

Because we have a self and can reason abstractly, we can contemplate death. In our early years, we regard death as a vague notion, a remote possibility. As people see their parents and friends die and observe their own bodies no longer functioning as before, however, the thought of death becomes less abstract. During this stage in the life course, people feel that “time is closing in” on them.

ThE laTEr OldEr yEarS (agE 75 Or SO On) As with the pre- ceding periods of life, except the first one, there is no precise begin- ning point to this last stage. For some, the 75th birthday may mark entry into this period of life. For others, that marker may be the 80th or even the 85th birthday. For most, this stage is marked by growing frailty and illness. For all who reach this stage, it is ended by death. For some, the physical decline is slow, and a rare few manage to see their 100th birthday mentally alert and in good physical health.

Applying the Sociological Perspective to the Life Course In Chapter 1, you learned about the sociological perspective, especially how your social location is vitally important for what you experience in life. Your social location, such as your social class, gender, and race–eth- nicity, is also highly significant for your life course. If you are poor, for example, you likely will feel older sooner than most wealthy people for whom life is less harsh. Individual factors—such as your health or marrying early or entering college late—can also throw your life course “out of sequence.”

As you learned, the sociological perspective stresses not just social location but also the broad streams of history. These, too drastically affect your life course. As sociologist C. Wright Mills (1959) would say, if employers are beating a path to your door, or failing to do so, you will be more inclined to marry, to buy a house, and to start a family—or to postpone these life course events.

This takes us to the sociological significance of the life course. Our life course does not merely reflect biology, things that occur naturally to all of us as we add years to our lives. Rather, social factors influence our life course. Since you live in a period of rapid social change, like a speeding car in a thunderstorm, you might find your life course skidding in unexpected directions.

Are We Prisoners of Socialization? 3.8 Understand why we are not prisoners of socialization.

From our discussion of socialization, you might conclude that sociologists think of people as robots: The socialization goes in, and the behavior comes out. People cannot help what they do, think, or feel, as everything is a result of their exposure to socializing agents.

This January 1937 photo from Sneedville, Tennessee, shows Eunice Johns, age 9, and her husband, Charlie Johns, age 22. The groom gave his wife a doll as a wedding gift. The new husband and wife planned to build a cabin, and, as Charlie Johns phrased it, “go to housekeepin’.” This couple illustrates the cultural relativity of life stages, which we sometimes mistake as fixed. It also is interesting from a symbolic interactionist perspective— that of changing definitions.

Some students have asked what happened to this couple. The marriage lasted. Charlie and Eunice Johns had 7 children, 5 boys and 2 girls. Charlie died in 1997 at age 83, and Eunice in 2006 at age 78. The two were buried next to each other in the Johns Family Cemetery.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 93 11/19/15 7:13 AM

94 Chapter 3

Sociologists do not think of people in this way. Although socialization is powerful, and affects all of us profoundly, we have a self. Established in childhood and continually modified by later experience, our self is dynamic. Our self is not a sponge that passively absorbs influences from the environment, but, rather, it is a vigorous, essential part of our being that allows us to act on our environment.

Precisely because people are not robots, individual behavior is hard to predict. The countless reactions of others merge in each of us. As the self develops, we each internal- ize or “put together” these innumerable reactions, which become the basis for how we reason, react to others, and make choices in life. The result is a unique whole called the individual.

Rather than being passive sponges in this process, each of us is actively involved in the construction of the self. Our experiences in the family and other groups during childhood lay down our basic orientations to life, but we are not doomed to keep these orientations if we do not like them. We can purposely expose ourselves to other groups and ideas. Those experiences, in turn, have their own effects on our self. In short, we influence our socialization as we make choices. We can change even the self within the limitations of the framework laid down by our social locations. And that self—along with the options available within society—is the key to our behavior.

Summary and Review Society Makes Us Human 3.1 Explain how feral, isolated, and institutionalized

children help us understand that “society makes us human.”

how much of our human characteristics come from “nature” (heredity) and how much from “nurture” (the social environment)?

Observations of isolated, institutionalized, and feral chil- dren help to answer the nature–nurture question, as do experiments with monkeys that were raised in isolation. Language and intimate social interaction—aspects of “nur- ture”—are essential to the development of what we con- sider to be human characteristics.

Socialization into the Self and Mind 3.2 Use the ideas and research of Cooley (looking-

glass self), mead (role taking), and piaget (reasoning) to explain socialization into the self and mind.

how do we acquire a self?

Humans are born with the capacity to develop a self, but the self must be socially constructed; that is, its contents depend on social interaction. According to Charles Horton Cooley’s concept of the looking-glass self, our self devel- ops as we internalize others’ reactions to us. George Her- bert Mead identified the ability to take the role of the other as essential to the development of the self. Mead concluded that even the mind is a social product.

how do children develop reasoning skills?

Jean Piaget identified four stages that children go through as they develop the ability to reason: (1) sensorimotor, in which understanding is limited to sensory stimuli such as touch and sight; (2) preoperational, the ability to use symbols; (3) concrete operational, in which reason- ing ability is more complex but not yet capable of com- plex abstractions; and (4) formal operational, or abstract thinking.

Learning Personality, Morality, and Emotions 3.3 Explain how the development of personality and

morality and socialization into emotions are part of how “society makes us human.”

how do sociologists evaluate freud’s psychoanalytic theory of personality development?

Sigmund Freud viewed personality development as the result of our id (inborn, self-centered desires) clashing with the demands of society. The ego develops to balance the id and the superego, the conscience. Sociologists, in contrast, do not examine inborn or subconscious moti- vations but, instead, consider how social factors—social class, gender, religion, education, and so forth—underlie personality.

how do people develop morality?

That even babies exhibit a sense of morality seems to indicate that a basic morality could be inborn. Lawrence Kohlberg identified four stages children go through as they

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 94 11/19/15 7:13 AM

Socialization 95

learn morality: amoral, preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. The answer to “What is moral?” differs from society to society.

how does socialization influence emotions?

Socialization influences not only how we express our emo- tions but also what emotions we feel. Socialization into emotions is one of the means by which society produces conformity.

Socialization into Gender 3.4 discuss how gender messages from the family,

peers, and the mass media teach us society’s gender map.

how does gender socialization affect our sense of self?

gender socialization—sorting males and females into dif- ferent roles—is a primary way that groups control human behavior. Children receive messages about gender even in infancy. A society’s ideals of sex-linked behaviors are rein- forced by its social institutions.

Agents of Socialization 3.5 Explain why the family, the neighborhood,

religion, day care, school, peer groups, and the workplace are agents of socialization.

what are the main agents of socialization?

The agents of socialization include the family, neighbor- hood, religion, day care, school, peer groups, the mass media, and the workplace. Each has its particular influences in socializing us into becoming full-fledged members of society.

Resocialization 3.6 Explain what total institutions are and how they

resocialize people.

what is resocialization?

resocialization is the process of learning new norms, values, attitudes, and behavior. Most resocialization is voluntary, but some, as with residents of total institutions, is involuntary.

Socialization through the Life Course 3.7 identify major divisions of the life course and

discuss the sociological significance of the life course.

does socialization end when we enter adulthood?

Socialization occurs throughout the life course. In indus- trialized societies, the life course can be divided into childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, the middle years, and the older years. The West is adding two new stages, transitional adulthood and transitional older years. Using the sociological perspective, we can see how both the streams of history and social location—geography, gender, race–ethnicity, social class—influence the life course.

Are We Prisoners of Socialization? 3.8 Understand why we are not prisoners of

socialization.

Although socialization is powerful, we are not merely the sum of our socialization experiences. Just as socialization influences our behavior, so we act on our environment and influence even our self-concept.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 3 1. What two agents of socialization have influenced you

the most? Try to pinpoint their influence on specific atti- tudes, beliefs, values, or other of your orientations to life.

2. Summarize your views of the “proper” relationships of women and men. What in your socialization has led you to have these views?

3. How does the text’s summary of the life course com- pare with your experiences? Use the sociological perspective to explain both the similarities and the differences.

M03_HENS5571_13_SE_C03.indd 95 11/19/15 7:13 AM

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 96 11/19/15 7:16 AM

97

Chapter 4

Social Structure and Social Interaction

“Suddenly one of the men jumped up, smashed the empty bottle against the sidewalk, and. . . .”

My curiosity had gotten the better of me. When the sociology convention was over, I climbed aboard the first city bus that came along. I didn’t know where the bus was going, and I didn’t know where I would spend the night.

This was my first visit to Washington, D.C., so everything was unfamiliar to me. I had no des- tination, no plans, not even a map. I carried no billfold, just a driver’s license shoved into my jeans for emergency identification, some pocket change, and a $10 bill tucked into my sock. My goal was simple: If I saw something interesting, I would get off the bus and check it out.

As we passed row after row of apartment buildings and stores, I could see myself riding buses the entire night. Then something caught my eye. Nothing spectacular—just groups of people clustered around a large circular area where several streets intersected.

I got off the bus and made my way to what turned out to be Dupont Circle. I took a seat on a sidewalk bench. As the scene came into focus, I noticed several streetcorner men drinking and joking with one another. One of the men broke from his companions and sat down next to me. As we talked, I mostly listened.

As night fell, the men said that they wanted to get another bottle of wine. I contributed. They counted their money and asked if I wanted to go with them. As we left the circle, the three men began to cut through an alley. “Oh, no,” I thought. “This isn’t what I had in mind.”

I had but a split second to make a decision. I held back half a step so that none of the three was behind me. As we walked, they passed around the remnants of their bottle. When my turn came, I didn’t know what to do. I shuddered to think about the diseases lurking

Learning Objectives

4.1 Distinguish between macrosociology and microsociology. (p. 98)

4.2 Explain the significance of social structure. (p. 99)

4.3 Be able to identify the major components of social structure: culture, social class, social status, roles, groups, and social institutions. (p. 100)

4.4 Explain the significance of social institutions and compare the functionalist and conflict perspectives on social institutions. (p. 104)

4.5 Explain what holds society together. (p. 106)

4.6 Discuss what symbolic interactionists study and explain dramaturgy and ethnomethodology. (p. 109)

4.7 Be able to apply the social construction of reality to your own life. (p. 120)

4.8 Explain why we need both macrosociology and microsociology to understand social life. (p. 122)

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 97 11/19/15 7:16 AM

98 Chapter 4

within that bottle. In the semidarkness I faked it, letting only my thumb and forefinger touch my lips and nothing enter my mouth.

When we returned to Dupont Circle, we sat on the benches, and the men passed around their new bottle of Thunderbird. I couldn’t fake it in the light, so I passed, pointing at my stomach to indicate that I was having digestive problems.

Suddenly one of the men jumped up, smashed the emptied bottle against the sidewalk, and thrust the jagged neck outward in a menacing gesture. He glared straight ahead at another bench, where he had spotted someone with whom he had some sort of unfinished business. As the other men told him to cool it, I moved slightly to one side of the group—ready to flee, just in case.

Levels of Sociological Analysis 4.1 Distinguish between macrosociology and microsociology.

On this sociological adventure, I almost got in over my head. Fortunately, it turned out all right. The man’s “enemy” didn’t look our way, the man put the broken bottle next to the bench “in case he needed it,” and my intriguing introduction to a life that up until then I had only read about continued until dawn.

Sociologists Elliot Liebow (1967/1999), Mitchell Duneier (1999), and Elijah Anderson (1978, 1990, 1990/2006) have written fascinating accounts about men like my companions from that evening. Although streetcorner men may appear to be disorganized—simply coming and going as they please and doing whatever feels good at the moment— sociologists have analyzed how, like us, these men are influenced by the norms and beliefs of our society. This will become more apparent as we examine the two levels of analysis that sociologists use.

Macrosociology and Microsociology The first level, macrosociology, focuses on broad features of society. Conflict theorists and functionalists use this approach to analyze such things as social class and how groups are related to one another. If they were to analyze streetcorner men, for example, they would stress that these men are located at the bottom of the U.S. social class system. Their low status means that many opportunities are closed to them: The men have few job skills, little education, hardly anything to offer an employer. As “able-bodied” men, however, they are not eligible for welfare—even for a two-year limit—so they hustle to survive. As a consequence, they spend their lives on the streets.

In the second level, microsociology, the focus is on social interaction, what people do when they come together. Sociologists who use this approach are likely to analyze the men’s rules, or “codes,” for getting along; their survival strategies (“hustles”); how they divide up money, wine, or whatever other resources they have; their relationships with

girlfriends, family, and friends; where they spend their time and what they do there; their language; their pecking order; and so on. Microso- ciology is the primary focus of symbolic interactionists.

Because the different focuses of macrosociology and microsociol- ogy yield distinctive perspectives, we need both to gain an under- standing of social life. We need macrosociology to place these men within the broad context of how groups in U.S. society are related to one another. This helps us to see how social class shapes their attitudes and behavior. We also need microsociology to understand these men: The everyday situations they face also shape their orientations to life— as they do for all of us.

Let’s look in more detail at how these two approaches in sociol- ogy work together to help us understand social life. As we examine them more closely, you may find yourself feeling more comfortable

Sociologists use both macro and micro levels of analysis to study social life. Those who use macrosociology to analyze the homeless (or any human behavior) focus on broad aspects of society, such as the economy and social classes. Sociologists who use the microsociological approach analyze how people interact with one another. This photo illustrates social structure (the disparities between power and powerlessness are amply evident). It also illustrates the micro level (the isolation of this man).

macrosociology analysis of social life that focuses on broad features of society, such as social class and the relationships of groups to one another; usually used by functionalists and conflict theorists

microsociology analysis of social life that focuses on social interaction; typically used by symbolic interactionists

social interaction one person’s actions influencing someone else; usually refers to what people do when they are in one another’s presence, but also includes communications at a distance

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 98 11/19/15 7:16 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 99

with one approach than the other. This is what happens with sociologists. For reasons that include personal background and professional training, sociologists find them- selves more comfortable with one approach and tend to use it in their research. Both approaches, however, are necessary to understand life in society.

The Macrosociological Perspective: Social Structure 4.2 Explain the significance of social structure.

Why did the street people in our opening vignette act as they did, staying up all night drinking wine, prepared to use a lethal weapon? Why don’t we act like this? Social struc- ture helps us answer such questions.

The Sociological Significance of Social Structure To better understand human behavior, we need to understand social structure, the frame- work of society that was already laid out before you were born. Social structure refers to the typical patterns of a group, such as the usual relationships between men and women or students and teachers. The sociological significance of social structure is that it guides our behavior.

Because this term may seem vague, let’s consider how you experience social structure in your own life. As I write this, I do not know your race–ethnicity. I do not know your religion. I do not know whether you are young or old, tall or short, male or female. I do not know whether you were reared on a farm, in the suburbs, or in the inner city. I do not know whether you went to a public high school or to an exclusive prep school. But I do know that you are in college. And this, alone, tells me a great deal about you.

From this one piece of information, I can assume that the social structure of your college is now shaping what you do. For example, let’s suppose that today you felt euphoric over some great news. I can be fairly certain (not absolutely, mind you, but rel- atively confident) that when you entered the classroom, social structure overrode your mood. That is, instead of shouting at the top of your lungs and joyously throwing this book into the air, you entered the classroom in a fairly subdued manner and took your seat.

The same social structure influences your instructor, even if he or she, on the one hand, is facing a divorce or has a child dying of cancer or, on the other, has just been awarded a promotion or a million-dollar grant. Your instructor may feel like either retreating into seclusion or celebrating wildly, but most likely he or she will conduct class in the usual manner. In short, social structure tends to override our personal feelings and desires.

And how about street people? Just as social structure influences you and your instructor, so it also establishes limits for them. They, too, find themselves in a specific location in the U.S. social structure—although it is quite different from yours or your instructor’s. Consequently, they are affected in different ways. Nothing about their social location leads them to take notes or to lecture. Their behaviors, however, are as logical an out- come of where they find themselves in the social structure as are your own. In their position in the social structure, it is just as “natural” to drink wine all night as it is for you to stay up studying all night for a crucial examination. It is just as “natural” for them to break off the neck of a wine bottle and glare at an enemy as it is for you to nod and say, “Excuse me,” when you enter a crowded classroom late and have to claim a desk on which someone has already placed books. To better understand social structure, read the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

social structure the framework of society that surrounds us; consists of the ways that people and groups are related to one another; this framework gives direction to and sets limits on our behavior

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 99 11/19/15 7:16 AM

100 Chapter 4

In Sum People learn behaviors and attitudes because of their location in the social structure (whether those are privileged, deprived, or in between), and they act accord- ingly. This is as true of street people as it is of us. The differences in our behavior and attitudes are not because of biology (race–ethnicity, sex, or any other supposed genetic factors), but to our location in the social structure. Switch places with street people and watch your behaviors and attitudes change!

4.3 Be able to identify the major components of social structure: culture, social class, social status, roles, groups, and social institutions.

Because social structure is so vital for us—affecting who we are and what we are like— let’s look more closely at its major components: culture, social class, social status, roles, groups, and social institutions.

Down-to-Earth Sociology College Football as Social Structure To gain a better idea of social structure, let’s use the example of college football (Dobriner 1969). You probably know the various positions on the team: center, guards, tackles, ends, quarterback, running backs, and the like. Each is a status; that is, each is a social position. For each of the statuses shown in Figure 4.1, there is a role; that is, each of these positions has certain expectations attached to it. The center is expected to snap the ball, the quarterback to pass it, the guards to block, the tackles to tackle or block, the ends to receive passes, and so on. These role expectations guide each player’s actions; that is, the players try to do what their particular role requires.

Let’s suppose that football is your favorite sport, and you never miss a home game at your college. Let’s also suppose that you graduate, get a great job, and move across the country. Five years later, you return to your campus for a nostalgic visit. The climax of your visit is the biggest football game of the season. When you get to the game, you might be surprised to see a different coach, but you are not surprised that each playing position is occupied by people you don’t know, since all the players you knew have graduated, and their places have been filled by others.

This scenario mirrors social structure, the framework around which a group exists. In football, this framework consists of the coaching staff and the eleven playing positions. The game does not depend on any particular individual but, rather, on social statuses, the positions that the individuals occupy. When someone leaves a position, the game can go on because someone else takes over that position or status and plays the role. The game will continue even though not a single individual remains from one period of time to the next. Notre Dame’s football team endures today even though Knute Rockne, the Gipper, and his teammates are long dead.

Even though you may not play football, you do live your life within a clearly established social structure. The statuses that you occupy and the roles you play were already in place before you were born. You take your particular positions in life, others do the same, and society goes about its business. Although the specifics change with time, the game—whether of life or of football—goes on.

For Your Consideration → How does social structure influence your life? To

answer this question, you can begin by analyzing your social statuses.

Figure 4.1 Team Positions (Statuses) in Football

right corner back

right line backer strong

safety

tight end

wideout

left tackle

left guard

full back

tail back

quarter back

right tackle

split end

free safetyleft

line backer

left end

middle line backer

right end

right tackle

left tackle

center

OFFENSE DEFENSE

right guard

left corner back

Source: By the author.

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 100 11/19/15 7:16 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 101

Culture In Chapter 2, we considered culture’s far-reaching effects on our lives. At this point, let’s simply summarize its main impact. Sociologists use the term culture to refer to a group’s language, beliefs, values, behaviors, and even gestures. Culture also includes the material objects that a group uses. Culture is the broadest framework that determines what kind of people we become. If we are reared in Chinese, Arab, or U.S. culture, we will grow up to be like most Chinese, Arabs, or Americans. On the outside, we will look and act like them, and on the inside, we will think and feel like them.

Social Class To understand people, we must examine the social locations that they hold in life. Especially significant is social class, which is based on income, education, and occu- pational prestige. Large numbers of people who have similar amounts of income and education and who work at jobs that are roughly comparable in prestige make up a social class. It is hard to overemphasize this aspect of social structure, because our social class influences not only our behaviors but also our ideas and attitudes.

We have this in common, then, with the street people described in this chapter’s open- ing vignette: We both are influenced by our location in the social class structure. Theirs may be a considerably less privileged position, but it has no less influence on their lives. Social class is so significant that we shall spend an entire chapter (Chapter 10) on this topic.

Social Status When you hear the word status, you are likely to think of prestige. These two words are wedded together in people’s minds. As you saw in the box on football, however, sociologists use status in a different way—to refer to the position that someone occupies. That position may carry a great deal of prestige, as in the case of a judge or an astronaut, or it may bring little prestige, as in the case of a convenience store clerk or a wait- ress at the local truck stop. The status may also be looked down on, as in the case of a streetcorner man, an ex-convict, or a thief.

Like other aspects of social structure, statuses are part of our basic frame- work of living in society. The example I gave of students and teachers who come to class and do what others expect of them despite their particular circumstances and moods illustrates how statuses affect our actions—and those of the people around us. Our statuses—whether daughter or son, teacher or student—provide guidelines for how we are to act and feel. Like other aspects of social structure, sta- tuses set limits on what we can and cannot do. Because social statuses are an essential part of the social structure, all human groups have them.

StatuS SEtS All of us occupy several positions at the same time. You may simultaneously be a son or daughter, a worker, a date, and a student. Sociol- ogists use the term status set to refer to all the statuses or positions that you occupy. Obviously your status set changes as your particular statuses change. For example, if you graduate from college, take a full-time job, get married, buy a home, and have children, your status set changes to include the posi- tions of worker, spouse, homeowner, and parent.

aScrIBED anD achIEvED StatuSES An ascribed status is involuntary. You do not ask for it, nor can you choose it. At birth, you inherit ascribed statuses such as your race–ethnicity, sex, and the social class of your parents, as well as your statuses as female or male, daughter or son, niece or nephew. Others, such as teenager and senior citizen, are related to the life course we discussed in Chapter 3. They are given to you later in life.

Social class and social status are significant factors in social life. Fundamental to what we become, they affect our orientations to life. Can you see how this photo illustrates this point?

social class according to Weber, a large group of people who rank close to one another in property, power, and prestige; according to Marx, one of two groups: capitalists who own the means of production or workers who sell their labor

status the position that someone occupies in a social group (also called social status)

status set all the statuses or positions that an individual occupies

ascribed status a position an individual either inherits at birth or receives involuntarily later in life

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 101 11/19/15 7:16 AM

102 Chapter 4

achieved statuses, in contrast, are voluntary. These you earn or accomplish. As a result of your efforts, you become a student, a friend, a spouse, or a lawyer. Or, for lack of effort (or for efforts that others fail to appreciate), you become a school dropout, a former friend, an ex-spouse, or a debarred lawyer. As you can see, achieved statuses can be either positive or negative; both college president and bank robber are achieved statuses.

StatuS SymBolS People who are pleased with their social status often want others to recognize their position. To elicit this recognition, they use status symbols, signs that identify a status. For example, people wear wedding rings to announce their marital status; uniforms, guns, and badges to proclaim that they are police officers (and, not so subtly, to let you know that their status gives them authority over you); and “backward” collars to declare that they are Lutheran ministers or Roman Catholic or Episcopal priests.

Because some social statuses are negative, so are their status symbols. The scarlet letter in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s book by the same title is one example. Another is the CONVICTED DUI (Driving Under the Influence) bumper sticker that some U.S. courts require convicted drunk drivers to display if they want to avoid a jail sentence.

All of us use status symbols. We use them to announce our statuses to others and to help smooth our interactions in everyday life. Can you identify your own status symbols and what they communicate? For example, how does your clothing announce your sta- tuses of sex, age, and college student?

maStEr StatuSES A master status cuts across your other statuses. Some master sta- tuses are ascribed. One example is your sex. Whatever you do, people perceive you as a male or a female. If you are working your way through college by flipping burgers, peo- ple see you not only as a burger flipper and a student but also as a male or female burger flipper and a male or female college student. Other ascribed master statuses are race–eth-

nicity and age. Some master statuses are achieved. If you become very, very wealthy (and it

doesn’t matter whether your wealth comes from a successful invention, a hit song, or from winning the lottery—it is still achieved as far as sociologists are concerned), your wealth is likely to become a master status. For example, people might say,

“She is a very rich burger flipper”—or, more likely, “She’s very rich, and she used to flip burgers!”

Similarly, people who become disfigured find, to their dismay, that their condi- tion becomes a master status. For example, a person whose face is scarred from severe burns will be viewed through this unwelcome master status regardless of their occupa-

tion or accomplishments. In the same way, people who are confined to wheelchairs can attest to how their wheelchair overrides all their other statuses and influences others’ perceptions of everything they do.

StatuS InconSIStEncy Our statuses usually fit together fairly well, but some people have a mismatch among their statuses. This is known as status inconsistency (or discrepancy). A 14-year-old college student is an example. So is a 40-year-old mar-

ried woman who is dating a 19-year-old college sophomore. These examples reveal an essential aspect of social statuses: Like other

components of social structure, our statuses come with built-in norms (that is, expectations) that guide our behavior. When statuses mesh well, as they usu- ally do, we know what to expect of people. This helps social interaction to unfold smoothly. Status inconsistency, however, upsets our expectations. In the preceding examples, how are you supposed to act? Are you supposed to treat the 14-year-old as you would a young teenager, or as you would your college classmate? Do you react to the married woman as you would to the mother of your friend, or as you would to a classmate’s date?

Master statuses are those that overshadow our other statuses. Shown here is Stephen Hawking, who is severely disabled by Lou Gehrig’s disease. For some, his master status is that of a person with disabilities. Because Hawking is one of the greatest physicists who has ever lived, however, his outstanding achievements have given him another master status, that of a world-class physicist in the ranking of Einstein.

achieved statuses positions that are earned, accomplished, or involve at least some effort or activity on the individual’s part

status symbols indicators of a status; items that display prestige

master status a status that cuts across the other statuses that an individual occupies

status inconsistency ranking high on some dimensions of social status and low on others; also called status discrepancy

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 102 11/19/15 7:16 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 103

Roles All the world’s a stage And all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts . . .

(William Shakespeare, as you like It, Act II, Scene 7)

Like Shakespeare, sociologists see roles as essential to social life. When you were born, roles—the behaviors, obligations, and privileges attached to a status—were already set up for you. Society was waiting with outstretched arms to teach you how it expected you to act as a boy or a girl. And whether you were born poor, rich, or somewhere in between, that, too, attached certain behaviors, obligations, and privileges to your statuses.

The difference between role and status is that you occupy a status, but you play a role (Linton 1936). For example, being a son or daughter is your status, but your expectations of receiving food and shelter from your parents—as well as their expectations that you show respect to them—are part of your role. Or, again, your status is student, but your role is to attend class, take notes, do homework, and take tests.

Roles are like fences. They allow us a certain amount of freedom, but for most of us that freedom doesn’t go very far. Suppose that a woman decides that she is not going to wear dresses—or a man that he will not wear suits and ties—regardless of what anyone says. In most situations, they’ll stick to their decision. When a formal occasion comes along, however, such as a family wedding or a funeral, they are likely to cave in to norms that they find overwhelming. Almost all of us follow the guidelines for what is “appro- priate” for our roles. Few of us are bothered by such constraints. Our socialization is so thorough that we usually want to do what our roles indicate is appropriate.

The sociological significance of roles is that they lay out what is expected of people. As indi- viduals throughout society perform their roles, those many roles mesh together to form this thing called society. As Shakespeare put it, people’s roles provide “their exits and their entrances” on the stage of life. In short, roles are remarkably effective at keeping people in line—telling them when they should “enter” and when they should “exit,” as well as what to do in between.

Groups A group consists of people who interact with one another and who feel that the val- ues, interests, and norms they have in common are important. The groups to which we belong—just like social class, statuses, and roles—are powerful forces in our lives. By belonging to a group, we assume an obligation to affirm the group’s values, interests, and norms. To remain a member in good standing, we need to show that we share those characteristics. This means that when we belong to a group, we yield to others the right to judge our behavior—even though we don’t like it!

Although this principle holds true for all groups, some groups wield influence over only small segments of our behavior. For example, if you belong to a stamp collectors’ club, the group’s influence may center on your display of knowledge about stamps and perhaps your fairness in trading them. Other groups, in contrast, such as the family, con- trol many aspects of our behavior. When parents say to their 15-year-old daughter, “As long as you are living under our roof, you had better be home by midnight,” they show an expectation that their daughter, as a member of the family, will conform to their ideas about many aspects of life, including their views on curfew. They are saying that as long as the daughter wants to remain a member of the family in good standing, her behavior must conform to their expectations.

In Chapters 6 and 7, we will examine groups in detail. For now, let’s look at the next component of social structure: social institutions.

role the behaviors, obligations, and privileges attached to a status

group people who interact with one another and who believe that what they have in common is significant; also called a social group

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 103 11/19/15 7:16 AM

104 Chapter 4

Social Institutions 4.4 Explain the significance of social institutions and compare the functionalist and

conflict perspectives on social institutions.

At first glance, the term social institution may seem cold and abstract—with little relevance to your life. In fact, however, social institutions—the standard or usual ways that a soci- ety meets its basic needs—vitally affect your life. They not only shape your behavior, but they even color your thoughts. How can this be?

The first step in understanding how this can be is to look at Figure 4.2. Look at what social institutions are: the family, religion, education, the economy, medicine, politics, law,

Figure 4.2 Social Institutions in Industrial and Postindustrial Societies

Social Institution

Basic Needs Some Groups or Organizations Some Statuses Some Values Some Norms

Family Regulate reproduction, socialize and protect children

Relatives, kinship groups

Sexual �delity, providing for your family, keeping a clean house, respect for parents

Daughter, son, father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandparent

Have only as many children as you can afford, be faithful to your spouse

Religion Concerns about life after death, the meaning of suffering and loss; desire to connect with the Creator

Congregation, synagogue, mosque, denomination, charity, clergy associations

Honoring God and the holy texts such as the Torah, the Bible, and the Qur’an

Priest, minister, rabbi, imam, worshipper, teacher, disciple, missionary, prophet, convert

Attend worship services, contribute money, follow the teachings

Law Maintain social order, enforce norms

Police, courts, prisons

Trial by one’s peers, innocence until proven guilty

Judge, police of�cer, lawyer, defendant, prison guard

Give true testi- mony, follow the rules of evidence

Politics Allocate power, determine authority, prevent chaos

Political party, congress, parliament, monarchy

Majority rule, the right to vote, loyalty to the constitution

President, senator, lobbyist, voter, candidate, spin doctor

Be informed about candidates, one vote per person

Economy Produce and distribute goods and services

Credit unions, banks, credit card companies, buying clubs

Making money, paying bills on time, producing ef�ciently

Worker, boss, buyer, seller, creditor, debtor, advertiser

Maximize pro�ts, “the customer is always right,” work hard

Education Transmit knowledge and skills across generations

School, college, student senate, sports team, PTA, teachers’ union

Academic honesty, good grades, being “cool”

Teacher, student, dean, principal, football player, cheerleader

Do homework, prepare lectures, don't snitch on classmates

Heal the sick and injured, care for the dying

Medicine AMA, hospitals, pharmacies, HMOs, insurance companies

Hippocratic oath, staying in good health, following doctor’s orders

Doctor, nurse, patient, pharmacist, medical insurer

Don't exploit patients, give best medical care available

Military

Mass Media

Provide protection from enemies, enforce national interests

Army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, national guard

Willingness to die for one’s country, obedience unto death

Soldier, recruit, enlisted person, of�cer, veteran, prisoner, spy

Follow orders, be ready to go to war, sacri�ce for your buddies

Disseminate information, report events, mold public opinion

TV networks, radio stations, publishers, association of bloggers

Journalist, newscaster, author, editor, blogger

Be accurate, fair, timely, and pro�table

Science Master the environment

Local, state, regional, national, and international associations

Unbiased research, open dissemination of research �ndings, originality

Scientist, researcher, technician, administrator, journal editor

Follow scienti�c method, be objective, disclose �ndings, don't plagiarize

Timeliness, accuracy, freedom of the press

Source: By the author.

social institution the organized, usual, or standard ways by which society meets its basic needs

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 104 11/19/15 7:16 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 105

science, the military, and the mass media. By weaving the fabric of society, social institutions set the context for your behavior and orientations to life. If your social institutions were different, your orientations to life would be different.

Social institutions are so significant that an entire part of this book, Part IV, focuses on them.

Comparing Functionalist and Conflict Perspectives The functionalist and conflict perspectives give us quite different views of social institu- tions. Let’s compare their views.

thE FunctIonalISt PErSPEctIvE Because the first priority of human groups is to survive, all societies establish customary ways to meet their basic needs. As a result, no society is without social institutions. In tribal societies, some social institutions are less visible because the group meets its basic needs in more informal ways. A society may be too small to have people specialize in education, for example, but it will have established ways of teaching skills and ideas to the young. It may be too small to have a military, but it will have some mechanism of self-defense.

What are society’s basic needs? Functionalists identify five functional requisites (basic needs) that each society must meet if it is to survive (Aberle 1950; Mack and Bradford 1979).

1. Replacing members. Obviously, if a society does not replace its members, it cannot continue to exist. With reproduction fundamental to a society’s existence and the need to protect infants and children universal, all groups have developed some version of the family. The family gives the newcomer to society a sense of belonging by providing a lineage, an account of how he or she is related to others. The family also functions to control people’s sex drive and to maintain orderly reproduction.

2. Socializing new members. Each baby must be taught what it means to be a member of the group into which it is born. To accomplish this, each human group develops devices to ensure that its newcomers learn the group’s basic expectations. As the primary “bearer of culture,” the family is essential to this process, but other social institutions, such as religion and education, also help meet this basic need.

3. Producing and distributing goods and services. Every society must produce and distribute basic resources, from food and clothing to shelter and education. Consequently, every society establishes an economic institution, a means of producing goods and services along with routine ways of distributing them.

4. Preserving order. Societies face two threats of disorder: one internal, the potential for chaos, and the other external, the possibility of attack. To protect themselves from internal threat, they develop ways to police themselves, ranging from informal means, such as gossip, to formal means, such as armed groups. To defend themselves against external conquest, they develop a means of defense, some form of the military.

5. Providing a sense of purpose. Every society must get people to yield self-interest in favor of the needs of the group. To convince people to sacrifice personal gains, societies instill a sense of purpose. Human groups develop many ways to implant such beliefs, but a primary one is religion, which attempts to answer questions about ultimate meaning. Actually, all of a society’s institutions are involved in meeting this functional requisite; the family provides one set of answers about the sense of purpose, the school another, and so on.

Functionalist theorists have identified functional requisites for the survival of society. One, providing a sense of purpose, is often met through religious groups. To most people, snake handling, as in this church service in the Appalachian mountains of West Virginia, is nonsensical. From a functionalist perspective, however, it makes a great deal of sense. Can you identify its sociological meanings?

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 105 11/19/15 7:16 AM

106 Chapter 4

thE conFlIct PErSPEctIvE Although conflict theorists agree that social institutions were designed originally to meet basic survival needs, they do not view social institu- tions as working harmoniously for the common good. On the contrary, conflict theorists stress that powerful groups control our social institutions, manipulating them in order to maintain their own privileged position of wealth and power (Useem 1984; Domhoff 1999a, 1999b, 2006, 2007).

Conflict theorists point out that a fairly small group of people has garnered the lion’s share of our nation’s wealth. Members of this elite group sit on the boards of our major corporations and our most prestigious universities. They make strategic campaign contributions to influence (or control) our lawmakers, and it is they who are behind the nation’s major decisions: to go to war or to refrain from war; to increase or to decrease taxes; to raise or to lower interest rates; and to pass laws that favor or impede moving capital, technology, and jobs out of the country.

Feminist sociologists (both women and men) have used conflict theory to gain a bet- ter understanding of how social institutions affect gender relations. Their basic insight is that gender is also an element of social structure, not simply a characteristic of individ- uals. In other words, throughout the world, social institutions divide males and females into separate groups, each with unequal access to society’s resources.

In Sum Functionalists view social institutions as working together to meet universal human needs, but conflict theorists regard social institutions as having a single primary purpose—to preserve the social order. For them, this means safeguarding the wealthy and powerful in their positions of privilege.

Changes in Social Structure 4.5 Explain what holds society together.

In the preceding chapter, you saw how technology led to deep transformations in soci- eties. Our current society is also being transformed by new technology, changing values, and contact with cultures around the world. These changes have vital effects on our lives, sometimes dramatically so. Globalization is one of the best examples. As our economy adjusts to this fundamental change, we find our lives marked by uncertainty as jobs dis- appear and new requirements are placed on the careers we are striving for. Sometimes it seems that we have to move at a running pace just to keep up with the changes.

What Holds Society Together? Not only are we in the midst of social change so extensive that it threatens to rip our society apart, but our society also has antagonistic groups that would love to get at one

another’s throats. In the midst of all this, how does society manage to hold together? Sociologists have proposed two answers. Let’s examine them, starting with a bit of history.

mEchanIcal anD organIc SolIDarIty Sociologist Emile Durkheim (1893/1933) was interested in how societies manage to create social integration—their members united by shared values and other social bonds. He found the answer in what he called mechanical solidarity. By this term, Durkheim meant that people who perform similar tasks develop a shared way of viewing life. Think of a farming community in which everyone is involved in growing crops—planting, cultivating, and harvesting. Because they have so much in common, they share similar views about life. Soci- eties with mechanical solidarity tolerate little diversity in behavior, thinking, or attitudes; their unity depends on sharing similar views.

Durkheim used the term mechanical solidarity to refer to the shared consciousness that develops among people who perform similar tasks. Can you see from this photo why this term applies so well to small farming groups, why they share such similar views about life? This photo was taken in Virginia.

social integration the degree to which members of a group or a society are united by shared values and other social bonds; also known as social cohesion

mechanical solidarity Durkheim’s term for the unity (a shared consciousness) that people feel as a result of performing the same or similar tasks

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 106 11/19/15 7:17 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 107

As societies get larger, they develop different kinds of work, a specialized division of labor. Some people mine gold, others turn it into jewelry, and still others sell it. This dis- perses people into different interest groups where they develop different ideas about life. No longer do they depend on one another to have similar ideas and behaviors. Rather, they depend on one another to do specific work, with each person contributing to the group.

Durkheim called this new form of solidarity organic solidarity. To see why he used this term, think about your body. The organs of your body need one another. Your lungs depend on your heart to pump your blood, and your heart depends on your lungs to oxygenate your blood. To move from the physical to the social, think about how you need your teacher to guide you through this course and how your teacher needs stu- dents in order to have a job. You and your teacher are like two organs in the same body. (The “body” in this case is the college.) Like the heart and lungs, although you perform different tasks, you need one another.

The change to organic solidarity changed the basis for social integration. In centuries past, you would have had views similar to your neighbors because you lived in the same village, farmed together, and had relatives in common. But no longer does social integra- tion require this. Like organs in a body, our separate activities contribute to the welfare of the group. The change from mechanical to organic solidarity allows our society to toler- ate a wide diversity of orientations to life and still manage to work as a whole.

GemeInSchAfT anD GeSellSchAfT Ferdinand Tönnies (1887/1988) also analyzed this fundamental shift in relationships. He used the term Gemeinschaft (Guh-MINE-shoft), or “intimate community,” to describe village life, the type of society in which everyone knows everyone else. He noted that society was changing. The personal ties, kinship connections, and lifelong friendships that Tönnies had come to know in childhood were being replaced by short-term relationships, individual accomplishments, and self- interest. Tönnies called this new type of society Gesellschaft (Guh-ZELL-shoft), or “impersonal association.” He did not mean that we no longer have intimate ties to family and friends but, rather, that our lives no longer center on them. Few of us take jobs in a family business, for example, and contracts replace handshakes. Much of our time is spent with strangers and short-term acquaintances.

how rElEvant arE thESE concEPtS toDay? I know that Gemeinschaft, Gesellschaft, and mechanical and organic solidarity are strange terms and that Durkheim’s and Tönnies’ observations must seem like a dead issue. The concern these sociologists

The warm, more intimate relationships of Gemeinschaft society are apparent in the photo taken at this Amish market in Pennsylvania. The more impersonal relationships of Gesellschaft society are evident in this Internet cafe in Seattle, where customers are ignoring one another.

division of labor the splitting of a group’s or a society’s tasks into specialties

organic solidarity Durkheim’s term for the interdependence that results from the division of labor; as part of the same unit, we all depend on others to fulfill their jobs

Gemeinschaft a type of society in which life is intimate; a community in which everyone knows everyone else and people share a sense of togetherness

Gesellschaft a type of society that is dominated by impersonal relationships, individual accomplishments, and self-interest

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 107 11/19/15 7:17 AM

108 Chapter 4

Photo taken in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania

U.S.A.U.S.A.

Cultural Diversity in the United States The Amish: Gemeinschaft Community in a Gesellschaft Society One of the best examples of a Gemeinschaft community in the United States is the Old Order Amish, followers of a group that broke away from the Swiss–German Mennonite church in the 1600s and settled in Pennsylvania around 1727. Most of today’s 250,000 Old Order Amish live in just three states— Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana.

Because Amish farmers use horses instead of tractors, most of their farms are 100 acres or less. To the ten million tourists who pass through Lancaster County each year, the rolling green pastures, white farmhouses, simple barns, horse- drawn buggies, and clotheslines hung with somber-colored garments convey a sense of innocence reminiscent of another era. Although just 65 miles from Philadelphia, “Amish country” is a world away.

The differences are striking: the horses and buggies from so long ago, the language (a dialect of German known as Pennsylvania Dutch), and the plain clothing—often black, no belt—whose style has remained unchanged for almost 300 years. Beyond these externals is a value system that binds the Amish together, with religion and discipline the glue that maintains their way of life.

Amish life is based on separation from the world—an idea taken from Christ’s Sermon on

the Mount—and obedience to the church’s teachings and leaders. This rejection of worldly concerns, writes sociologist Donald Kraybill (2002), “provides the foundation of such Amish values as humility, faithfulness, thrift, tradition, communal goals, joy of work, a slow-paced life, and trust in divine

providence.” The Amish believe that violence is bad, even self-defense, and they register as conscientious objectors during times of war. They pay no Social Security, and they receive no government benefits.

To maintain their separation from the world, Amish children attend schools that are run by the Amish, and they attend only until the age of 13. (In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that Amish parents have the right to take their children out of school

expressed, however—that their world was changing from a community in which people were united by close ties and shared ideas and feelings to an anonymous association built around impersonal, short-term contacts—is still very real. In large part, this same concern explains the rise of Islamic fundamentalism (Volti 1995). Islamic leaders fear that Western values will uproot their traditional culture, that cold rationality will replace the warm, informal, personal relationships among families and clans. They fear, rightly so, that this will also change their views on life and morality. Although the terms may sound strange, even obscure, you can see that the ideas remain a vital part of today’s world.

In Sum Whether the terms are Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft or mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity, they indicate that as societies change, so do people’s orientations to life. The sociological point is that social structure sets the context for what we do, feel, and think, and ultimately, then, for the kind of people we become. The following Cultural Diversity box describes one of the few remaining Gemeinschaft societies in the United States. As you read it, think of how fundamentally different your life would be if you had been reared in an Amish family.

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 108 11/19/15 7:17 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 109

after the eighth grade.) To go to school beyond the eighth grade would expose the children to values that would drive a wedge between the children and their community.

The Gemeinschaft of village life that has been largely lost to industrialization remains a vibrant part of Amish life. The Amish make their decisions in weekly meetings, where, by consensus, they follow a set of rules, or Ordnung, to guide their behavior. The welfare of the community is a central value. In times of birth, sickness, and death, neighbors pitch in with the chores. The family is also vital for Amish life. Nearly all Amish marry, and divorce is forbidden. The major events of Amish life take place in the home, including weddings, births, funerals, and church services. In these ways, they maintain the bonds of an intimate community.

Because they cannot resist all change, the Amish try to adapt in ways that will least disrupt their core values. Urban sprawl poses a special threat, since it has driven up the price of farmland. Unable to afford farms, about half of Amish men now work at jobs other than farming. The men go to great lengths to avoid leaving the home. Most work in farm-related businesses or operate woodcraft shops, but some have taken jobs in factories. With intimate, or Gemeinschaft, society essential to the Amish way of life,

concerns have grown about how the men who work for non- Amish businesses are being exposed to the outside world. Some are using modern technology, such as cell phones and computers, at work. During the economic crisis, some who were laid off from their jobs even accepted unemployment checks—violating the fundamental principle of taking no help from the government.

Despite the threats posed by a materialistic and secular culture, the Amish are managing to retain their way of life. Perhaps the most poignant illustration of how greatly the Amish differ from the dominant culture is this: When in 2006 a non-Amish man shot several Amish girls and himself at a one-room school, the Amish community raised funds not only for the families of the dead children but also for the family of the killer.

SourceS: Aeppel 1996; Kephart and Zellner 2001; Kraybill 2002; Johnson- Weiner 2007; Scolforo 2008; Buckley 2011; Donnermeyer et al. 2013.

For Your Consideration → If you had been reared in an Amish family, how would your

ideas, attitudes, and behaviors be different?

→ What do you like and dislike about Amish life? Why?

The Microsociological Perspective: Social Interaction in Everyday Life 4.6 Discuss what symbolic interactionists study and explain dramaturgy and

ethnomethodology.

As you have seen, macrosociologists focus on the broad features of society. Microsociolo- gists, in contrast, examine narrower slices of social life. Their primary focus is face-to-face interaction—what people do when they are in one another’s presence. Before you study the main features of social interaction, look at the photo essay on the next two pages. See if you can identify both social structure and social interaction in each of the photos.

Symbolic Interaction Symbolic interactionists are especially interested in how people view things and how this, in turn, affects their behavior and orientations to life. Of the many areas of social interaction that symbolic interactionists study, let’s look at just a few—stereotypes, personal space, eye contact, smiling, and body language.

StErEotyPES In EvEryDay lIFE You are familiar with how important first impres- sions are, how they set the tone for interaction. You also know that when you first meet someone, you notice certain features of the individual, especially the person’s sex, race– ethnicity, age, height, body shape, and clothing. But did you know that this sets off a circular, self-feeding reaction? Your assumptions about these characteristics—many of which you don’t even know you have—shape not only your first impressions but also how you act toward that person. This, in turn, influences how that person acts toward you, which then affects how you react, and so on. Most of this self-feeding cycle occurs without your being aware of it.

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 109 11/19/15 7:17 AM

These photos that I took

in Vienna, Austria, make vi sible

some of social structure’s

limiting, shaping, and direc tion-giving. Most of the

social structure that affec ts our lives is not physi-

cal, as with streets and bui ldings, but social, as with

norms, belief systems, obligat ions, and the goals held

out for us because of our a scribed statuses. In

these photos, you should b e able to see how social

interaction takes form with in social structure.

Vienna: Social Structu re and Social Interacti

on

We live our lives within soc ial structure. Just

as a road is to a car, provi ding limits to where

it can go, so social structu re limits our behav-

ior. Social structure—our c ulture, social class,

statuses, roles, group mem berships, and social

institutions—points us in p articular directions

in life. Most of this direct ion-giving is beyond

our awareness. But it is hig hly effective, giving

shape to our social interac tions, as well as to

what we expect from life.

The main square in Vienna, Stephan Platz, provides a place to have a cup of coffee, read the newspaper, enjoy the architecture, or just watch the hustle and bustle of the city.

Vienna provides a mixture of the old and the new. Stephan’s Dom (Cathedral) dates back to 1230, the carousel to now.

And what would Vienna be w ithout its wieners? The word

wiener actually comes from th e name Vienna, which is Wien

in German. Wiener means “fr om Vienna.”

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 110 11/19/15 7:17 AM

Part of the pull of the city is its offering of rich culture. I took this photo at one of the many operas held in Vienna each night.

In the appealing street cafes of Vienna, social structure and socia l

interaction are especially evident. Can you see both in this photo ?

The city offers something for everyone, including unusual places for people to rest and to talk and to flirt with one another.

To be able to hang out with friends,

not doing much, but doing it in the

midst of stimulating sounds and

sights—this is the vibrant city.

And what wou ld Vienna be wi

thout its world- famous

beers? The city’ s entrepreneurs

make sure that the beer

is within easy r each.

© James M. Henslin

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 111 11/19/15 7:17 AM

112 Chapter 4

In the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on beauty, let’s look at how people’s attractive- ness sets off this reciprocal reaction.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Beauty May Be Only Skin Deep, But Its Effects Go On Forever: Stereotypes in Everyday Life Mark Snyder, a psychologist, wondered whether stereotypes— our assumptions of what people are like—might be self-fulfilling. He came up with an ingenious way to test this idea. Snyder (1993) gave college men a Polaroid snapshot of a woman (supposedly taken just moments before) and told each man that he would be introduced to her after they talked on the telephone. Actually, the photographs—showing either a pretty or a homely woman—had been prepared before the experiment began. The photo was not of the woman the men would talk to.

Stereotypes came into play immediately. As Snyder gave each man the photograph, he asked him what he thought the woman would be like. The men who saw the photograph of the attractive woman said that they expected to meet a poised, humorous, outgoing woman. The men who had been given a photo of the unattractive woman described her as awkward, serious, and unsociable.

The men’s stereotypes influenced the way they spoke to the women on the telephone, who did not know about the photographs. The men who had seen the photograph of a pretty woman were warm, friendly, and humorous. This, in turn, affected the women they spoke to: They responded in a warm, friendly, outgoing manner. And the men who had seen the photograph of a homely woman? On the phone, they were cold, reserved, and humorless, and the women they spoke to became cool, reserved, and humorless. Keep in mind that the women did not know that their looks had been evaluated. Keep in mind, too, that the photos that the men saw were not of these women. In short, stereotypes tend to produce behaviors that match the stereotype. Figure 4.3 illustrates this principle.

Beauty might be only skin deep, but it has real consequences. Attractive people are viewed as smarter, kinder, and more honest (Sapolsky 2014a). Judges and juries are more lenient with attractive people (Frevert and Walker 2014). Teacher evaluations follow the same pattern. Students give higher ratings to their better-looking teachers (Liu et al. 2013).

Then there is income. On average, more attractive people earn 10 to 15 percent more than plain folks. Over a lifetime, this comes to about $200,000 (Judge et al. 2009; Hamermesh 2011). Apparently, bosses are more willing to hire people whom they perceive as good-looking, others are more willing to interact with them, and the good-looking bring in more clients.

For Your Consideration Stereotypes have a deep influence on how we react to one another. Instead of beauty, consider body shape, gender, and race–ethnicity.

→ How do you think these characteristics affect those who do the stereotyping?

→ How do you think these characteristics affect those who are stereotyped?

Figure 4.3 How Self-Fulfilling Stereotypes Work

We �t what we see or hear into stereotypes and then expect the person to act

in certain ways.

How we expect the person to act shapes our

attitudes and actions.

From how we act, the person gets ideas of how we perceive him or her.

The behaviors of the person change to match our expectations, thus

con�rming the stereotype.

We see features of the person or hear things

about the person.

Based on the experiments summarized here, how do you think men would modify their interactions if they were to meet these two women? And if women were to meet these two women, would they modify their interactions in the same way?

Source: By the author.

stereotype assumptions of what people are like, whether true or false

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 112 11/19/15 7:17 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 113

PErSonal SPacE We all surround ourselves with a “personal bubble,” and we go to great lengths to protect it. We open the bubble to intimates—to our friends, children, and parents—but we’re careful to keep most people out of this space. In a crowded hallway between classes, we might walk with our books clasped in front of us (a strategy often chosen by females). When we stand in line, we make certain there is enough space so that we don’t touch the person in front of us and aren’t touched by the person behind us.

At times, we extend our personal space. In the library, for example, you might place your coat on the chair next to you—claiming that space for yourself even though you aren’t using it. If you want to really extend your space, you might even spread books in front of the other chairs, keeping the whole table to yourself by giving the impression that others have just stepped away.

The amount of space that people prefer varies from one culture to another. South Americans, for example, like to be closer when they talk to others than do people reared in the United States. Anthropologist Edward Hall (1959; Hall and Hall 2014) recounts a conversation with a man from South America who had attended one of his lectures.

he came to the front of the class at the end of the lecture. . . . We started out facing each other, and as he talked I became dimly aware that he was standing a little too close and that I was beginning to back up. fortunately I was able to suppress my first impulse and remain stationary because there was nothing to communicate aggression in his behavior except the conversational distance. . . .

By experimenting I was able to observe that as I moved away slightly, there was an associated shift in the pattern of interaction. he had more trouble expressing himself. If I shifted to where I felt comfortable (about twenty-one inches), he looked somewhat puzzled and hurt, almost as though he were saying, “Why is he acting that way? here I am doing everything I can to talk to him in a friendly manner and he suddenly withdraws. have I done anything wrong? Said something I shouldn’t?” having ascertained that distance had a direct effect on his conversation, I stood my ground, letting him set the distance.

As you can see, despite Hall’s extensive knowledge of other cultures, he still felt uncom- fortable in this conversation. He first interpreted the invasion of his personal space as possible aggression, since people get close (and jut out their chins and chests) when they are hostile. But when he realized that this was not the case, Hall resisted his impulse to move.

After Hall analyzed situations like this, he observed that North Americans use four different “distance zones.”

1. Intimate distance. This is the zone that the South American had unwittingly invaded. It extends to about 18 inches from our bodies. We reserve this space for comforting, protecting, hugging, intimate touching, and lovemaking.

2. Personal distance. This zone extends from 18 inches to 4 feet. We reserve it for friends and acquaintances and ordinary conversations. This is the zone in which Hall would have preferred speaking with the South American.

3. Social distance. This zone, extending from about 4 to 12 feet, marks impersonal or formal relationships. We use this zone for such things as job interviews.

How people use space as they interact is studied by sociologists who have a microsociological focus. What do you see in common in these two photos?

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 113 11/19/15 7:18 AM

114 Chapter 4

4. Public distance. This zone, extending beyond 12 feet, marks even more formal rela- tionships. It is used to separate dignitaries and public speakers from the general public.

EyE contact One way that we protect our personal bubble is by controlling eye con- tact. Letting someone gaze into our eyes—unless the person is an eye doctor—can be taken as a sign that we are attracted to that person, even as an invitation to intimacy. With the goal of becoming “the friendliest store in town,” a chain of supermarkets in Illinois ordered its checkout clerks to make direct eye contact with each customer. Female clerks complained that male customers were taking their eye contact the wrong way, as an invi- tation to intimacy. Management said they were exaggerating. The clerks’ reply was, “We know the kind of looks we’re getting back from men,” and they refused to continue mak- ing direct eye contact with them.

SmIlIng In the United States, we take it for granted that clerks will smile as they wait on us. But it isn’t this way in all cultures. Apparently, Germans aren’t used to smiling clerks, and when Wal-Mart expanded into Germany, it brought its American ways with it. The company ordered its German clerks to smile at their customers. They did—and the customers complained. The German customers interpreted the smiles as flirting (Samor et al. 2006).

BoDy languagE While we are still little children, we learn to interpret body language, the ways people use their bodies to give messages to others. This skill in inter- preting facial expressions, posture, and gestures is essential for getting through everyday life. Without it—as is the case for people with Asperger’s syndrome—we wouldn’t know how to react to others. It would even be difficult to know whether someone were serious or joking.

aPPlIED BoDy languagE In an interesting twist for an area of sociology that had been entirely theoretical, interpreting body language has become a tool for both business and government. In some hotels, clerks are taught how to “read” the body language of arriving guests (head sunk into the shoulders, a springy step) to know how to greet them (Petersen 2012). The U.S. army is teaching soldiers in military zones how to interpret body language to alert them to danger when they are interacting with civilians (Yager et al. 2009). “Reading” body language has also become a tool in the fight against terrorism. Homeland Security spends $200 million a year on what it calls a behavior- detection program. Three thousand Behavior Detection Officers (their official title) are trained to look for ninety-four signs of deception by people who are going to board planes. A quick downturn of the mouth or rapid blinking might indicate nervousness or lying ( McCartney 2014).

Let’s turn to dramaturgy, a special area of symbolic interactionism.

Dramaturgy: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

have you noticed how some clothing simply doesn’t “feel” right for certain occasions? have you ever changed your mind about something you were wearing and decided to change your clothing? Or maybe you just switched shirts or added a necklace?

What you were doing was fine-tuning the impressions you wanted to make. Ordinarily, we are not this aware that we’re working on impressions, but sometimes we are, espe- cially those “first impressions”—the first day in college, a job interview, visiting the parents of our loved one for the first time, and so on. Usually we are so used to the roles we play in everyday life that we tend to think we are “just doing” things, not that we are actors on a stage who manage impressions. Yet every time we dress for school, or for any other activity, we are engaging in impression management.

With the training of Homeland Security agents, body language has changed from being purely descriptive and theoretical to applied.

body language the ways in which people use their bodies to give messages to others

dramaturgy an approach, pioneered by Erving Goffman, in which social life is analyzed in terms of drama or the stage; also called dramaturgical analysis

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 114 11/19/15 7:18 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 115

Sociologist Erving Goffman (1922–1982) added a new twist to microsociology when he recast the theatrical term dramaturgy into a sociological term. Goffman (1959/1999) used the term to mean that social life is like a drama or a stage play: Birth ushers us onto the stage of everyday life, and our socialization consists of learning to perform on that stage. The self that we studied in the previous chapter lies at the center of our performances. We have ideas about how we want others to think of us, and we use our roles in everyday life to communicate these ideas. Goffman called our efforts to manage the impressions that others receive of us impression management.

StagES We do our impression management on front stages, places where we perform the roles assigned to us. Everyday life is filled with front stages. Where your teacher lectures is a front stage. And if you wait until your parents are in a good mood to tell them some bad news, you are using a front stage. We also have back stages, places where we retreat from performances and let our hair down. When you close the bathroom or bedroom door for privacy, for example, you are entering a back stage.

The same setting can serve as both a back and a front stage. For example, when you get into your car and look over your hair in the mirror or check your makeup, you are using the car as a back stage. But when you wave at friends or if you give that familiar gesture to someone who has just cut in front of you in traffic, you are using your car as a front stage.

rolE PErFormancE, conFlIct, anD StraIn As discussed earlier, everyday life brings many statuses. We may be a student, a shopper, a worker, and a date, as well as a daughter or a son. Although the roles attached to these statuses lay down the basic outline for our performances, they also allow a great deal of flexibility. The particular interpretation that you give a role, your “style,” is known as role performance. Con- sider how you play your role as a son or daughter. Perhaps you play the role of ideal daughter or son—being respectful, coming home at the hours your parents set, and happily running errands. Or this description may not even come close to your particu- lar role performance.

Ordinarily, our statuses are separated sufficiently that we find little conflict between our role performances. Occasionally, however, what is expected of us in one status (our role) is incompatible with what is expected of us in another status. This problem, known as role conflict, is illustrated in Figure 4.4 on the next page, in which family, friendship, student, and work roles come crashing together. Usually, however, we manage to avoid role conflict by segregating our statuses, although doing so can require an intense juggling act.

Sometimes the same status contains incompatible roles, a conflict known as role strain. Suppose that you are exceptionally well prepared for a particular class assign- ment. Although the instructor asks an unusually difficult question, you find yourself knowing the answer when no one else does. If you want to raise your hand, yet don’t want to make your fellow students look bad, you will experience role strain. As illus- trated in Figure 4.4, the difference between role conflict and role strain is that role conflict is conflict between roles, while role strain is conflict within a role.

SIgn-vEhIclES To communicate information about the self, we use three types of sign-vehicles: the social setting, our appearance, and our manner. The social set- ting is the place where the action unfolds. This is where the curtain goes up on your performance, where you find yourself on stage playing parts and delivering lines. A social setting might be an office, dorm, living room, classroom, church, or bar. It

In dramaturgy, a specialty within sociology, social life is viewed as similar to the theater. In our everyday lives, we all are actors. Like those in the cast of Orange Is the New Black, we, too, perform roles, use props, and deliver lines to fellow actors—who, in turn, do the same.

impression management people’s efforts to control the impressions that others receive of them

front stages places where people give performances

back stages places where people rest from their performances, discuss their presentations, and plan future performances

role performance the ways in which someone performs a role; showing a particular “style” or “personality”

role conflict conflict that someone feels between roles because the expectations attached to one role are at odds with those attached to another role

role strain conflicts that someone feels within a role

sign-vehicle the term used by Goffman to refer to how people use social setting, appearance, and manner to communicate information about the self

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 115 11/19/15 7:18 AM

116 Chapter 4

is wherever you interact with others. The social setting includes scenery, the furnish- ings you use to communicate messages, such as desks, blackboards, scoreboards, couches, and so on.

The second sign-vehicle is appearance, or how you look when you play your roles. On the most obvious level is your choice of hairstyle to communicate messages about yourself. (You might be proclaiming “I’m wild and sexy” or “I’m serious and profes- sional” and, quite certainly, “I’m masculine” or “I’m feminine”). Your appearance also includes props, which are like scenery except that they decorate your body rather than the setting. Your most obvious prop is your costume, ordinarily called clothing. You switch costumes as you play your roles, wearing different costumes for attending class, swimming, jogging, working out at the gym, and dating.

Your appearance lets others know what to expect from you and how they should react. Think of the messages that props communicate. Some people use clothing to say they are college students, others to say they are older adults. Some use clothing to let you know they are clergy, others to give the message that they are prostitutes. In the same way, people choose models of cars, brands of liquor, and the hottest cell phone to convey messages about the self.

The body itself is a sign-vehicle. Its shape proclaims messages about the self. The meanings that are attached to various shapes change over time, but, as explored in the Mass Media box on the next page, thinness currently screams desirability.

The third sign-vehicle is manner, the attitudes you show as you play your roles. You use manner to communicate information about your feelings and moods. When you show that you are angry or indifferent, serious or in good humor, you are indicating what others can expect of you as you play your roles.

tEamwork Being a good role player brings positive responses from others, some- thing we all covet. To accomplish this, we use teamwork—two or more people working together to help a performance come off as planned. If you laugh at your boss’s jokes, even though you don’t find them funny, you are doing teamwork to help your boss give a good performance.

teamwork the collaboration of two or more people to manage impressions jointly

Figure 4.4 Role Strain and Role Conflict

Come in for emergency overtime

You

Son or daughter Friend Student Worker

Visit mom in hospital

Go to 21st birthday

party

Prepare for tomorrow's

exam

Role Con�ict

Student

Do well in your classes

Role Strain

You

Don't make other students

look bad

Source: By the author.

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 116 11/19/15 7:18 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 117

Mass Media in Social Life “Nothing Tastes as Good as Thin Feels”: Body Images and the Mass Media

When you stand before a mirror, do you like what you see? Do you watch your weight or work out? Where did you get your ideas about what you should look like?

“Your body isn’t good enough!” You are bombarded with this message. The way to improve your body is to buy the advertised products: hair extensions, “uplifting” bras, diet programs, exercise equipment, and according to your preference, butt reducers or enhancers. Muscular hulks on TV show off machines that magically produce “six-pack abs” and incredible biceps—in just a few minutes a day. Female celebrities go through tough workouts without even breaking into a sweat. Members of the opposite sex will flock to you if you purchase that wonder-working workout machine.

We try to shrug off such messages, knowing that they are designed to sell products, but the messages penetrate our thinking and feeling. They help to shape the ideal images we hold of how we “ought” to look. Those models so attractively clothed and coiffed as they walk down the runway, could they be any thinner? For women, the message is clear: You can’t be thin enough. The men’s message is also clear: You’ve got to be more muscular. Everybody loves a hulk.

These messages are powerful. Impossibly shaped models show off the latest lingerie for Victoria’s Secret and the latest fashions in Vogue and Seventeen. Half of U.S. adolescent girls feel fat and count calories (Grabe et al. 2008). Sixty percent of girls think that the secret to popularity is being thin (Zaslow 2009). To look more feminine, each year about 8,000 teen girls have their breasts enlarged, while to look more masculine, about 14,000 teen boys have theirs reduced (Crerand and Magee 2013).

“Thinspiration” videos on YouTube feature emaciated girls proudly displaying their skeletal frames. “Pro-ana” (pro- anorexic) sites promote eating disorders as a lifestyle choice (Zaslow 2009). I took the title of this box, “Nothing Tastes as Good as Thin Feels,” from one of these sites.

Attractiveness does pay off in cold cash. “Good- looking” men and women earn the most, “average-looking” men and women earn average amounts, and the “plain” and the “ugly” earn the least (Hamermesh 2011). Then there is that fascinating cash “bonus” available to “attractive” women: With the right facial features and shape, even the

bubble-heads can attract and marry higher-earning men (Kanazawa and Kovar 2004).

More popularity and more money? Maybe you can’t be thin enough after all. Perhaps those exercise machines are a good investment. If only we could catch up with the Japanese, who have developed a soap that “sucks the fat right out of your pores” (Marshall 1995). Although we don’t have such a soap, we do have liposuction. It’s even easier. Just lie down, and a surgeon inserts a vacuum wand in your body and sucks the fat out of your hips, butt, stomach, or wherever you feel too plumpy. A bit more expensive than the soap, but you get immediate results.

For Your Consideration → How do cultural expectations of “ideal” bodies underlie

the images you have of your body? What advertisements, television programs, movies, or celebrities have influenced your body images?

→ Most advertising that focuses on weight is directed at women. Women are more likely than men to be dissatisfied with their bodies and to have eating disorders (Honeycutt 1995; Austin et al. 2009). Do you think that targeting women in advertising creates these attitudes and behaviors? Or do you think that these attitudes and behaviors would exist even if there were no such ads? Why?

→ There is a backlash against featuring emaciated models who look as though they’ll collapse on the runway. One reaction is to feature “plus-size” models in ads. What do you think about this?

All of us contrast the reality we see when we look in the mirror with our culture’s ideal body types. The thinness craze, discussed in this box, encourages some people to extremes, as with model Gisele Bundchen. It also makes it difficult for larger people to have positive self-images. Overcoming this difficulty, Rebel Wilson is in the forefront of promoting an alternative image.

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 117 11/19/15 7:18 AM

118 Chapter 4

If a performance doesn’t come off quite right, the team might try to save it by using face-saving behavior.

Suppose your teacher is about to make an important point. Suppose also that her lectur- ing has been outstanding and the class is hanging on every word. Just as she pauses for emphasis, her stomach lets out a loud growl. She might then use a face-saving technique by remarking, “I was so busy preparing for class that I didn’t get breakfast this morning.”

It is more likely, however, that both the teacher and class will simply ignore the sound, giving the impression that no one heard a thing—a face-saving technique called studied nonobservance. This allows the teacher to make the point or, as Goffman would say, it allows the performance to go on.

BEcomIng thE rolES wE Play A fascinating characteristic of roles is that we tend to become the roles we play. That is, roles become incorporated into our self-concept, especially roles for which we prepare long and hard and that become part of our everyday lives. Helen Ebaugh (1988) experienced this firsthand when she quit being a nun to become a sociolo- gist. With her own heightened awareness of role exit, she interviewed people who had left marriages, police work, the military, medicine, and religious vocations. Just as she had expe- rienced, the role had become intertwined so extensively with the individual’s self-concept that leaving it threatened the person’s identity. The question these people struggled with was “Who am I, now that I am not a nun (or wife, police officer, colonel, physician, and so on)?”

A statement made by one of my respondents illustrates how roles become part of the per- son. Notice how a role can linger even after the individual is no longer playing that role:

After I left the ministry, I felt like a fish out of water. Wearing that backward collar had become a part of me. It was especially strange on Sunday mornings when I’d listen to someone else give the sermon. I knew that I should be up there preaching. I felt as though I had left God.

aPPlyIng ImPrESSIon managEmEnt. I can just hear someone say, “Impression management is interesting, but is it really import- ant?” It certainly is. Impression management can even make a vital difference for your career. To be promoted, you must be perceived as someone who should be promoted. You must appear dominant. For men, giving this impression is less of a problem because stereotypes join masculinity and dominance at the hip. For women, though, stereotypes separate femininity and dominance.

How can a woman appear dominant? She could swagger, curse, and tell dirty jokes. This would get her noticed—but it is not likely to put her on the path to promotion. To assist women, career coaches have appeared on the scene. These “image consultants,” as they are known, have a grab bag of little sayings, such as “The more skin you show, the more power you give away.” They tell women to tone down their fem- ininity, but not give it up. Women should present a “subtle femininity, they say, by wearing “soft” fabrics. They should also use makeup that doesn’t have to be reapplied during the day. During business meetings they should place their hands on the table, not in their laps. And they should stash their purse inside a briefcase. They also need to practice giv- ing good handshakes. “Presenting the whole package,” said one image consultant, “takes a lot of work.” Indeed (Agins 2009; Agno and McEwen 2011; Chapman 2013).

A common saying is that much success in the work world depends not on what you know but on who you know. This is true, but let’s add the sociological twist: Much success in the work world depends not on what you know, but on your ability to give the impression that you know what you should know.

face-saving behavior techniques used to salvage a performance (interaction) that is going sour

Both individuals and organizations do impression management, trying to communicate messages about the self (or organization) that best meets their goals. At times, these efforts fail.

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 118 11/19/15 7:18 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 119

Ethnomethodology: Uncovering Background Assumptions Certainly one of the strangest words in sociology is ethnomethodology. To better under- stand this term, consider the word’s three basic components. Ethno means “folk” or “peo- ple”; method means how people do something; ology means “the study of.” Putting them together, then, ethno–method–ology means “the study of how people do things.” What things? Ethnomethodology is the study of how people use commonsense understand- ings to make sense of life.

let’s suppose that during a routine office visit, your doctor remarks that your hair is rather long, then takes out a pair of scissors and starts to give you a haircut. You would feel strange about this, because your doctor would be violating background assumptions— your ideas about the way life is and the way things ought to work. These assumptions, which lie at the root of everyday life, are so deeply embedded in our consciousness that we are seldom aware of them, and most of us fulfill them unquestioningly. Thus, your doctor does not offer you a haircut, even if he or she is good at cutting hair and you need one!

The founder of ethnomethodology, sociologist Harold Garfinkel, had his students do little exercises to uncover background assumptions. Garfinkel (1967, 2002) asked his students to act as though they did not understand the basic rules of social life. Some of his students tried to bargain with supermarket clerks; others would inch close to people and stare directly at them. They were met with surprise, bewilderment, even indignation and anger. In one exercise, Garfinkel asked students to act as though they were boarders in their own homes. They addressed their parents as “Mr.” and “Mrs.,” asked permission to use the bathroom, sat stiffly, were courteous, and spoke only when spoken to. As you can imagine, the other family members didn’t know what to make of their behavior:

They vigorously sought to make the strange actions intelligible and to restore the sit- uation to normal appearances. Reports (by the students) were filled with accounts of astonishment, bewilderment, shock, anxiety, embarrassment, and anger, and with charges by various family members that the student was mean, inconsiderate, selfish, nasty, or impolite. family members demanded explanations: What’s the matter? What’s gotten into you? . . . Are you sick? . . . Are you out of your mind or are you just stupid? (Garfinkel 1967)

In another exercise, Garfinkel asked students to take words and phrases literally. When one student asked his girlfriend what she meant when she said that she had a flat tire, she said:

What do you mean, “What do you mean?” A flat tire is a flat tire. That is what I meant. nothing special. What a crazy question!

Another conversation went like this:

acquaintance: How are you? student: How am I in regard to what? My health, my finances,

my schoolwork, my peace of mind, my . . . ? acquaintance: (red in the face): Look! I was just trying to be

polite. Frankly, I don’t give a damn how you are.

Students can be highly creative when they are asked to break back- ground assumptions. The young children of one of my students were surprised one morning when they came down for breakfast to find a sheet spread on the living room floor. On it were dishes, silverware, lit candles—and bowls of ice cream. They, too, wondered what was going on, but they dug eagerly into the ice cream before their mother could change her mind.

ethnomethodology the study of how people use background assumptions to make sense out of life

All of us have background assumptions, deeply ingrained assumptions of how the world operates. What different background assumptions do you think are operating here? If the annual “No Pants! Subway Ride” gains popularity, will background assumptions for this day change?

background assumption a deeply embedded, common understanding of how the world operates and of how people ought to act

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 119 11/19/15 7:18 AM

120 Chapter 4

This is a risky assignment to give students, because breaking some background assumptions can make people suspicious. When a colleague of mine gave this assign- ment, a couple of his students began to wash dollar bills in a Laundromat. By the time they put the bills in the dryer, the police had arrived.

In Sum Ethnomethodologists explore background assumptions, the taken-for-granted ideas about the world that underlie our behavior. Most of these assumptions, or basic rules of social life, are unstated. We learn them as we learn our culture, and we violate them only with risk. Deeply embedded in our minds, they give us basic directions for living everyday life.

The Social Construction of Reality 4.7 Be able to apply the social construction of reality to your own life.

On a visit to morocco, in northern Africa, I decided to buy a watermelon. When I indi- cated to the street vendor that the knife he was going to use to cut the watermelon was dirty (encrusted with filth would be more apt), he was very obliging. he immediately bent down and began to swish the knife in a puddle on the street. I shuddered as I looked at the passing burros that were urinating and defecating as they went by. Quickly, I indi- cated by gesture that I preferred my melon uncut after all.

“If people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences,” said sociologists W. I. and Dorothy S. Thomas in what has become known as the definition of the situation, or the thomas theorem. For that vendor of watermelons, germs did not exist. For me, they did. And each of us acted according to our definition of the situation. My perception and behavior did not come from the fact that germs are real but, rather, from my having grown up in a society that teaches that germs are real. Microbes, of course, objectively exist, and whether or not germs are part of our thought world makes no difference as to whether we are infected by them. Our behavior, however, does not depend on the objective exis- tence of something but, rather, on our subjective interpretation, on what sociologists call our definition of reality. In other words, it is not the reality of microbes that impresses itself on us, but society that impresses the reality of microbes on us.

Let’s consider another example. Do you remember the identical twins, Oskar and Jack, who grew up so differently? As discussed in Chapter 3, Oskar was reared in Ger- many and learned to love Hitler, while Jack was reared in Trinidad and learned to hate Hitler. As you can see, what Hitler meant to Oskar and Jack (and what he means to us) depends not on Hitler’s acts but, rather, on how we view his acts—that is, on our defini- tion of the situation.

Sociologists call this the social construction of reality. From the social groups to which we belong (the social part of this process), we learn ways of looking at life. We learn ways to view Hitler and Osama bin Laden, the Palestinians and the Israelis (they’re good, they’re evil), germs (they exist, they don’t exist), and just about everything else in life. In short, through our interaction with others, we construct reality; that is, we learn ways of interpreting our experiences in life.

The social construction of reality is sometimes difficult to grasp. We sometimes think that meanings are external to us, that they originate “out there” somewhere, rather than in our social group. To better understand the social construction of reality, let’s consider pelvic examinations.

gynEcologIcal ExamInatIonS When I interviewed a gynecological nurse who had been present at about 14,000 vaginal examinations, I analyzed how doctors construct social reality in order to define the examination as nonsexual (Henslin and Biggs 1971/2016). It became apparent that the pelvic examination unfolds much as a stage play does. I will use “he” to refer to the physician because only male physicians were part of this study. Perhaps the results would be different with female gynecologists.

Thomas theorem William I. and Dorothy S. Thomas’ classic formulation of the definition of the situation: “If people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”

social construction of reality the use of background assumptions and life experiences to define what is real

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 120 11/19/15 7:18 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 121

Scene 1 (the patient as person) In this scene, the doctor maintains eye contact with his patient, calls her by name, and discusses her problems in a professional manner. If he decides that a vaginal examination is necessary, he tells a nurse, “Pelvic in room 1.” By this statement, he is announcing that a major change will occur in the next scene.

Scene 2 (from person to pelvic) This scene is the depersonalizing stage. In line with the doctor’s announcement, the patient begins the transition from a “person” to a “pelvic.” The doctor leaves the room, and a female nurse enters to help the patient make the transition. The nurse prepares the “props” for the coming examination and answers any questions the woman might have.

What occurs at this point is essential for the social construction of reality, for the doc- tor’s absence removes even the suggestion of sexuality. To undress in front of the doctor could suggest either a striptease or intimacy, thus undermining the reality that the team is so carefully defining: that of nonsexuality.

The patient, too, wants to remove any hint of sexuality, and during this scene, she may express concern about what to do with her panties. Some mutter to the nurse, “I don’t want him to see these.” Most women solve the problem by either slipping their panties under their other clothes or placing them in their purse.

Scene 3 (the person as pelvic) This scene opens when the doctor enters the room. Before him is a woman lying on a table, her feet in stirrups, her knees tightly together, and her body covered by a drape sheet. The doctor seats himself on a low stool before the woman and says, “let your knees fall apart” (rather than the sexually loaded “Spread your legs”), and begins the examination.

The drape sheet is crucial in this process of desexualization, because it dissociates the pelvic area from the person: Leaning forward and with the drape sheet above the doctor’s head, the physician can see only the vagina, not the patient’s face. Thus dissociated from the individual, the vagina is transformed dramaturgically into an object of analysis. To examine the patient’s breasts, the doctor also dissociates them from her person by exam- ining them one at a time, with a towel covering the unexamined breast. Like the vagina, each breast becomes an isolated item dissociated from the person.

In this third scene, the patient cooperates in being an object, becoming, for all practical purposes, a pelvis to be examined. She withdraws eye contact from the doctor and usually from the nurse, is likely to stare at a wall or at the ceiling, and avoids initiating conversation.

Scene 4 (from pelvic to person) In this scene, the patient is “repersonalized.” The doc- tor has left the examining room; the patient dresses and fixes her hair and makeup. her reemergence as a person is indicated by such statements to the nurse as “my dress isn’t too wrinkled, is it?” showing a need for reassurance that the metamorphosis from “pel- vic” back to “person” has been completed satisfactorily.

Scene 5 (the patient as person) In this final scene, sometimes with the doctor seated at a desk, the patient is once again treated as a person rather than as an object. The doctor makes eye contact with her and addresses her by name. She, too, makes eye contact with the doctor, and the usual middle-class interaction patterns are followed. She has been fully restored.

In Sum For an outsider to our culture, the custom of women going to strangers for a vaginal examination might seem bizarre. But not to us. We learn that pelvic examinations are nonsexual. To sustain this definition requires teamwork—doctors, nurses, and the patient working together to socially construct reality.

It is not just pelvic examinations or our views of germs that make up our defini- tions of reality. Rather, our behavior depends on how we define reality. Our definitions (our  constructions of reality) provide the basis for what we do and how we view life. To understand human behavior, then, we must know how people define reality.

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 121 11/19/15 7:18 AM

122 Chapter 4

The Need for both Macrosociology and Microsociology 4.8 Explain why we need both macrosociology and microsociology to understand

social life.

As noted earlier, we need both macrosociology and microsociology. Without one or the other, our understanding of social life would be vastly incomplete. The photo essay on the next two pages on people’s activities following a tornado should help to make clear why we need both perspectives.

To illustrate this point, consider two groups of high school boys studied by sociolo- gist William Chambliss (1973/2016). Both groups attended Hanibal High School. In one group were eight middle-class boys who came from “good” families and were perceived by the community as “going somewhere.” Chambliss calls this group the “Saints.” In the other group were six lower-class boys who were seen as headed down a dead-end road. Chambliss calls this group the “Roughnecks.”

Boys in both groups skipped school, got drunk, got in fights, and vandalized prop- erty. The Saints were truant more often and involved in more vandalism, but the Saints had a good reputation. The Roughnecks, in contrast, were seen by teachers, the police, and the general community as no good and headed for trouble.

The boys’ reputations set them on separate paths. Seven of the eight Saints went on to graduate from college. Three studied for advanced degrees: One finished law school and became active in state politics, one finished medical school, and one went on to earn a Ph.D. The four other college graduates entered managerial or executive training pro- grams with large firms. After his parents divorced, one Saint failed to graduate from high school on time and had to repeat his senior year. Although this boy tried to go to college by attending night school, he never finished. He was unemployed the last time Cham- bliss saw him.

In contrast, two of the Roughnecks dropped out of high school. They were later con- victed of separate murders and sent to prison. Of the four boys who graduated from high school, two had done exceptionally well in sports and were awarded athletic scholar- ships to college. They both graduated from college and became high school coaches. Of the two others who completed high school, one became a small-time gambler and the other disappeared “up north,” where he was last reported to be driving a truck.

To understand what happened to the Saints and the Roughnecks, we need to grasp both social structure and social interaction. Using macrosociology, we can place these boys within the larger framework of the U.S. social class system. This reveals how opportuni- ties open or close to people depending on their social class and how people learn different goals as they grow up in different groups. We can then use microsociology to follow their everyday lives. We can see how the Saints manipulated their “good” reputations to skip classes and how their access to automobiles allowed them to protect their reputations by spreading their troublemaking around different communities. In contrast, the Rough- necks, who did not have cars, were highly visible. Their lawbreaking, which was lim- ited to a small area, readily came to the attention of the community. Microsociology also reveals how the boys’ reputations opened doors of opportunity to the Saints while clos- ing them to the Roughnecks.

It is clear that we need both kinds of sociology, and both are stressed in the following chapters.

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 122 11/19/15 7:18 AM

hand. The next morning ,

I took off for Georgia.

These photos, taken the day after the

tornado struck, tell the story of people in

the midst of trying to p ut their lives back

together. I was impresse d at how little

time people spent comm iserating about

their misfortune and ho w quickly they took

practical steps to restor e their lives.

As you look at these pho tos, try to deter-

mine why we need both microsociology and

macrosociology to unde rstand what occurs

after a natural disaster .

When a Tornado Strik es: Social Organization

Following a Natural Di saster

As I was watching telev ision on March

20, 2003, I heard a rep ort that a torna-

do had hit Camilla, Ge orgia. “Like a big

lawn mower,” the report said, it had cut

a path of destruction th rough this little

town. In its fury, the tor nado had left

behind six dead and abo ut 200 injured.

From sociological studi es of natural

disasters, I knew that im mediately after

the initial shock the surv ivors of natural

disasters work together to try to restore

order to their disrupted lives. I wanted

to see this restructuring process first-

After making sure that their loved ones are safe, one of the next steps people take is to recover their possessions. The cooperation that emerges among people, as documented in the sociological literature on natural disasters, is illustrated here.

Personal relationships are essential in putting

lives together. Consequently, reminders of these

relationships are one of the main possessions

that people attempt to salvage. This young man,

having just recovered the family photo album, is

eagerly reviewing the photos.

For children, family photos are not as important as toys. This girl has managed to salvage a favorite toy, which will help anchor her to her previous life.

© James M. Henslin, all photos

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 123 11/19/15 7:18 AM

In addition to the inquiring sociologist, television teams also were interviewing survivors and photographing the damage. This was the second time in just three years that a tornado had hit this neighborhood.

The owners of this house invited me

inside to see what the tornado had

done to their home. In what had been

her dining room, this woman is trying

to salvage whatever she can from the

rubble. She and her family survived by

taking refuge in the bathroom. They

had been there only five seconds, she

said, when the tornado struck.

Like electricity and gas, communications need to be restored as soon as possible.

Formal organizations

also help the survivors of

natural disasters recover.

In this neighborhood, I saw

representatives of insurance

companies, the police, the

fire department, and an

electrical co-op. The Salvation

Army brought meals to the neighborhood.

No building or social institution escapes a tornado as it follows its path of destruction. Just the night before, members of this church had held evening worship service. After the tornado, someone mounted a U.S. flag on top of the cross, symbolic of the church members’ patriotism and religiosity—and of their enduring hope.

© James M. Henslin, all photos

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 124 11/19/15 7:18 AM

Social Structure and Social Interaction 125

Summary and Review Levels of Sociological Analysis 4.1 Distinguish between macrosociology and

microsociology.

what two levels of analysis do sociologists use?

Sociologists use macrosociological and microsociological levels of analysis. In macrosociology, the focus is placed on large-scale features of social life, while in microsociology, the focus is on social interaction. Functionalists and con- flict theorists tend to use a macrosociological approach, while symbolic interactionists are likely to use a microso- ciological approach.

The Macrosociological Perspective: Social Structure 4.2 Explain the significance of social structure.

how does social structure influence our behavior?

The term social structure refers to the social envelope that surrounds us and establishes limits on our behavior. Social structure consists of culture, social class, social statuses, roles, groups, and social institutions. Our location in the social structure underlies our perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors.

4.3 Be able to identify the major components of social structure: culture, social class, social status, roles, groups, and social institutions.

what are the major components of social structure?

Culture lays the broadest framework, while social class divides people according to income, education, and occu- pational prestige. Each of us receives ascribed statuses at birth; later we add achieved statuses. Our social statuses guide our roles, put boundaries around our behavior, and give us orientations to life. These are further influenced by the groups to which we belong and our experiences with social institutions. These components of society work together to help maintain social order.

4.4 Explain the significance of social institutions and compare the functionalist and conflict perspectives on social institutions.

what are social institutions?

Social institutions are the standard ways that a soci- ety develops to meet its basic needs. As summarized in Figure 4.2, industrial and postindustrial societies have ten social institutions—the family, religion, education, econ- omy, medicine, politics, law, science, the military, and the mass media. From the functionalist perspective, social insti- tutions meet universal group needs, or functional requisites. Conflict theorists stress how the elites of society use social institutions to maintain their privileged positions.

4.5 Explain what holds society together.

what holds society together?

According to Emile Durkheim, in agricultural societies, people are united by mechanical solidarity (having similar views and feelings). With industrialization comes organic solidarity (people depend on one another to do their more specialized jobs). Ferdinand Tönnies pointed out that the informal means of control in Gemeinschaft (small, inti- mate) societies are replaced by formal mechanisms in Gesellschaft (larger, more impersonal) societies.

The Microsociological Perspective: Social Interaction in Everyday Life 4.6 Discuss what symbolic interactionists study and

explain dramaturgy and ethnomethodology.

what is the focus of symbolic interactionism?

In contrast to functionalists and conflict theorists, who as macrosociologists focus on the “big picture,” symbolic interactionists tend to be microsociologists and focus on face-to-face social interaction. Symbolic interactionists ana- lyze how people define their worlds, and how their defini- tions, in turn, influence their behavior.

how do stereotypes affect social interaction?

Stereotypes are assumptions of what people are like. When we first meet people, we classify them according to our perceptions of their visible characteristics. Our ideas about these characteristics guide our reactions to them. Our behavior, in turn, can influence them to behave in ways that reinforce our stereotypes.

Do all human groups share a similar sense of personal space?

In examining how people use physical space, symbolic interactionists stress that we have a “personal bubble” that we carefully protect. People from different cultures use “personal bubbles” of varying sizes, so the answer to the question is no. Americans typically use four different “dis- tance zones”: intimate, personal, social, and public.

what is body language?

Body language is using our bodies to give messages. We do this through facial expressions, posture, smiling, and eye contact. Interpreting body language is becoming a tool in business and in the fight against terrorism.

what is dramaturgy?

Erving Goffman developed dramaturgy (or dramaturgical analysis), in which everyday life is analyzed in terms of the stage. At the core of this analysis is impression management, our attempts to control the impressions we make on others. For this, we use the sign-vehicles of setting, appearance,

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 125 11/19/15 7:18 AM

126 Chapter 4

and manner. Our role performances on the front stages of life often call for teamwork and face-saving behavior. They sometimes are hampered by role conflict or role strain.

what is ethnomethodology?

Ethnomethodology is the study of how people make sense of everyday life. Ethnomethodologists try to uncover back- ground assumptions, the basic ideas about the way life is that guide our behavior.

4.7 Be able to apply the social construction of reality to your own life.

what is the social construction of reality?

The phrase social construction of reality refers to how we construct our views of the world, which, in turn, underlie our actions.

The Need for both Macrosociology and Microsociology 4.8 Explain why we need both macrosociology and

microsociology to understand social life.

why are both levels of analysis necessary?

Because macrosociology and microsociology focus on dif- ferent aspects of the human experience, each is necessary for us to understand social life.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 4 1. The major components of social structure are culture,

social class, social status, roles, groups, and social institutions. Use social structure to explain why Native Americans have such a low rate of college graduation. (See Table 12.3 on page 352.)

2. Dramaturgy is a form of microsociology. Use dramaturgy to analyze a situation with which you

are intimately familiar (such as interaction with your family or friends or at work or in one of your college classes).

3. To illustrate why we need both macrosociology and microsociology to understand social life, analyze the situation of a student getting kicked out of college.

M04_HENS5571_13_SE_C04.indd 126 11/19/15 7:18 AM

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 127 11/19/15 7:26 AM

Chapter 5

How Sociologists Do Research

“Did he have a holster in his underpants?”

Learning Objectives

5.1 State what topics are valid for sociologists to study. (p. 129)

5.2 Explain why common sense can’t replace sociological research. (p. 129)

5.3 Know the eight steps of the research model. (p. 129)

5.4 Know the main elements of the seven research methods: surveys, participant observation, case studies, secondary analysis, analysis of documents, experiments, and unobtrusive measures; state why sociological research can lead to controversy. (p. 131)

5.5 Explain how gender is significant in sociological research. (p. 143)

5.6 Explain why it’s vital for sociologists to protect the people they study; discuss the two cases that are presented. (p. 143)

5.7 Explain how research and theory work together in sociology. (p. 145)

Raymond Sheehan, a 49-year-old New York retired crime scene investigator, stepped out of the shower. As he stood before the mirror shaving, Barbara Sheehan, his 47-year-old wife, pumped eleven bullets into him. She used two handguns to shoot him. When the police ar- rived, they found Raymond’s blood-splattered body lying on the bathroom floor. The water in the sink was still running.

“He was an evil man,” the wife testified at her murder trial. Clutching her heart and sob- bing, she said, “He was going to kill me. I could see it in his face. I saw his eyes and I saw the gun.”

“Did he have a holster in his underpants?” asked the incredulous prosecuting attorney. “You’re a manipulative liar. You simply hated him, and you killed him.”

The couple’s 21-year-old son testified how he was going to college out of state because he feared that being around his father would drive him to suicide. He told the jury that when he was 10 years old, he saw his mother on the kitchen floor, in just a bra, hot pasta sauce thrown onto her body.

The couple’s 25-year-old daughter told the jury that her father was so explosive he would punch her mother when they got stuck in traffic.

The wife recounted perverse sex acts that her husband had forced on her. “You profited from his cold-blooded murder,” the prosecutor thundered. “Your children

shared with you the $660,000 they collected on his life insurance.” Barbara Sheehan broke down when she was asked to hold the gun and reenact how she

had shot her husband. The judge let her use a pointed finger instead. Victim or executioner?

128

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 128 11/19/15 7:26 AM

How Sociologists Do Research 129

The jury was deadlocked for two days. On the third day, the jurors brought in a verdict. Barbara Sheehan, they concluded, was not guilty of murder. She was guilty, though, of illegal gun possession. The judge declared Barbara not guilty of murder and sentenced her to five years in prison on the gun charge.

Based on Bilefsky 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d; Dwyer 2011.

What Is a Valid Sociological Topic? 5.1 State what topics are valid for sociologists to study.

Sociologists do research on just about every area of human behavior. On the macro level, they study such broad matters as race relations (Feagin 2014), the military (MacLean and Kleykamp 2014), and the global economic crisis (Fligstein and Habinek 2014). On the micro level, they study such individualistic matters as pelvic examinations (Henslin and Biggs 1971/2016), how people interact on street corners (Whyte 2001), and even shyness (Scott 2006). Sociologists study nuns and prostitutes, cops and criminals, as well as all kinds of people in between. In fact, no human behavior is ineligible for sociological scrutiny—whether that behavior is routine or unusual, respectable or repulsive, pleasing or disgusting.

What happened to Barbara and Raymond, then, is also a valid topic of sociological research. But exactly how would you research spouse abuse? As we look at how sociolo- gists do research, we shall try to answer this question.

Common Sense and the Need for Sociological Research 5.2 Explain why common sense can’t replace sociological research.

First, why do we need sociological research? Why can’t we simply depend on common sense, on “what everyone knows”? As noted in Chapter 1, commonsense ideas may or may not be true. Common sense, for example, tells us that spouse abuse has a significant impact on the lives of the people who are abused.

Although this particular idea is accurate, we need research to test commonsense ideas, because not all such ideas are true. After all, common sense also tells us that if a woman is abused, she will pack up and leave her husband. Research, however, shows that the reality of abuse is much more complicated than this. Some women do leave right away, some even after the first incident of abuse. For a variety of reasons, however, some women suffer abuse for years. A main reason is that they feel trapped and don’t perceive any viable alternatives.

This brings us to the need for sociological research: We may want to know why some women put up with abuse, while others don’t. Or we may want to know something entirely different, such as why some people abuse the people they say they love.

In order to answer a question, we need to move beyond guesswork and common sense. We want to know what is really going on. Let’s look at how sociologists do their research.

A Research Model 5.3 Know the eight steps of the research model.

As shown in Figure 5.1 on the next page, scientific research follows eight basic steps. This is an ideal model, however, and in the real world of research, some of these steps may run together. Some may even be omitted.

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 129 11/19/15 7:26 AM

130 Chapter 5

1. Selecting a Topic The first step is to select a topic. What do you want to know more about? Many sociologists simply follow their curios- ity, their drive to learn more about social life. They become interested in a particular topic, and they pursue it, as I did in studying the homeless. Some sociologists choose a topic because funding is available, others because they want to help people better understand a social problem—and per- haps to help solve it. Let’s use spouse abuse as our example.

2. Defining the Problem The second step is to define the problem, to specify what you want to learn about the topic. My interest in the home- less grew until I wanted to learn about homelessness across the nation. Ordinarily, sociologists’ interests are much more focused than this; they examine some specific aspect of a topic, such as how homeless people survive on the streets. In the case of spouse abuse, sociologists may want to know whether violent and nonviolent husbands have different work experiences. Or they may want to learn what can be done to reduce spouse abuse.

3. Reviewing the Literature You must read what has been published on your topic. This helps you to narrow the prob- lem, identify areas that are already known, and learn what areas need to be researched. Reviewing the literature may also help you to pinpoint the questions that you will ask. You might even find out that what you are interested in learning has been answered already. You don’t want to waste your time rediscovering what is already known.

4. Formulating a Hypothesis The fourth step is to formulate a hypothesis, a statement of what you expect to find according to predictions from a theory. A hypothesis predicts a relationship between or among variables, factors that change, or vary, from one person or situation to another. For example, the statement “Men who are more socially isolated are likelier to abuse their wives than men who are more socially integrated” is a hypothesis.

Your hypothesis will need operational definitions—that is, precise ways to measure the variables. In this example, you would need operational definitions for three variables: social isolation, social integration, and spouse abuse.

5. Choosing a Research Method You then need to decide how you are going to collect your data. Sociologists use seven basic research methods (or research designs), which are outlined in the next section. You will want to choose the research method that will best answer your particular questions.

6. Collecting the Data When you gather your data, you have to take care to assure their validity; that is, your operational definitions must measure what they are intended to measure. In this case, you must be certain that you really are measuring social isolation, social inte- gration, and spouse abuse—and not something else. Spouse abuse, for example, seems to be obvious. Yet what some people consider abusive is not regarded as abuse by others.

Select a topic. 1

De�ne the problem.

Review the literature.

Share the results.

Stimulates more ideas for research

Generates hypotheses

Formulate a hypothesis.

• Surveys • Participant observation • Case studies • Secondary analysis

• Analysis of Documents • Experiments • Unobtrusive measures

Choose a research method.

Collect the data.

Analyze the results.

2

3

4

5

7

6

8

Figure 5.1 The Research Model

hypothesis a statement of how variables are expected to be related to one another, often according to predictions from a theory

variable a factor thought to be significant for human behavior, which can vary (or change) from one case to another

operational definition the way in which a researcher measures a variable

research method (or research design) one of seven procedures that sociologists use to collect data: surveys, participant observation, case studies, secondary analysis, analysis of documents, experiments, and unobtrusive measures

validity the extent to which an operational definition measures what it is intended to measure

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 130 11/19/15 7:26 AM

How Sociologists Do Research 131

Which definition will you choose? In other words, you must state your operational definitions so precisely that no one has any question about what you are measuring.

You must also be sure that your data are reliable. Reliability means that if other researchers use your opera- tional definitions, their findings will be consistent with yours. If your operational definitions are sloppy, husbands who have committed the same act of violence might be included in some research but excluded from other studies. You would end up with erratic results. If you show a 10 percent rate of spouse abuse, for example, but another researcher using the same operational definitions determines it to be 30  percent, the research is unreliable.

7. Analyzing the Results You will have been trained in a variety of techniques to ana- lyze your data—from those that apply to observations of peo- ple in small settings to the analysis of large-scale surveys. If a hypothesis has been part of your research, now is when you will test it. (Some research, especially participant observation and case studies, has no hypothesis. You may know so little about the setting you are going to research that you cannot even specify the variables in advance.)

If statistical techniques apply to your research, you are likely to use a program such as MicroCase and SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). Some software, such as the Methodologist’s Toolchest, provides advice about collecting data and even about ethical issues.

8. Sharing the Results To wrap up your research, you will write a report to share your findings with the sci- entific community. You will review how you did your research and specify your oper- ational definitions. You will also compare your findings with published reports on the topic and examine how they support or disagree with theories that others have applied.

When research is published, usually in a scientific journal or a book, it “belongs” to the scientific community. Your findings will be available for replication; that is, others can repeat your study to see if they come up with similar results. As Table 5.1 on the next page illustrates, sociologists often summarize their findings in tables. As finding is added to finding, scientific knowledge builds.

Let’s look in greater detail at the fifth step to see what research methods sociologists use.

Research Methods (Designs) 5.4 Know the main elements of the seven research methods: surveys, participant

observation, case studies, secondary analysis, analysis of documents, experiments, and unobtrusive measures; state why sociological research can lead to controversy.

As we review the seven research methods (or research designs) that sociologists use, we will continue our example of spouse abuse. As you will see, the method you choose will depend on the questions you want to answer. So that you can have a yardstick for com- paring the results of your research, you will want to know what “average” is in your research findings. Table 5.2 on page 133 summarizes the three ways that sociologists measure average.

Would we sociologists ruin the fun if we were to gather data at the International Pillow Fight Day in London? Maybe. But look at this photo. Where are the old folks? Why aren’t they grabbing pillows and . . .? The sociological blood really gets flowing when we look at events, even something as “non-serious” as this.

reliability

the extent to which research produces consistent or dependable results

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 131 11/19/15 7:26 AM

132 Chapter 5

Comparing Violent and Nonviolent Husbands Based on interviews with 150 husbands and wives in a Midwestern city who were getting a divorce.

Husband’s Achievement and Job Satisfaction

Violent Husbands

(n = 25)

Nonviolent Husbands (n = 125)

He started but failed to complete high school or college.

44% 27%

He is very dissatisfied with his job.

44% 18%

His income is a source of constant conflict.

84% 24%

He has less education than his wife.

56% 14%

His job has less prestige than his father-in-law’s.

37% 28%

Source: Modification of Table 1 in O’Brien 1975.

Some tables are much more complicated than this one, but all follow the same basic pattern. To apply these concepts to a table with more information, see page 352.

Answers 1. Comparing Violent and Nonviolent Husbands 2. Based on interviews with 150 husbands and wives 3. Husband’s Achievement and Job Satisfaction, Violent Husbands, Nonviolent Husbands. The n is

an abbreviation for number, and n = 25 means that 25 violent husbands were in the sample. 4. 56%, 18% 5. Violent Husbands 6. A 1975 article by O’Brien (listed in the References section of this text).

Tables summarize information. Because sociological findings are often presented in tables, it is important to understand how to read them. Tables contain six elements: title, headnote, headings, columns, rows, and source. When you understand how these elements fit together, you will know how to read a table.

The title states the topic. It is located at the top of the table. What is the title of this table? Please determine your answer before looking at the correct answer at the bottom of this page.

1

The headnote is not always included in a table. When it is present, it is located just below the title. Its purpose is to give more detailed information about how the data were collected or how data are presented in the table. What are the first eight words of the headnote for this table?

2

The headings tell what kind of information is contained in the table. There are three headings in this table. What are they? In the second heading, what does n = 25 mean?

3

The columns present information arranged vertically. What is the fourth number in the second column and the second number in the third column?

4

The rows present information arranged horizontally. In the fourth row, which husbands are more likely to have less education than their wives?

5

The source of a table, usually listed at the bottom, provides information on where the data in the table originated. Often, as in this instance, the information is specific enough for you to consult the original source. What is the source for this table?

6

Table 5.1 How to Read a Table

Source: By the author.

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 132 11/19/15 7:26 AM

How Sociologists Do Research 133

Surveys Let’s suppose that you want to know how many wives are abused each year. Some hus- bands also are abused, of course, but let’s assume that you are going to focus on wives. An appropriate method for this purpose would be the survey, in which you would ask individuals a series of questions. Before you begin your research, however, you must deal with practical matters that face all researchers. Let’s look at these issues.

SElEcting a SamplE Ideally, you might want to learn about all wives in the world, but obviously you don’t have enough resources to do this. You will have to narrow your population, the target group that you are going to study.

Let’s assume that your resources (money, assistants, time) allow you to investi- gate spouse abuse only among the students on your campus. Let’s also assume that your college enrollment is large, so you won’t be able to survey all the married women who are enrolled. Now you must select a sample, individuals from among your target population. How you choose a sample is crucial: Not all samples are equal. For exam- ple, married women enrolled in introductory sociology and engineering courses might have quite different experiences. If so, surveying just one or the other would produce skewed results.

Remember that your goal is to get findings that apply to your entire school. For this, you need a sample that represents the students. How can you get a representative sample?

The best way is to use a random sample. This does not mean that you stand on some campus corner and ask questions of any woman who happens to walk by. In a random sample, everyone in your population (the target group) has the same chance of being included in the study. In this case, because your population is every married woman enrolled in your college, all married women—whether first-year or graduate students, full- or part- time—must have the same chance of being included in your sample.

Table 5.2 Three Ways to Measure “Average” The Mean The Median The Mode

The term average seems clear enough. As you learned in grade school, to find the average, you add a group of numbers and then divide the total by the number of cases that you added. Assume that the following numbers represent men convicted of battering their wives.

To compute the second average, the median, first arrange the cases in order—either from the highest to the lowest or the lowest to the highest. That arrangement will produce the following distribution.

The third measure of average, the mode, is simply the cases that occur the most often. In this instance, the mode is 57, which is way off the mark.

Example 321 229 57

289 136 57

1,795

Example 57 57

136 229 289 321

1,795

or

1,795 321 289 229 136

57 57

Example 57 57

136 229 289 321

1,795

The total is 2,884. Divided by 7 (the number of cases), the average is 412. Sociologists call this form of average the mean.

The mean can be deceptive because it is strongly influenced by extreme scores, either low or high. Note that six of the seven cases are less than the mean.

Two other ways to compute averages are the median and the mode.

Then look for the middle case, the one that falls halfway between the top and the bottom. That number is 229, since three numbers are lower and three numbers are higher. When there is an even numbers of cases, the median is the halfway mark between the two middle cases.

Because the mode is often deceptive, and only by chance comes close to either of the other two averages, sociologists seldom use it. In addition, not every distribution of cases has a mode. And if two or more numbers appear with the same frequency, you can have more than one mode.

To attain their goal of objectivity and accuracy in their research, sociologists must put away their personal opinions.

© R

ob er

t W eb

er /T

he N

ew Y

or ke

r C

ol le

ct io

n/

w w

w .c

ar to

on ba

nk .c

om

survey the collection of data by having people answer a series of questions

population a target group to be studied

sample the individuals intended to represent the population to be studied

Source: By the author.

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 133 11/19/15 7:26 AM

134 Chapter 5

How can you get a random sample? First, you need a list of all the married women enrolled in your college. Then you assign a number to each name on the list. Using a table of random numbers, you then determine which of these women will become part of your sample. (Tables of random numbers are available in statistics books and online, or they can be generated by a computer.)

A random sample will represent your target population fairly—in this case, married women enrolled at your college. This means that you will be able to generalize your findings to all the married women students on your campus, even if they were not included in your sample.

What if you want to know only about certain subgroups, such as the freshmen and seniors? You could use a stratified random sample. You would need a list of the freshmen and senior married women. Then, using random numbers, you would select a sample from each group. This would allow you to generalize to all the freshmen and senior married women at your college, but you would not be able to

draw any conclusions about the sophomores or juniors.

aSKing nEutRal QuEStionS After you have decided on your population and sample, the next task is to make certain that your questions are neutral. The questions must allow respondents, the people who answer your questions, to express their own opinions. Otherwise, you will end up with biased answers, which are worthless. For example, if you were to ask, “Don’t you think that men who beat their wives should go to prison?” you would be tilting the answer toward agreement with a prison sentence. The Doonesbury cartoon below illustrates another blatant example of biased questions.

For other examples of flawed research, see the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

QuEStionnaiRES and intERviEwS There are two basic techniques for adminis- tering questionnaires, the list of questions to be asked. The first is to ask the respondents to fill them out. These self-administered questionnaires allow a larger number of people to be sampled at a lower cost, but the researchers lose control of the data collection. The researchers don’t know the conditions under which people answered the questions. For example, others could have influenced their answers.

The second technique is the interview. Researchers ask questions, often face to face, sometimes by telephone or e-mail. The advantage of this method is that the researchers can ask each question in the same way. The main disadvantage is that interviews are time-consuming, so researchers end up with fewer respondents. Interviews can also create interviewer bias; that is, the interviewer’s presence can affect what people say. Respondents might be embarrassed by their true feelings, for example, so they give

If sociologists were to study a cock fight, such as this one in India, they would not be interested in which cock won the fight. They would want to know who organized the fight, who trains the cocks, how the cocks are matched, what the betting rules are, how those rules are enforced, and so on. To answer such questions, what research methods do you think sociologists would choose?

D oo

ne sb

ur y

© G

. B . T

ru de

au . R

ep ri

nt ed

w

it h

pe rm

is si

on o

f U ni

ve rs

al P

re ss

Sy

nd ic

at e.

A ll

ri gh

ts r

es er

ve d.

Improperly worded questions can steer respondents toward answers that are not their own, which produces invalid results.

random sample a sample in which everyone in the target population has the same chance of being included in the study

stratified random sample a sample from selected subgroups of the target population in which everyone in those subgroups has an equal chance of being included in the research

respondents people who respond to a survey, either in interviews or by self- administered questionnaires

questionnaires a list of questions to be asked of respondents

self-administered questionnaires questionnaires that respondents fill out

interview direct questioning of respondents

interviewer bias effects of interviewers on respon- dents that lead to biased answers

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 134 11/19/15 7:26 AM

How Sociologists Do Research 135

Down-to-Earth Sociology Loading the Dice: How Not to Do Research The methods of science lend themselves to distortion, misrepresentation, and downright fraud. Consider these findings from surveys:

Americans overwhelmingly prefer Toyotas to Chryslers. Americans overwhelmingly prefer Chryslers to Toyotas.

Obviously, these opposite conclusions cannot both be true. In fact, both sets of findings are misrepresentations, even though the responses came from surveys conducted by so-called independent researchers. It turns out that some researchers load the dice. Hired by firms that have a vested interest in the outcome of the research, they deliver the results their clients are looking for (Armstrong 2007). Here are six ways to load the dice.

1. choose a biased sample. If you want to “prove” that Americans prefer Chryslers over Toyotas, interview unemployed union workers who trace their job loss to Japanese imports. The answer is predictable. You’ll get what you’re looking for.

2. Ask biased questions. Even if you choose an unbiased sample, you can phrase questions in such a way that you direct people to the answer you’re looking for. Suppose that you ask this question:

We are losing millions of jobs to workers overseas who work for just a few dollars a day. After losing their jobs, some Americans are even homeless and hungry. Do you prefer a car that gives jobs to Americans or one that forces our workers to lose their homes?

This question is obviously designed to channel people’s thinking toward a predetermined answer—quite contrary to the standards of scientific research. Look again at the Doonesbury cartoon. 3. List biased choices. Another way to load the dice is

to use closed-ended questions that push people into the answers you want. Consider this finding:

U.S. college students overwhelmingly prefer Levi’s 501 to the jeans of any competitor.

Sound good? Before you rush out to buy Levis, note what these researchers did: In asking students which jeans would be the most popular in the coming year, their list of choices included no other jeans but Levi’s 501!

4. Discard undesirable results. Researchers can keep silent about results they don’t like, or they can continue to survey samples until they find one that matches what they are looking for.

5. Misunderstand the subjects’ world. This route can lead to errors every bit as great as those just cited. Even researchers who use an adequate sample and word their questions properly can end up with skewed results. They might, for example, fail to anticipate interviewer

bias, that people may be embarrassed to express an opinion that isn’t “politically correct.” For example,

surveys show that 80 percent of Americans are environmentalists. Is this an accurate figure? Most Americans are probably embarrassed to tell a stranger otherwise. This would be

like going against the flag, motherhood, and apple pie.

6. Analyze the data incorrectly. Even when researchers strive for objectivity, the sample is good, the wording is neutral, and the respondents answer the questions honestly, the results can still be skewed. The researchers may make a mistake in their calculations, such as entering incorrect data into computer programs. This, too, of course, is inexcusable in science.

Of these six sources of bias, the first four demonstrate fraud. The final two reflect sloppiness, which is also not acceptable in science.

As has been stressed in this chapter, research must be objective if it is to be scientific. The underlying problem with the research cited here—and with so many surveys ban- died about in the media as fact—is that survey research has become big business. Simply put, the money offered by cor- porations has corrupted some researchers.

The beginning of the corruption is subtle. Paul Light, dean at the University of Minnesota, put it this way: “A funder will never come to an academic and say, ‘I want you to produce finding X, and here’s a million dollars to do it.’ Rather, the subtext is that if the researchers produce the right finding, more work—and funding—will come their way.”

SourceS: Based on Crossen 1991; Goleman 1993; Barnes 1995; Resnik 2000; Augoustinos et al. 2009.

“socially acceptable” answers instead. Some even shape their answers to match what they think the interviewer wants to hear. When it comes to embarrassing topics, people are more likely to write their true opinions on anonymous questionnaires than express them to interviewers.

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 135 11/19/15 7:26 AM

136 Chapter 5

In some cases, structured interviews work best. This type of interview uses closed-ended questions—each question is followed by a list of possible answers. Structured interviews are faster to administer, and they make it easier to code (categorize) answers so they can be fed into a computer for analysis. However, as you can see from Table 5.3, the choices listed on a questionnaire might fail to include the respondent’s opinions. Because of this, some researchers prefer unstructured interviews. Here the interviewer asks open- ended questions, which allow people to answer in their own words. Open-ended questions let you tap the full range of people’s opin- ions, but they make it difficult to compare answers. For example, how would you compare these answers to the question “Why do you think men abuse their wives?”

“They’re sick.” “I think they must have had problems with their mother.” “We oughta string ‘em up!”

EStabliShing RappoRt Research on spouse abuse brings up a significant issue. You may have been wondering if women who have been abused will really give honest answers to strangers.

If your method of interviewing consists of walking up to women on the street and asking if their husbands have ever beaten them, there would be little reason to take your findings seriously. Researchers need to establish rapport (ruh-POUR), a feeling of trust, with their respondents, especially when it comes to sensitive topics—those that elicit feelings of embarrassment, shame, or other negative emotions.

Once rapport is gained (often by first asking nonsensitive questions), victims will talk about personal, sensitive issues. A good example is rape. To go beyond police sta- tistics, researchers interview a random sample of 100,000 Americans each year. They ask them whether they have been victims of burglary, robbery, or other crimes. After establishing rapport, the researchers ask about rape. This National Crime Victimization Survey shows that rape victims will talk about their experiences (Weiss 2009; Statistical Abstract 2014:Tables 328, 329, 330).

To gather data on sensitive areas, some researchers use Computer-Assisted Self- Interviewing. In this technique, the interviewer gives the individual a laptop computer (or a tablet), then moves aside while he or she answers questions on the computer. In some versions of this method, the individual listens to the questions on headphones and answers on the computer screen. When the individual clicks the “Submit” button, the interviewer has no idea how any question was answered (Kaestle 2012). This technique provides privacy, and many people like it. However, some prefer a live interviewer even for sensitive areas of their lives. They say that they want positive feedback from inter- viewers (Estes et al. 2010).

Participant Observation (Fieldwork) In the second method, participant observation (or fieldwork), the researcher participates in a research setting while observing what is happening in that setting. But how is it pos- sible to study spouse abuse by participant observation? Obviously, you would not sit around and watch someone being abused.

Let’s suppose that you are interested in learning how spouse abuse affects wives. You might want to know how the abuse has changed their relationship with their hus- bands. Or how has it changed their hopes and dreams? Or their ideas about men? Cer- tainly it has affected their self-concept as well. But how? By observing people as they live their lives, participant observation could provide insight into such questions.

For example, if your campus has a crisis intervention center, you might be able to observe victims of spouse abuse from the time they report the attack through their

Table 5.3 Closed- and Open-Ended Questions

A. closed-ended Question B. open-ended Question

Which of the following best fits your idea of what should be done to someone who has been convicted of spouse abuse? 1.  Probation 2.  Jail time 3.  Community service 4.  Counseling 5.  Divorce 6.  Nothing—It’s a family matter

What do you think should be done to someone who has been convicted of spouse abuse?

Source: By the author.

structured interviews interviews that use closed-ended questions

closed-ended questions questions that are followed by a list of possible answers to be selected by the respondent

unstructured interviews interviews that use open-ended questions

open-ended questions questions that respondents answer in their own words

rapport (ruh-POUR) a feeling of trust between researchers and the people they are studying

participant observation (or fieldwork) research in which the researcher participates in a research setting while observing what is happening in that setting

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 136 11/19/15 7:26 AM

How Sociologists Do Research 137

participation in counseling. With good rapport, you might even be able to spend time with them in other settings, observing further aspects of their lives. What they say and how they interact with others might help you under- stand how abuse has affected them. This, in turn, could give you insight into how to improve college counseling services.

Participant observers face two major dilemmas. The first is general- izability, the extent to which the findings from one setting apply to other groups. Although participant observation can stimulate hypotheses and theories that can be tested in other settings, most participant observation is exploratory, documenting in detail the experiences of people in a particular setting. Although such research suggests that other people who face similar situations react in similar ways, we don’t know how far the findings apply beyond the original setting. A second dilemma is the extent to which par- ticipant observers should get involved in the lives of the people they are observing. Consider this as you read the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

Case Studies To do a case study, the researcher focuses on a single event, situation, or individual. The purpose is to understand the dynamics of relationships and power or even the thinking that motivates people. Sociologist Ken Levi (1981/2016), for example, wanted to study hit men. He would have loved having many hit men to interview, but he had access to only one. He interviewed this man over and over, giving us an understanding of how someone can kill others for money. On another level entirely, sociologist Kai Erikson (1978) investigated the bursting of a dam in West Virginia that killed several hundred people. He focused on the events that led up to this disaster and how people tried to put their lives together after the devastation. For spouse abuse, a case study would focus on a single couple, exploring their history and relationship.

As you can see, the case study reveals a lot of detail about some particular situation, but the question always remains: How much of this detail applies to other situations? This problem of generalizability, which plagues case studies, is the primary reason that few sociologists use this method.

Secondary Analysis In secondary analysis, a fourth research method, researchers analyze data that others have collected. For example, if you were to analyze the original interviews from a study of women who had been abused by their husbands, you would be doing secondary anal- ysis. Researchers prefer to gather their own data, but the lack of resources, especially money, can make this impossible. In addition, existing data could contain a wealth of information that wasn’t pertinent to the goals of the original researchers. You can analyze these for your own purposes.

Like the other methods, secondary analysis also poses its own problems, especially this question: How can a researcher who did not carry out the initial study be sure that the data were gathered systematically and recorded accurately?

Analysis of Documents The fifth method that sociologists use is the analysis of documents, recorded sources. To investigate social life, they examine such diverse sources as books, newspapers, diaries, bank records, police reports, immigration files, and records kept by organizations. The term documents is so broad that it includes video and audio recordings, even Facebook,

Participant observation, participating and observing in a research setting, is usually supplemented by interviewing, asking questions to better understand why people do what they do. In this instance, the sociologist would want to know what this hair removal ceremony in Gujarat, India, means to the child’s family and to the community.

generalizability the extent to which the findings from one group (or sample) can be generalized or applied to other groups (or populations)

case study an intensive analysis of a single event, situation, or individual

secondary analysis the analysis of data that have been collected by other researchers

documents in its narrow sense, written sources that provide data; in its extended sense, archival material of any sort, including photographs, movies, CDs, DVDs, and so on

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 137 11/19/15 7:26 AM

138 Chapter 5

Down-to-Earth Sociology Gang Leader for a Day: Adventures of a Rogue Sociologist Next to the University of Chicago is an area of poverty so dangerous that the professors warn students to avoid it. One graduate student in sociology, Sudhir Venkatesh, the son of immigrants from India, who was working on a research project with William Julius Wilson, ignored the warning.

With clipboard in hand, Sudhir entered “the projects.” Ignoring the glares of the young men standing around, he went into the lobby of a high-rise. Seeing a gaping hole where the elevator was supposed to be, he decided to climb the stairs, where he was almost overpowered by the smell of urine. After climbing five flights, Sudhir came upon some young men shooting craps in a dark hallway. One of them jumped up, grabbed Sudhir’s clipboard, and demanded to know what he was doing there.

Sudhir blurted, “I’m a student at the university, doing a survey, and I’m looking for some families to interview.”

One man took out a knife and began to twirl it. Another pulled out a gun, pointed it at Sudhir’s head, and said, “I’ll take him.”

Then came a series of rapid-fire questions that Sudhir couldn’t answer. He had no idea what they meant: “You flip right or left? Five or six? You run with the Kings, right?”

Grabbing Sudhir’s bag, two of the men searched it. They could find only questionnaires, pen and paper, and a few sociology books. The man with the gun then told Sudhir to go ahead and ask him a question.

Sweating despite the cold, Sudhir read the first question on his survey, “How does it feel to be black and poor?” Then he read the multiple-choice answers: “Very bad, somewhat bad, neither bad nor good, somewhat good, very good.”

As you might surmise, the man’s answer was too obscenity-laden to be printed here.

As the men deliberated Sudhir’s fate (“If he’s here and he don’t get back, you know they’re going to come looking for him”), a powerfully built man with glittery gold teeth and a sizable diamond earring appeared. The man, known as J. T., who, it turned out, directed the drug trade in the building, asked what was going on. When the younger men mentioned the questionnaire, J. T. said to ask him a question.

Amidst an eerie silence, Sudhir asked, “How does it feel to be black and poor?”

“I’m not black,” came the reply.

“Well, then, how does it feel to be African American and poor?”

“I’m not African American either. I’m a nigger.” Sudhir was left speechless. Despite his naïveté, he

knew better than to ask, “How does it feel to be a nigger and poor?”

As Sudhir stood with his mouth agape, J. T. added, “Niggers are the ones who live in this building. African Americans live in the suburbs. African Americans wear ties to work. Niggers can’t find no work.”

Not exactly the best start to a research project. But this weird and frightening beginning turned into

several years of fascinating research. Over time, J. T. guided Sudhir into a world that few outsiders ever see. Not only did Sudhir get to know drug dealers, crackheads, squatters, prostitutes, and pimps, but he also was present at beatings by drug crews,

drive-by shootings done by rival gangs, and armed robberies by the police.

How Sudhir got out of his predicament in the stairwell, his immersion into a threatening underworld—the daily life for many people in “the projects”—and his moral dilemma at witnessing crimes are part of his fascinating experience in doing participant observation of the

Black Kings. Sudhir, who was reared in a middle-

class suburb in California, even took over this Chicago gang for a day. This is

one reason that he calls himself a rogue sociologist—the decisions he made that day were violations of law, felonies that could bring years in prison. There are other reasons, too: During the research, he kicked a man in the stomach, and he was present as the gang planned drive-by shootings.

Update: Sudhir survived and completed his Ph.D. He teaches at Columbia University, where both fame and controversy have followed. He has appeared on television talk shows, has worked for the FBI, and has been investigated by Columbia University for ethical irregularities.

SourceS: Based on Venkatesh 2008; Kaminer 2012.

For Your Consideration → From Sudhir’s experiences, what do you see as the

advantages of participant observation? Its disadvantages? → Do you think that doing sociological research justifies

being present at beatings? At the planning of drive-by shootings?

Sudhir Venkatesh, who now teaches at Columbia University, New York City.

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 138 11/19/15 7:26 AM

How Sociologists Do Research 139

which sociologists have used to study the race–ethnicity of friendships among college students (Wimmer and Lewis 2011).

To study spouse abuse, you might examine police reports and court records. These could reveal what percentage of complaints result in arrest and what proportion of the men arrested are charged, convicted, or put on probation. If these were your questions, police statistics would be valuable.

But for other questions, those records would be useless. If you want to learn about the victims’ social and emotional adjustment, for example, police and court records would tell you little. Other documents, however, might provide these answers. With the promise of confidentiality (no names or anything else to identify individuals), perhaps the director of a crisis intervention center might persuade victims to let you examine their counseling records. To my knowledge, no sociologist has yet studied spouse abuse in this way.

Of course, I am presenting an ideal situation: the director of a crisis intervention cen- ter who opens her arms to you. The actual situation might be quite different. To preserve the confidentiality of victims, she might not even let you near the center’s records. Access, then, is another problem that researchers face. Simply put, you can’t study a topic unless you can gain access to it.

Experiments Do you think there is a way to change a man who abuses his wife into a loving husband? No one has made this claim, but a lot of people say that abusers need therapy. Yet no one knows whether therapy really works. As discussed in Table 5.4 on the next page, experiments are useful for determining cause and effect. Let’s suppose that you pro- pose an experiment to a judge, and she gives you access to men who have been arrested for spouse abuse. As in Figure 5.2 below, you would randomly divide the men into two groups. This helps to ensure that their individual characteristics (attitudes, number of arrests, severity of crimes, education, race–ethnicity, age, and so on) are distributed evenly between the groups. You then would arrange for the men in the experimental group to receive some form of therapy that the men in the control group would not get.

Your independent variable, something that causes a change in another variable, would be the therapy. Your dependent variable, the variable that might change, would be the men’s behavior, whether they abuse women after they get out of jail. Unfortu- nately, your operational definition of the men’s behavior will be sloppy: either reports from the wives or records indicating who has been rearrested for abuse. This is sloppy because some of the women will not report the abuse, and some of the men who abuse their wives will not be arrested. Yet it may be the best you can do.

Let’s assume that you choose rearrest as your operational definition of the indepen- dent variable. If fewer of the men who received therapy are rearrested for abuse, you can

The research methods that sociologists choose depend partially on the questions they want to answer. They might want to learn, for example, which forms of publicity are more effective in increasing awareness of spouse abuse as a social problem.

experiment the use of control and experimental groups and dependent and independent variables to test causation

experimental group the group of subjects in an experiment who are exposed to the independent variable

control group the subjects in an experiment who are not exposed to the independent variable

independent variable a factor that causes a change in another variable, called the dependent variable

dependent variable a factor in an experiment that is changed by an independent variable

Figure 5.2 The Experiment

Random Assignment

Experimental Group

Control Group

No exposure to the independent

variable

The First Measure of the Dependent Variable

The Second Measure of the Dependent Variable

Human Subjects

Experimental Group

Control Group

Exposure to the independent

variable

Source: By the author.

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 139 11/19/15 7:26 AM

140 Chapter 5

attribute the difference to the therapy. If you find no difference in rearrest rates, you can conclude that the therapy was ineffective. If you find that the men who received the ther- apy have a higher rearrest rate, you can conclude that the therapy backfired.

Ideally, you would test different types of therapy. Perhaps only some types work. You could even test self-therapy by assigning articles, books, and videos.

Table 5.4 Cause, Effect, and Spurious Correlations

Causation means that a change in one variable is caused by another variable. Three conditions are necessary for causation: correlation, temporal priority, and no spurious correlation. Let’s apply each of these conditions to spouse abuse and alcohol abuse.

1 The first necessary condition is correlation

If two variables exist together, they are said to be correlated. If batterers get drunk, battering and alcohol abuse are correlated.

Spouse Abuse  +  Alcohol Abuse

People sometimes assume that correlation is causation. In this instance, they conclude that alcohol abuse causes spouse abuse.

Alcohol Abuse Spouse Abuse

But correlation never proves causation. Either variable could be the cause of the other. Perhaps battering upsets men and they then get drunk.

Spouse Abuse Alcohol Abuse

2 The second necessary condition is temporal priority.

Temporal priority means that one thing happens before something else does. For a variable to be a cause (the independent variable), it must precede that which is changed (the dependent variable).

precedes Alcohol Abuse Spouse Abuse

If the men had not drunk alcohol until after they beat their wives, obviously alcohol abuse could not be the cause of the spouse abuse. Although the necessity of temporal priority is obvious, in many studies this is not easy to determine.

3 The third necessary condition is no spurious correlation.

This is the necessary condition that really makes things difficult. Even if we identify the correlation of getting drunk and spouse abuse and can determine temporal priority, we still don’t know that alcohol abuse is the cause. We could have a spurious correlation; that is, the cause may be some underlying third variable. These are usually not easy to identify. Some sociologists think that male culture is that underlying third variable.

Male culture Spouse Abuse

Socialized into dominance, some men learn to view women as objects on which to take out their frustration. In fact, this underlying third variable could be a cause of both spouse abuse and alcohol abuse.

Spouse Abuse

Male culture

Alcohol Abuse

But since only some men beat their wives, while all males are exposed to male culture, other variables must also be involved. Perhaps specific subcultures that promote violence and denigrate women lead to both spouse abuse and alcohol abuse.

Spouse Abuse

Male Subculture

Alcohol Abuse

If so, this does not mean that it is the only causal variable; spouse abuse probably has many causes. Unlike the movement of amoebas or the action of heat on some object, human behavior is infinitely complicated. Especially important are people’s definitions of the situation, including their views of right and wrong. To explain spouse abuse, then, we need to add such variables as the ways that men view violence and their ideas about the relative rights of women and men. It is precisely to help unravel such complicating factors in human behavior that we need the experiment method.

Source: By the author.

Correlation simply means that two or more variables are present together. The more often that these variables are found together, the stronger their relationship. To indicate their strength, sociologists use a number called a correlation coefficient. If two variables are always related, that is, they are always present together, they have what is called a perfect positive correlation. The number 1.0 represents this correlation coefficient. Nature has some 1.0’s, such as the lack of water and the death of trees; 1.0’s also apply to the human physical state, such as the absence of nutrients and the absence of life. But social life is much more complicated than physical conditions, and there are no 1.0’s in human behavior.

Two variables can also have a perfect negative correlation. This means that when one variable is present, the other is always absent. The number –1.0 represents this correlation coefficient.

Positive correlations of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 mean that one variable is associated with another only 1 time out of 10, 2 times out of 10, and 3 times out of 10. In other words, in most instances the first variable is not associated with the second, indicating a weak relationship. A strong relationship may indicate causation, but not necessarily. Testing the relationship between variables is the goal of some sociological research.

MORE ON CORRELATIONS

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 140 11/19/15 7:26 AM

How Sociologists Do Research 141

Unobtrusive Measures Let’s suppose you go to the mall. As you enter, you see a mannequin dressed in the latest fashions. As you glance at it, this bionic man- nequin, which looks like a regular one, reports your age, sex, and race-ethnicity (Roberts 2012). Then as you stroll past stores, you are tracked by your smartphone and sent targeted ads (Ramstad 2012; Troianovski 2012). Embedded in the Web coupons you use to make purchases are bar codes that contain your name and Facebook infor- mation. Cameras follow you throughout the store, recording each item you touch, as well as every time you pick your nose (Singer 2010).

In our technological society, we are surrounded by unobtrusive measures, ways to observe people who are not aware that they are being studied. The face-recognition cameras and tracking services are part of marketing (or law enforcement), not sociological research. In contrast to these technological marvels, the unobtrusive measures used by sociol- ogists are downright primitive. To determine whiskey consumption in a town that was legally “dry,” for example, sociologists counted the empty bottles in trashcans (Lee 2000).

How could we use unobtrusive measures to study spouse abuse? As you might sur- mise, sociologists would consider it unethical to watch someone being abused. If abused or abusing spouses held a public forum on the Internet, however, you could record and analyze their online conversations. Or you could analyze 911 calls. The basic ethical prin- ciple is this: To record the behavior of people in public settings, such as a crowd, without announcing that you are doing so is acceptable. To do this in private settings is not. But what is private and what is public is not always clear (Hurdley 2010). The hallway just outside an instructor’s office—is it private, or is it public?

Deciding Which Method to Use How do sociologists choose among these methods? Four primary factors affect the deci- sion. The first is access to resources. Researchers may want to conduct a survey, for exam- ple, but if finances are not sufficient, they might analyze documents instead. The second is access to subjects. If the people who make up the sample live far away, researchers who would have preferred doing face-to-face interviews might mail them questionnaires instead. Or a researcher might conduct a survey by telephone or e-mail. The third factor concerns the purpose of the research. Each method is better for answering certain types of questions. Participant observation, for example, is good at uncovering people’s attitudes, while experiments are better at resolving questions of cause and effect. Fourth, the researcher’s background or training comes into play. In graduate school, sociologists study many methods, but they are able to practice only some of them. After graduate school, sociologists who were trained in quantitative research methods, which emphasize mea- surement and statistics, are likely to use surveys. Sociologists who were trained in quali- tative research methods, which emphasize observing and interpreting people’s behavior, lean toward participant observation.

Controversy in Sociological Research Sociologists sometimes find themselves in the hot seat because of their research. Some researchers poke into private areas of life, which upsets people. Others investigate political matters, and their findings threaten those who have some stake in the situation. When researchers wanted to learn about how risky sexual practices are related to HIV infection, members of the U.S. Congress scoffed at the proposal and asked the National Institute of Health not to fund it (Kempner 2008). But it isn’t just sex and politics. In the following Thinking Critically section, you can see how some sociologists got in hot water just for wanting to count the homeless.

The surveillance society is not limited to the United States. This photo was taken as Nice, France, added its 1000th video camera to its surveillance system. How do the unobtrusive measures of sociologists differ from hidden crime surveillance?

unobtrusive measures ways of observing people so they do not know they are being studied

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 141 11/19/15 7:26 AM

142 Chapter 5

Thinking Critically Doing Controversial Research—Counting the Homeless What could be less offensive than counting the homeless? As sometimes occurs, however, even basic sociology lands researchers in the midst of controversy. This is what happened to sociologist Peter Rossi and his associates.

The problem began with a dispute between advocates for the homeless and federal officials. The advocates claimed that 3 to 7 million Americans were homeless; the officials put the total at about 250,000. Each side accused the other of gross distortion—the one to place pressure on Congress, the other to keep the public from knowing how bad the situation really was. But each side was only guessing.

Only an accurate count could clear up the picture. Peter Rossi and the National Opinion Research Center took on that job. They had no vested interest in supporting either side, only in answering this question accurately.

The challenge was immense. The population was evident—the U.S. homeless. A survey would be appropriate, but how do you survey a sample of the homeless? No one has a list of the homeless, and only some of the homeless stay at shelters. As for validity, to make certain that they were counting only people who were really homeless, the researchers needed a good operational definition of homelessness. To include people who weren’t really homeless would destroy the study’s reliability. The researchers wanted results that would be consistent if others were to replicate, or repeat, the study.

As an operational definition, the researchers used “literally homeless,” people “who do not have access to a conventional dwelling and who would be homeless by any conceivable definition of the term.” With funds limited, the researchers couldn’t do a national count, but they could count the homeless in Chicago.

By using a stratified random sample, the researchers were able to generalize to the entire city. How could they do this, since there is no list of the homeless? They did have a list of the city’s shelters and a map of the city. A stratified random sample of the city’s shelters gave them access to the homeless who sleep in the shelters. For those who sleep in the streets, parks, and vacant buildings, they used a stratified random sample of different city blocks.

Their findings? On an average night, 2,722 people are homeless in Chicago. Because people move in and out of homelessness, between 5,000 and 7,000 are homeless at some point during the year. On warm nights, only two out

of five sleep in the shelters, and even during Chicago’s cold winters, only three out of four do so. Seventy-five percent are men, 60 percent are African Americans. One in four is a former mental patient, one in five a former prisoner. Projecting these findings to the United States yields a national total of about 350,000 homeless people.

This total elated government officials and stunned the homeless advocates. The advocates said that the number couldn’t possibly be right, and they began to snipe at the researchers. This is one of the risks of doing research: Sociologists never know whose toes they will step on. The sniping made the researchers uncomfortable, and to let everyone know they weren’t trying to minimize the problem,

they stressed that these 350,000 Americans live desperate lives. They sleep on city streets, live in shelters, eat out of garbage cans, and suffer from severe health problems.

The controversy continues. With funding at stake for shelters and for treating mental problems and substance abuse, homeless advocates continue to insist that at least 2 million Americans are homeless. While the total is not in the millions, it has increased recently to 580,000 or so, with over a million people using shelters during the course of a year. With our current economic situation, more families are homeless.

SourceS: Based on Anderson 1986; Rossi 1989, 1991, 1999; National Coalition for the Homeless 2008; National Alliance to End Homelessness 2015.

The homeless, who used to be rare, have become a common sight in U.S. cities. The text describes how merely counting the homeless landed some sociologists in the midst of controversy.

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 142 11/19/15 7:26 AM

How Sociologists Do Research 143

Gender in Sociological Research 5.5 Explain how gender is significant in sociological research.

You know how significant gender is in your own life, how it affects your orientations and attitudes. Because gender is so influential, researchers take steps to prevent it from biasing their findings (Davis et al. 2010; Rabin 2014). For example, sociologists Diana Scully and Joseph Marolla (1984, 2014) interviewed convicted rapists in prison. They were con- cerned that gender might lead to interviewer bias—that the prisoners might shift their answers, sharing certain experiences or opinions with Marolla but saying something else to Scully. To prevent gender bias, each researcher interviewed half the sample. Later in this chapter, we’ll look at what they found.

Gender certainly can be an impediment in research. In our imagined research on spouse abuse, for example, could a man even do participant observation of women who have been beaten by their husbands? Technically, the answer is yes. But because the women have been victimized by men, they might be less likely to share their experiences and feelings with men. If so, women would be better suited to conduct this research, more likely to achieve valid results. The supposition that these victims will be more open with women than with men, however, is just that—a supposition. Research alone would verify or refute this assumption.

Gender is significant in other ways, too. In the past, when almost all sociologists were men, women’s experiences were neglected. Women’s and men’s lives differ significantly, and if we do research on just half of humanity, our research will be vastly incomplete. Today’s huge number of female sociologists guarantees that women are not ignored in social research.

Gender issues can pop up in unexpected ways in sociological research. I vividly recall an incident in San Francisco.

The streets were getting dark, and I was still looking for homeless people. When I saw someone lying down, curled up in a doorway, I approached the individual. As I got close, I began my opening research line, “Hi, I’m Dr. Henslin from. . . .” The indi- vidual began to scream and started to thrash her arms and legs. Startled by this sud- den, high-pitched scream and by the rapid movements, I quickly backed away. When I later analyzed what had happened, I concluded that I had intruded into a woman’s bedroom.

This incident also holds another lesson. Researchers do their best, but they make mis- takes. Sometimes these mistakes are minor, even humorous. The woman sleeping in the doorway wasn’t frightened. It was only just getting dark, and there were many people on the street. She was just assertively marking her territory and letting me know in no uncertain terms that I was an intruder. If we make a mistake in research, we pick up and go on. As we do so, we take ethical considerations into account, which is the topic of our next section.

Ethics in Sociological Research 5.6 Explain why it’s vital for sociologists to protect the people they study; discuss

the two cases that are presented.

In addition to choosing an appropriate research method, we must also follow the ethics of sociology (American Sociological Association 1999; Joungtrakul and Allen 2012). Research ethics require honesty, truth, and openness (sharing findings with the scientific community). Ethics clearly forbid the falsification of results, as well as

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 143 11/19/15 7:26 AM

144 Chapter 5

plagiarism—that is, stealing someone else’s work. Another ethical guideline states that, generally, people should be informed that they are being studied and that they never should be harmed by the research. Sociologists are also required to protect the anonymity of those who provide information. Sometimes people reveal things that are intimate, potentially embarrassing, or otherwise harmful to themselves or others. Finally, it generally is considered unethical for researchers to misrepresent themselves.

Sociologists take their ethical standards seriously. To illustrate the extent to which they will go to protect their respondents, consider the research conducted by Mario Brajuha.

Protecting the Subjects: The Brajuha Research Mario Brajuha, a graduate student at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, was doing participant observation of restaurant workers. He lost his job as a waiter when the restaurant where he was working burned down—a fire of “suspicious origin,” as the police said. When detectives learned that Brajuha had taken field notes, they asked to see them (Brajuha and Hallowell 1986). Because he had promised to keep the information confidential, Brajuha refused to hand them over. When the district attorney subpoenaed the notes, Brajuha still refused. The district attorney then threatened to put Brajuha in jail. By this time, Brajuha’s notes had become rather famous, and unsavory characters— perhaps those who had set the fire—also wanted to know what was in them. They, too, demanded to see them, accompanying their demands with threats of a different nature. Brajuha found himself between a rock and a hard place.

For two years, Brajuha refused to hand over his notes, even though he grew anxious and had to appear at several court hearings. Finally, the district attorney dropped the

subpoena. When the two men under investigation for set- ting the fire died, the threats to Brajuha, his wife, and their children ended.

Sociologists applaud the way Brajuha protected his respondents and the professional manner in which he handled himself.

Misleading the Subjects: The Humphreys Research Another ethical problem involves what you tell participants about your research. Although it is consid- ered acceptable for sociologists to do covert participant observation (studying some situation without announc- ing that they are doing research), to misrepresent oneself is considered unethical. Let’s look at the case of Laud Humphreys, whose research forced sociologists to rethink and refine their ethical stance.

Laud Humphreys, a classmate of mine at Washington University in St. Louis, was an Episcopal priest who decided to become a sociologist. For his Ph.D. dissertation, Humphreys (1970/1975, 1971) studied social interaction in “tearooms,” public restrooms where some men go for quick, anonymous oral sex with other men.

Humphreys found that some restrooms in Forest Park, just across from our cam- pus, were tearooms. He began a participant observation study by hanging around these restrooms. He found that in addition to the two men having sex, a third man— called a “watch queen”—served as a lookout for police and other unwelcome strangers.

Ethics in social research are of vital concern to sociologists. As discussed in the text, sociologists may disagree on some of the issue’s finer points, but none would approve of slipping LSD to unsuspecting subjects like this Marine. This was done to U.S. soldiers in the 1960s under the guise of legitimate testing—just “to see what would happen.”

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 144 11/19/15 7:26 AM

How Sociologists Do Research 145

Humphreys took on the role of watch queen, not only watching for strangers but also observing what the men did. He wrote field notes after the encounters.

Humphreys decided that he wanted to learn about the regular lives of these men. For example, what was the significance of the wedding rings that many of the men wore? He came up with an ingenious technique: Many of the men parked their cars near the tearooms, and Humphreys recorded their license plate numbers. A friend in the St. Louis police department gave Humphreys each man’s address. About a year later, Humphreys arranged for these men to be included in a medical survey conducted by some of the sociologists on our faculty.

Disguising himself with a different hairstyle and clothing, Humphreys visited the men at home, supposedly to interview them for the medical study. He found that they led conventional lives. They voted, mowed their lawns, and took their kids to Little League games. Many reported that their wives were not aroused sexually or were afraid of getting pregnant because their religion did not allow birth control. Humphreys concluded that heterosexual men were also using the tearooms for a form of quick sex.

This research stirred controversy among sociologists and nonsociologists alike. Many sociologists criticized Humphreys, and a national columnist even wrote a scathing denunciation of “sociological snoopers” (Von Hoffman 1970). One of our professors even tried to get Humphreys’ Ph.D. revoked. (This professor also hit Humphreys and kicked him after he had knocked him down—but that is another story.) As the controversy heated up and a court case loomed, Humphreys feared that his list of respondents might be subpoenaed. He gave me the list to take from Missouri to Illinois, where I had begun teaching. When he called and asked me to destroy it, I burned the list in my backyard.

Was this research ethical? This question is not decided easily. Although many sociologists sided with Humphreys—and his book reporting the research won a highly acclaimed award—the criticisms continued. At first, Humphreys defended his position vigorously, but five years later, in a second edition of his book (1975), he stated that he should have identified himself as a researcher.

How Research and Theory Work Together 5.7 Explain how research and theory work together in sociology.

Research cannot stand alone. Nor can theory. As sociologist C. Wright Mills (1959) argued so forcefully, research without theory is simply a collection of unrelated “facts.” But the- ory without research, Mills added, is abstract and empty—it can’t represent the way life really is.

Research and theory, then, are both essential for sociology. Every theory must be tested, which requires research. And as sociologists do research, often coming up with surprising findings, those results must be explained; for that, we need theory. As sociolo- gists study social life, then, they combine research and theory.

The Real World: When the Ideal Meets the Real Although we can list the ideals of research, real-life situations often force sociologists to settle for something that falls short of the ideal. In the following Thinking Critically sec- tion, let’s look at how two sociologists confronted the ideal and the real.

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 145 11/19/15 7:26 AM

146 Chapter 5

Sociology needs more of this type of research—imaginative and sometimes daring investigations conducted under less than ideal conditions. This is really what sociology is all about. Sociologists study what people do—whether their behaviors are conforming or deviant, whether they please others or disgust them. No matter what behavior is studied, these research methods and the application of social theory take us beyond common sense. They allow us to penetrate surface realities so we can bet- ter understand human behavior and, in the ideal case, make changes to help improve social life.

Thinking Critically Are Rapists Sick? A Close-Up View of Research Two sociologists, Diana Scully and Joseph Marolla, whose research was mentioned earlier, were not satisfied with the typical explanation that rapists are “sick” or psychologically disturbed. They developed the hypothesis that rape is like most human behavior—learned through interactions with others. That is, some men learn to think of rape as acceptable behavior.

To test this hypothesis, it would be best to interview a random sample of rapists. But this is impossible. There is no list of all rapists, so there is no way to give them all the same chance of being included in a sample. You can’t even use prison populations to select a random sample, since many rapists have never been caught. And as we know from DNA testing, some men who have been convicted of rape are innocent (Katz and Eckholm 2014). Scully and Marolla confronted the classic dilemma of sociologists—either to not do the research or to do it under less than ideal conditions.

They chose to do the research. When they had the opportunity to interview convicted rapists in prison, they jumped at it (Scully and Marolla 1984, 2016). They knew that whatever they learned would be more than we already knew. They sent letters to 3,500 men serving time in seven prisons in Virginia, the state where they were teaching. About 25 percent of the prisoners agreed to be interviewed. The researchers matched these men on the basis of age, education, race–ethnicity, severity of offense, and previous criminal record. Their sample consisted of 98 prisoners who had been convicted of rape and a control sample of 75 men convicted of other crimes.

Because the sex of the interviewer can bias research results, Scully and Marolla each interviewed half the sample. To guard against lies, they checked what the men told them against their institutional records. They used twelve scales to measure the men’s attitudes about women, rape, and themselves. In order to find out what circumstances the men defined as rape or when they viewed the victim as responsible, they also gave the men nine vignettes of forced sexual encounters and asked them to determine responsibility in each one.

After 600 hours of interviewing, Scully and Marolla had the information they needed.

Scully and Marolla discovered something that goes against common sense—that the psychological histories of the rapists and the nonrapists were similar. The rapists were neither sick nor had they been overwhelmed by uncontrollable urges. The men raped for a variety of reasons: to “blow off steam” over problems they were having with others, to get sex, to feel powerful, and to hurt women (Monahan et al. 2005). Some men raped spontaneously, while others planned their rapes. Some raped as a form of revenge, to get even with someone, although not necessarily their victim. For some, rape was even a form of recreation, and they raped with friends on weekends.

Scully and Marolla also found support for what feminists had been pointing out for years, that power is a major element in rape. Here is what one man said:

Rape gave me the power to do what I wanted to do without feeling I had to please a partner or respond to a partner. I felt in control, dominant. Rape was the ability to have sex without caring about the woman’s response. I was totally dominant.

What Sully and Marolla uncovered is significant: Rape stems from the criminal pursuit of pleasure, not from mental illness, and a motivating force of rapists can be power, not passion. Such findings make the sociological quest worthwhile.

Connecting Research and Theory Some researchers have even interviewed rapists who have not been arrested (Jewkes 2012). Here are some of the patterns that are emerging from this research: hostility to women, cynicism about intimacy, sexual conquest as a source of self-esteem, and trauma during childhood. As indicated in Figure 5.1 on page 130, research stimulates both the development of theory and the need for more research. The theory and research that develop in this area may provide the basis for making changes that reduce rape.

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 146 11/19/15 7:26 AM

How Sociologists Do Research 147

Thinking Critically about Chapter 5 1. Should sociologists do research on disreputable or

disapproved behavior? On illegal behavior? On illegal behavior when the offenders have not been arrested? Why or why not?

2. What are the differences between good and bad socio- logical research? How can biases be avoided?

3. What ethics do sociologists follow in their research?

4. Do you think that it is right (or ethical) for sociologists to not identify themselves when they do research? To misrepresent themselves? What if identifying them- selves as researchers will destroy their access to a research setting or to informants?

Summary and Review What Is a Valid Sociological Topic? 5.1 State what topics are valid for sociologists to study.

Any human behavior is a valid sociological topic, even dis- reputable behavior. Spouse abuse and rape are examples.

Common Sense and the Need for Sociological Research 5.2 Explain why common sense can’t replace

sociological research.

why isn’t common sense adequate?

Common sense doesn’t provide reliable information. When subjected to scientific research, commonsense ideas often are found to be limited or false.

A Research Model 5.3 Know the eight steps of the research model.

what are the eight basic steps of sociological research?

(1) Selecting a topic, (2) Defining the problem, (3) Reviewing the literature, (4) Formulating a hypothesis, (5) Choosing a research method, (6) Collecting the data, (7) Analyzing the results, and (8) Sharing the results.

Research Methods 5.4 Know the main elements of the seven research

methods: surveys, participant observation, case studies, secondary analysis, analysis of documents, experiments, and unobtrusive measures; state why sociological research can lead to controversy.

how do sociologists gather data?

To collect data, sociologists use seven research methods (or research designs): surveys, participant observation (fieldwork), case studies, secondary analysis analysis of documents, experiments, and unobtrusive measures.

how do sociologists choose a research method?

Sociologists choose their research method based on the questions they want answered, their access to potential subjects, the resources available, and their training.

Controversy in Sociological Research why is sociological research often controversial?

There are two basic reasons that sociological research upsets people. Sociologists probe below surface realities, which threatens people’s interests They also explore pri- vate or intimate areas of life.

Gender in Sociological Research 5.5 Explain how gender is significant in sociological

research.

what is the relationship between gender and research?

Gender can affect research in two basic ways. The first is interviewer bias, where participants shape their answers based on the gender of the researcher. The second is doing research on only males or females: If a sample consists of only one sex, the results do not necessarily apply to the other sex.

Ethics in Sociological Research 5.6 Explain why it’s vital for sociologists to protect the

people they study; discuss the two cases that are presented.

how important are ethics in sociological research?

Ethics are of fundamental concern to sociologists, who are committed to openness, honesty, truth, and protecting their subjects from harm. The Brajuha research on restaurant workers and the Humphreys research on “tearooms” were cited to illustrate ethical issues that concern sociologists.

How Research and Theory Work Together 5.7 Explain how research and theory work together in

sociology.

what is the relationship between theory and research?

Theory and research depend on one another. Theory generates questions that need to be answered by research, and sociol- ogists use theory to interpret the data they gather. Research, in turn, helps to generate theory: Findings that don’t match what is expected can indicate a need to modify theory.

M05_HENS5571_13_SE_C05.indd 147 11/19/15 7:26 AM

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 148 11/19/15 8:06 AM

149

Chapter 6

Societies to Social Networks

“Bangin’. . . . It’s gettin’ caught and not tellin’. Killin’ and not caring, and dyin’ without fear.”

Learning Objectives

6.1 Summarize the main characteristics of these types of societies: hunting and gathering, pastoral and horticultural, agricultural, industrial, postindustrial, and biotech. (p. 150)

6.2 Discuss the main characteristics of primary groups, secondary groups, in-groups and out-groups, reference groups, and social networks. (p. 156)

6.3 Be familiar with the effects of group size on stability, intimacy, attitudes and behavior; types and styles of leaders; the Asch experiment on peer pressure; the Milgram experiment on authority; and the implications of groupthink. (p. 162)

When Kody Scott joined the L.A. Crips, his initiation had two parts. Here’s the first:

“How old is you now anyway?” “Eleven, but I’ll be twelve in November.” I never saw the blow to my head come from Huck. Bam! And I was on all fours. . . .

Kicked in the stomach, I was on my back counting stars in the blackness. A solid blow to my chest exploded pain on the blank screen that had now become my mind. Bam! Blows rained on me from every direction. . . .

Then I just started swinging, with no style or finesse, just anger and the instinct to survive. . . . [This] reflected my ability to represent the set [gang] in hand-to-hand combat. The blows stopped abruptly. . . . My ear was bleeding, and my neck and face were deep red. . . .

Scott’s beating was followed immediately by the second part of his initiation. For this, he received the name Monster, which he carried proudly:

“Give Kody the pump.” [a 12-gauge pump action shotgun] . . . “Tonight we gonna rock they world.” . . . Hand slaps were passed around the room. . . . “Kody, you got eight shots, you don’t come back to the car unless they all are gone.”

“Righteous,” I said, eager to show my worth. . . . Hanging close to buildings, houses, and bushes, we made our way, one after the

other, to within spitting distance of the Bloods. . . . Huck and Fly stepped from the shad- ows simultaneously. . . . Boom! Boom! Heavy bodies hitting the ground, confusion, yells of dismay, running. . . . By my sixth shot I had advanced past the first fallen bodies and into the street in pursuit of those who had sought refuge behind cars and trees. . . .

Back in the shack we smoked more pot and drank more beer. . . .

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 149 11/19/15 8:06 AM

150 Chapter 6

Tray Ball said, “You got potential, ’cause you eager to learn. Bangin’ [being a gang member] ain’t no part-time thang, it’s full-time, it’s a career. . . . It’s gettin’ caught and not tellin’. Killin’ and not caring, and dyin’ without fear. It’s love for your set and hate for the enemy. You hear what I’m sayin’?”

Kody adds this insightful remark:

. . . The supreme sacrifice was to “take a bullet for a homie” [fellow gang member]. Nothing held a light to the power of the set. If you died on the trigger you surely were smiled upon by the Crip God.

Excerpts from Scott 1994:8–13, 103.

Could you be like Kody and shoot people in cold blood—just because others tell you to pull the trigger? Although none of us want to think that we could, don’t bet on it. In this chapter, you are going to read some surprising things about groups—people who inter- act with one another and who think of themselves as belonging together. As we move into this topic, let’s first look at the big picture, how societies have changed over time.

Societies and Their Transformation 6.1 Summarize the main characteristics of these types of societies: hunting and

gathering, pastoral and horticultural, agricultural, industrial, postindustrial, and biotech.

The largest and most complex group that sociologists study is society, which consists of people who share a culture and a territory. Society, which surrounds us, sets the stage for our life experiences. The sociological principle is that the type of society we live in is the fundamen- tal reason for why we become who we are. Not only does our society lay the broad framework for our behavior, but it also influences the ways we think and feel. Its effects are so signifi- cant that if you had grown up in a different society, you would be a different type of person.

To see how our society developed, look at Figure 6.1 on the next page. You can see that technology is the key to understanding the sweeping changes that produced our society. Let’s review these broad changes. As we do, picture yourself as a member of each society.

Consider how your life—even your thoughts and values—would be different if you grew up in these societies.

Hunting and Gathering Societies The members of hunting and gathering societies have few social divisions and little inequality. As the name implies, in order to survive, these groups depend on hunting animals and gathering plants. In some groups, the men do the hunting and the women the gathering. In others, both men and women (and children) gather plants, the men hunt large animals, and both men and women hunt small animals. The groups usually have a shaman, an individual thought to be able to influence spiritual forces, but shamans, too, must help obtain food. Although these groups give greater prestige to the men hunters, who supply most of the meat, the women gatherers contribute about three-fourths of their total food supply (Hansen et al. 2012).

Because a region cannot support a large number of people who hunt animals and gather plants (group members do not plant—they only gather what is already there), hunting and gathering societies are small. They usually consist of only twenty-five to forty people. These groups are nomadic. As their food supply dwindles in one area, they move to another location. They place high value on sharing

As society—the largest and most complex type of group—changes, so, too, do the groups, activities, and, ultimately, the type of people who form that society. What social changes can you identify from this photo?

group people who interact with one another and who believe that what they have in common is significant; also called a social group

society people who share a culture and a territory

hunting and gathering society a human group that depends on hunting and gathering for its survival

shaman a tribe’s healing specialist who attempts to control the spirits thought to cause a disease

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 150 11/19/15 8:06 AM

Societies to Social Networks 151

The simplest forms of societies are called hunting and gathering societies. Members of these societies have adapted well to their environments. With the domestication of plants and animals came horticultural and pastoral societies. Many pastoral groups are nomadic, following their animals to fresh pasture. This Peul woman of Chad is moving her home.

food, which is essential to their survival. Because of dis- ease, drought, and pestilence, children have only about a fifty-fifty chance of surviving to adulthood (Gurven and Kaplan 2007).

Of all societies, hunters and gatherers are the most egal- itarian. Because what they hunt and gather is perishable, the people accumulate few personal possessions. Consequently, no one becomes wealthier than anyone else. There are no rulers, and most decisions are arrived at through discussion. Because their needs are basic and they do not work to store up material possessions, hunters and gatherers have the most leisure of all human groups (Sahlins 1972; Narvaez 2013).

As in the photo below, all human groups were once hunters and gatherers. Until several hundred years ago, these societies were common, but only about three hun- dred remain today (Hill et al. 2011). Some were wiped out when different groups took over their lands. Others moved to villages and took up a new way of life. The hunting and gathering groups that remain include the pygmies of central Africa, the aborigines of Australia, and various groups in South America. With today’s expanding populations, the few remaining groups of hunters and gatherers seem doomed to a similar fate, with their way of life disappearing from the human scene (Lenski and Lenski 1987; Bearak 2010).

Figure 6.1 The Social Transformations of Society

Hunting and gathering society

Agricultural society

Industrial society

Postindustrial (information) society

Biotech society?

Emerging

The First Social Revolution: Domestication

The Second Social Revolution: Agricultural

The Third Social Revolution: Industrial

The Fourth Social Revolution: Information

The Fifth Social Revolution?: Biotech

(of plants and animals)

(invention of the plow)

(invention of the steam engine)

(invention of the microchip)

(decoding of human genome system?)

Horticultural society

Pastoral society

Source: By the author.

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 151 11/19/15 8:06 AM

152 Chapter 6

Pastoral and Horticultural Societies About ten thousand years ago, some groups found that they could tame and breed some of the animals they hunted—primarily goats, sheep, cattle, and camels. Others discovered that they could cultivate plants. As a result, hunting and gathering societies branched into two directions, each with different means of acquiring food.

The key to understanding the first branching is the word pasture; pastoral (or herding) societies are based on the pasturing of animals. Pastoral societies developed in regions where low rainfall made it impractical to build life around growing crops. Groups that took this turn remained nomadic: They follow their animals to fresh pasture. The key to understanding the second branching is the word horticulture, or plant cultiva- tion. Horticultural (or gardening) societies are based on the cultivation of plants by the use of hand tools. Because they no longer had to abandon an area as the food supply gave out, these groups developed permanent settlements.

We can call the domestication of animals and plants the first social revolution. As shown in Figure 6.2, the domestication revolution changed human history. The changes, which occurred over thousands of years, touched almost every aspect of human life. The more dependable food supply allowed groups to grow larger. With it no longer necessary for everyone to work at providing food, a division of labor developed. Some people began to make jewelry, others tools, others weapons, and so on. This led to a surplus of objects, which, in turn, stimulated trade. As groups traded with one another, they began to accu- mulate objects they prized, such as gold, jewelry, and utensils.

From Figure 6.2, you can see how these changes led to social inequality. Some families (or clans) acquired more goods than others. This led to feuds and war since groups now possessed animals, pastures, croplands, jewelry, and other material goods to fight about. War, in turn, opened the door to slavery, since people found it convenient to let captives do their drudge work. Social inequality remained limited, however, because the surplus was limited. As individuals passed their possessions on to their descendants, however, wealth grew more concentrated. So did power, and for the first time, some individuals became chiefs.

Note the pattern that runs through this transformation: the change from fewer to more possessions and from more to less equality. Increasingly, where people were located within their society became vital for determining what happened to them in life.

Agricultural Societies The invention of the plow about five or six thousand years ago once again changed social life forever. Compared with hoes and digging sticks, using animals to pull plows is immensely more efficient. Plowing the earth returned more nutrients to the soil, making the land more productive. The food surplus of the agricultural revolution was unlike anything ever seen in human history. It allowed even more people to engage in activities other than farming. In this new agricultural society, people developed cities and what is popularly known as “culture,” activities such as philosophy, art, music, literature, and architecture. The other inventions of this era—the wheel, writing, and numbers—were so profound that this period is sometimes referred to as “the dawn of civilization.”

The social inequality of pastoral and horticultural societies turned out to be only a hint of what was to come. The surpluses of agricultural societies became a tempting prize worth fighting over. As some gained control of these resources, inequality became a fundamental feature of life in society. To protect their expanding privileges and power, the victorious groups surrounded themselves with armed men. They demanded pro- tection money (called tribute or taxes) from others, who then became their “subjects.” As conflict theorists point out, this concentration of resources and power—along with the oppression of people not in power—was the forerunner of the state.

Figure 6.2 Consequences of Animal Domestication and Plant Cultivation

More dependable food supply

Plant cultivation

Animal husbandry

Food surplus

Larger human groups

Division of labor

Trade

Accumulation of objects

Feuds and wars

Slavery

Social inequalities as some people

accumulate more

Inherited wealth

Concentrated wealth and power

Changes in types of leadership

Source: By the author.

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 152 11/19/15 8:06 AM

Societies to Social Networks 153

No one knows exactly how it happened, but during this period, females also became subject to males. Sociologist Elise Boulding (1976) theorizes that this change occurred because men were in charge of plowing and the cows. She suggests that when metals were developed, men took on the new job of attaching the metal as tips to the wooden plows and doing the plowing. As a result,

the shift of the status of the woman farmer may have happened quite rapidly, once there were two male specializations relating to agriculture: plowing and the care of cattle. This situation left women with all the subsidiary tasks, including weeding and carrying water to the fields. The new fields were larger, so women had to work just as many hours as they did before, but now they worked at more secondary tasks. . . . This would contrib- ute further to the erosion of the status of women.

Boulding’s explanation does not answer basic questions. Why did men take over metal work and plowing? For plowing, perhaps the answer is that plowing requires more upper-body strength (Alesina 2014). But metal working? And it says nothing about why men control societies in which women are in charge of the cattle. In short, we are left in the dark as to why and how men became dominant, a reason likely to remain lost in human history. This leaves us a topic perfect for endless speculation, as we try to tie together different strands of history. What do you think? We will explore more theories in Chapter 11.

Industrial Societies The third social revolution also turned society on its head. The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain in 1765 when the steam engine was first used to run machinery. Before this, a few machines (such as windmills and water wheels) had helped to har- ness nature, but most machines depended on human and animal power. The resulting industrial society is defined by sociologist Herbert Blumer (1990) as one in which goods are produced by machines powered by fuels, instead of by the brute force of humans or animals.

The efficiency of the steam engine, greater than anything that preceded it, was another push toward even more social inequality. The cities held massive supplies of desperate labor, people who had been thrown off the lands that their ancestors had farmed as tenants for centuries. Homeless, they faced the choices of stealing, starving, or being paid the equivalent of a loaf of bread for a day of work. Some of the men who first harnessed the steam engine and employed these desperate workers accumulated such wealth that their riches outran the dreams of royalty.

Workers had few legal rights. They could not unionize, and they didn’t even have the right to safe working conditions. If workers protested, they were fired. If they returned to the factory, they were arrested for trespassing on private property. Strikes were illegal, and strikers were arrested—or beaten by the employer’s private security force. During the early 1900s, some U.S. strikers were shot by private police and even by the National Guard. Against these odds, workers persisted, and they gradually won the right to unionize and to improve their working conditions.

Industrialization brought an abundance of goods, and as workers won what we call basic rights, a surprising change occurred—the pattern of growing inequality was reversed. Home ownership became common, as did the ownership of automobiles and an incredi- ble variety of consumer goods. Today’s typical worker enjoys a high standard of living in terms of health care, food, housing, material possessions, and access to books and educa- tion. On an even broader scale of growing equality came the abolition of slavery, the shift from monarchies to more representative political systems, greater rights for women and minorities, and the rights to vote, to a jury trial, and to cross-examine witnesses. A recent extension of these equalities is the right to set up your own Internet blog where you can bemoan life in your school or criticize the president.

pastoral society a society based on the pasturing of animals

horticultural society a society based on cultivating plants by the use of hand tools

domestication revolution the first social revolution, based on the domestication of plants and animals, which led to pastoral and horticultural societies

agricultural revolution the second social revolution, based on the invention of the plow, which led to agricultural societies

agricultural society a society based on large-scale agriculture

Industrial Revolution the third social revolution, occurring when machines powered by fuels replaced most animal and human power

industrial society a society based on the harnessing of machines powered by fuels

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 153 11/19/15 8:06 AM

154 Chapter 6

Postindustrial (Information) Societies If you were to choose one word to characterize our society, what would it be? Of the many candidates, the word change would have to rank high. The primary source of the sweeping changes that are transforming our lives is the development of technology centering on the microchip. The change is so vast that sociologists say that a new type of society has emerged. They call it the postindustrial (or information) society.

What are the main characteristics of this new society? Unlike industrial society, its hallmark is not turning raw materials into products. Rather, its basic component is information. Teachers pass knowledge on to students, while lawyers sell their specialized understanding of law, physicians their expertise on the body, bankers their skills with money, and interior decorators their ideas regarding color schemes. Unlike the factory workers of an industrial society, these individuals don’t produce anything. Rather, they transmit or apply information to provide services that others are willing to pay for.

The United States was the first country to have more than half of its workers in service industries: banking, counseling, education, entertainment, government, health, insurance, law, mass media, research, and sales. Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and western Europe soon followed. This trend away from manufacturing and toward selling information and services shows no sign of letting up.

The changes are so profound that they have led to a fourth social revolution. The sur- face changes of this new technology are obvious. Our purchases are scanned and billed in some remote place. While we ride in cars, trucks, boats, and airplanes, we can call home or talk to people on the other side of the globe. We probe remote regions of space and exam- ine the surface of Mars. We pay out billions of dollars on Internet purchases, and millions of children (and adults) spend countless hours battling virtual video villains. Beyond these surface changes, the microchip is transforming relations among people. It is also uprooting our old perspectives and replacing them with new ones. In the Sociology and the New Technology box on the next page, we explore an extreme aspect of virtual reality.

Biotech Societies: Is a New Type of Society Emerging? • Tobacco that fights cancer. (“Smoke your way to health!”)

• Tobacco that stops rabies. (“Dog bite you? Smoke our brand.”)

• Corn that blocks herpes and prevents pregnancy. (“Cornflakes in the morning—and safe sex all day!”)

• Goats’ milk that contains spider silk to make body armor. (“Got milk? The best bul- letproofing.”)

• Part-human animals that produce medicines for humans. (“Ah, those liver secre- tions. Good for what ails you.”)

• Bacteria that excrete diesel fuel. (“Put our germ droppings in your gas tank.”)

Such products may sound like science fiction, but we already have the goats that can make body armor. Human genes have been inserted into animals, and they do pro- duce medicine (Kristoff 2002; Osborne 2002; Cowan 2010). We also have the bacteria that produce diesel fuel, although they aren’t harvestable yet (Yarris 2012). And through the magic of biotransgenics, those death-producing cigarettes might be transformed into health aides (Saidak 2013).

The changes swirling around us are so extensive that we may be stepping into a new type of society. If so, the economy of our new biotech society will center on applying and altering genetic structures—both plant and animal—to produce food, medicine, and materials.

If there is a new society—and this is not certain—when did it begin? There are never firm edges to new societies, as the new one overlaps the one it is replacing. For a biotech society, the opening could have been 1953, when Francis Crick and James Watson iden- tified the double-helix structure of DNA. Or perhaps historians will trace the date to the decoding of the human genome in 2001.

postindustrial (information) society a society based on information, services, and high technology, rather than on raw materials and manufacturing

biotech society a society whose economy increasingly centers on modifying genetics to produce food, medicine, and materials

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 154 11/19/15 8:06 AM

Societies to Social Networks 155

Whether the changes that are engulfing our lives are part of a new type of society or just a continuation of the one before it is not the main point. Keep your eye on the sociological significance of these changes: As society is transformed, it sweeps us along with it. The transformation we are experiencing is so fundamental that it will change even the ways we think about the self and life. We might even see changes in the human species, an implica- tion of the Sociology and the New Technology box on the next page.

In Sum The boundaries that societies set around their members have deep consequences for their lives. Consider how your life would be different if you lived in a hunting and gathering society. On the obvious level: You would not be listening to your favorite music, watching TV, playing video games—or taking this course. On a deeper level: You would

Sociology and the New Technology Avatar Fantasy Life: The Blurring Lines of Reality Dissatisfied with your current life? Would you like to become

someone else? Maybe someone rich? You can. Join a world

populated with virtual people and live out your fantasies. Let’s suppose that you want to be one of the million

people a month who participate in the fantasy world of Second Life (Hotz 2015). Where do you begin? You would first select an avatar to be your persona. Your avatar, a kind of digital hand puppet, is quite basic. Although you can control its movements, its body is bare. You can’t have that. Fortunately, you have your choice of clothing for sale from avatars in virtual stores. You have to spend real dollars, though. If you want your avatar to have hair, this, too, is available, and you have your choice of designers. Again, you’ll spend real dollars. And if you want a sex organ, there is a specialty store for that.

All equipped the way you want to be?

Then it is time to meet other avatars, the virtual personas of real-life people. As you interact with them, you can share stories, talk about your desires in life, and have drinks in virtual bars. You can also buy property and open businesses.

Avatars flirt, too. Some even date and marry. For most people, this second life is merely an interesting

game. Most participants come and go, as if they were playing Tomb Raider or World of Warcraft. For some people, though, the virtual displaces the real. They get so caught up in this virtual world that they neglect friends and family. For them, the real fades into nonreality.

Dutch is the avatar of Ric Hoogestraat of Phoenix, Arizona. Unlike his real self, Ric’s avatar is a macho motorcycle man, who is also filthy rich. From the time Ric gets up to the time he goes to bed, through Dutch Ric visits his several homes. He lounges on specially designed furniture, pours

his favorite drinks, and, from his penthouse, watches the sun setting over the ocean (Alter 2007).

Dutch met his wife, Tenaj, on Second Life. As courtships go, theirs went well. When they announced their wedding, about twenty avatar friends attended. They gave the newlyweds real congratulations, in a virtual sort of way.

Dutch and Tenaj have two dogs and pay the mortgage together. They love cuddling and intimate talks. Their love life is quite good, as avatars can have virtual sex.

Sue is not pleased that Ric spends so much time in his virtual world. Sue feels neglected. And she doesn’t appreciate Tenaj. Sue, you see, is also Ric’s wife, but in real life.

Sue has become quite irritated. “I’ll try to talk to him or bring him a drink, and he’ll be having sex with a cartoon,” she says.

Tenaj’s real-life counterpart is Janet, who lives in Canada. Ric and Janet have never met—nor do they plan to meet. They haven’t even talked on the phone as Ric and Janet. But they do a lot of sweet

talking in their virtual world as Dutch and Tenaj. For gamers, the virtual always overlaps the real to some

extent, but for some, the virtual overwhelms the real. A couple from South Korea even let their 3-month-old daughter starve to death while they nurtured a virtual daughter online (Frayer 2010).

For Your Consideration → How much time do you spend on computer games?

→ Are you involved in any virtual reality?

→ Do you think Ric is cheating on Sue?

→ Other than the sexual aspect, is having a second life really any different from people’s involvement in fantasy football? (Keep in mind the term football widows.)

Some sociologists have been criticized for studying “non-serious” behavior. The line between serious and non-serious, however, is not always clear. Look at this photo. Here is the Foreign Minister of Sweden, who has opened an embassy on Second Life, a replica of the House of Sweden. The intention is to provide information about Swedish culture and history.

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 155 11/19/15 8:06 AM

156 Chapter 6

not feel the same about life, have the beliefs you now have, or hold your particular aspi- rations for the future. Actually, no aspect of your life would be the same. You would be locked into the attitudes and views that come with a hunting and gathering way of life.

Introducing you to these major historical shifts in societies is just the beginning of what we want to do in this chapter. The goal is to help you understand how groups influ- ence your life. So let’s continue.

Groups within Society 6.2 Discuss the main characteristics of primary groups, secondary groups, in-groups

and out-groups, reference groups, and social networks.

Our society, as huge and dominating as it is, can create a bewildering sense of not belong- ing. Sociologist Emile Durkheim (1893/1933) called this condition anomie (AN-uh-mee). Small groups, he said, help prevent anomie by standing as a buffer between the individ- ual and the larger society. Small groups provide intimate relationships, giving us a sense of belonging, something we all need. Because small groups are essential for our well- being, let’s look at them in detail.

But first, let’s distinguish two terms that are sometimes confused with “group”: aggre- gate and category. An aggregate consists of individuals who are temporarily sharing the same physical space, but they don’t see themselves as belonging together. Shoppers stand- ing in a checkout line or drivers waiting at a red light are an aggregate. A category is simply a statistic. A category consists of people who share similar characteristics, such as all college women who wear glasses or all men over 6 feet tall. Unlike group members, the individuals who make up a category don’t think of themselves as belonging together, and they don’t interact with one another. These concepts are illustrated in the photos on the next page.

Sociology and the New Technology “So, You Want to Be Yourself?” Cloning and the Future of Society The edges of a new type of society are fuzzy as the old merges

into the new. With time speeded up, our information society

has barely arrived, and it looks as though a biotech society

is hard on its heels. Let’s try to peer over the edge of today’s

society to glimpse the one that might be pressing in on us. If it

arrives, what will life be like? We could examine many issues,

but since space is limited, let’s consider just one: cloning.

Since human embryos have been cloned, it seems inevitable

that some group somewhere will complete the process. If

cloning humans becomes routine—well,

consider these two scenarios:

You find out that you can’t have children, so you go to the cloning clinic, pay the standard fee, and clone yourself. Instead of a daughter or son, though, is this child your sister or brother? Or is this little boy or girl, in effect, yourself as a child?

Or suppose that you love your mother dearly, and she is dying. With her permission, you decide to clone her. Who is the clone? Would you be rearing your own mother?

When we have genetic replicates, we will have to wrestle with new questions of human relationships: What is a clone’s relationship to its “parents”? Indeed, the question is likely to become what are “parents” and “children”?

SourceS: Based on Davis 2001; Weiss 2004; Regalado 2005; Smith et al. 2012; Baylis 2013.

For Your Consideration → You might have heard people object that cloning is immoral.

But have you heard the opposite, that cloning should be our moral choice? Let’s suppose that mass cloning becomes possible. Let’s also assume that geneticists trace great creative ability, high intelligence, compassion, and a propensity for peace to specific genes. They also identify a genetic base for the ability to create beautiful poetry, music, and architecture; to excel in mathematics, science, and other intellectual

pursuits; even to be successful in love. Why, then, should we leave human reproduction to people who have inferior traits—genetic diseases, low IQs, perhaps even the propensity to be violent? Shouldn’t we select people with the finer characteristics to reproduce—and to clone?

aggregate individuals who temporarily share the same physical space but who do not see themselves as belonging together

category people, objects, and events that have similar characteristics and are classified together

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 156 11/19/15 8:06 AM

Categories, Aggregates, Primary and Secondary Groups

The outstanding trait that these three people have in common does not make them a group, but a category.

Groups have a deep impact on our actions, views, orientations, even what we feel and think about life. Yet, as illustrated by these photos, not everything that appears to be a group is actually a group in the sociological sense.

Why are these swimmers competing in the Ironman triathlon in Hawaii an example of a secondary group?

Why are the members of this crowd taking photos of a black swan an aggregate?

Primary groups such as the family play a key role in the development of the self. As a small group, the family also serves as a buffer from the often-threatening larger group known as society. The family has been of primary significance in forming the basic orientations of this couple, as it will be for their son.

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 157 11/19/15 8:06 AM

158 Chapter 6

Primary Groups As you will recall from Chapter 3, a major point about socialization is that you didn’t develop “naturally” into a human adult. Your social experiences shaped you into what you have become. In this shaping process, it is hard to overestimate how significant your family has been. It was your family that laid down your basic orientations to life. Then came friends, where your sense of belonging expanded. Family and friends are what sociologist Charles Cooley called primary groups. By providing intimate, face-to-face interaction, your primary groups have given you a self, an identity, a feeling of who you are. Here’s how Cooley (1909) put it:

By primary groups I mean those characterized by intimate face-to-face association and cooperation. They are primary in several senses, but chiefly in that they are fundamental in forming the social nature and ideals of the individual.

From our opening vignette, you can see that youth gangs are also primary groups.

PRoDucIng a mIRRoR WItHIn We humans have intense emotional needs. Among them are a sense of belonging and feelings of self-esteem. Because primary groups pro- vide intense face-to-face interaction as we are being introduced to the world, they are uniquely equipped to meet our basic needs. They can make us feel appreciated—even that we are loved. When primary groups are dysfunctional, however, and fail to meet these basic needs, they produce dysfunctional adults, wounded people who make life difficult for others.

Regardless of the levels at which your primary groups have functioned—and none is perfect—their values and attitudes have been fused into your identity. You have inter- nalized their views, which are now lenses through which you view life. Even as an adult—no matter how far you move away from your childhood roots—your early pri- mary groups remain “inside” you. There, they continue to form part of the perspective from which you look out onto the world. Your primary groups have become your mirror within.

Secondary Groups Compared with primary groups, secondary groups are larger, more anonymous, and more formal and impersonal. Secondary groups are based on shared interests or activ- ities, and their members are likely to interact on the basis of specific statuses, such as president, manager, worker, or student. Examples include college classes, the American Sociological Association, and political parties. Secondary groups are part of the way we get our education, make our living, spend our money, and use our leisure time.

Secondary groups are necessary for contemporary life, but they often fail to satisfy our deep needs for intimate association. Consequently, secondary groups tend to break down into primary groups. At school and work, we form friendships. Our interaction with our friends is so important that we sometimes feel that if it weren’t for them, school or work “would drive us crazy.” The primary groups that we form within secondary groups, then, serve as a buffer between ourselves and the demands that secondary groups place on us.

In-Groups and Out-Groups What groups do you identity with? Which groups in our society do you dislike?

We all have in-groups, groups toward which we feel loyalty. And we all have out- groups, groups toward which we feel antagonism. For Monster Kody in our opening vignette, the Crips were an in-group, while the Bloods were an out-group. That the Crips—and we—make such fundamental divisions of the world has far-reaching conse- quences for our lives.

primary group a small group characterized by cooperative, intimate, long-term, face-to-face relationships

secondary group compared with a primary group, a larger, relatively temporary, more anonymous, formal, and impersonal group based on some interest or activity

in-group a group toward which one feels loyalty

out-group a group toward which one feels antagonism

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 158 11/19/15 8:06 AM

Societies to Social Networks 159

SHaPIng PeRcePtIon anD moRalIty You know the sense of belonging that some groups give you. This can bring positive conse- quences, such as our tendency to excuse the faults of people we love and to encourage them to do better. Unfortunately, dividing the world into a “we” and “them” can also lead to negative consequences such as the killing recounted in our opening vignette. From this, you can see the sociological significance of in-groups: They shape our perception of the world, our views of right and wrong, and our behavior.

A fascinating result of in-groups/out-groups is the nurturing of double standards, such as prejudice and discrimination on the basis of sex:

We tend to view the traits of our in-group as virtues, while we per- ceive those same traits as vices in out-groups. Men may perceive an aggressive man as assertive but an aggressive woman as pushy. They may think that a male employee who doesn’t speak up “knows when to keep his mouth shut,” while they consider a quiet woman as too timid to make it in the business world (Merton 1949/1968)

This example illustrates how dividing the world into “we” and “they” twists people’s perceptions. The twisting can be so severe that harming others can become viewed as right. The Nazis provide one of the most startling examples. For them, the Jews were an out-group who symbolized an evil that should be eliminated. Many ordinary, “good” Germans shared this view and defended the Holocaust as “dirty work” that someone had to do (Hughes 1962/2005).

An example from way back then, you might say—and the world has moved on. But our inclination to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups has not moved on—nor has the twisting of perception that accompanies it. When al-Qaeda became Americans’ number one out-group after 9/11, top U.S. officials ordered “cruel and inhuman” treat- ment of al-Qaeda prisoners. Interrogators waterboarded one prisoner 83 times (“Ex-FBI Official…” 2015). (None of us would want to be waterboarded even once.)

Perhaps this prisoner’s account of his treatment at U.S. hands at Guantanamo will provide more insight into the extreme consequences that can arise from out-group thinking:

Suddenly a commando team consisting of three soldiers and a German shepherd broke into our interrogation room.... _____ punched me violently, which made me fall face down on the floor…. His partner kept punching me everywhere, mainly on my face and my ribs. He, too, was masked from head to toe.… The third man was not masked; he stayed at the door holding the dog’s collar, ready to release it on me…. I saw the dog fighting to get loose.

One of them hit me hard across the face, and quickly put the goggles on my eyes, ear muffs on my ears, and a small bag over my head. I couldn’t tell who did what. They tightened the chains around my ankles and my wrists; afterwards, I started to bleed. All I could hear was _____ cursing, "F-this and F-that!" (Sandberg 2015)

Shades of the Nazis! In short, to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups, a natural part of social

life produces both functional and dysfunctional consequences.

Reference Groups Suppose you have just been offered an incredible job. It pays double what you hope to make even after you graduate from college. You have only two days to make up your mind. If you accept the job, you will have to drop out of college. As you consider the offer,

© R

ob er

t W eb

er /T

he N

ew Y

or ke

r C

ol le

ct io

n/ w

w w

.c ar

to on

ba nk

.c om

How our participation in social groups shapes our self-concept is a focus of symbolic interactionists. In this process, knowing who we are not is as significant as knowing who we are.

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 159 11/19/15 8:06 AM

160 Chapter 6

thoughts like this may go through your mind: “My friends will say I’m a fool if I don’t take the job . . . but Dad and Mom will practically go crazy. They’ve made sacrifices for me, and they’ll be crushed if I don’t finish college. They’ve said I’ve got to get my education first, that good jobs will always be there. . . . But, then, I’d like to see the look on the faces of those neighbors who said I’d never amount to much!”

evaluatIng ouRSelveS This is an example of how peo- ple use reference groups, the groups we refer to when we evaluate ourselves. Your reference groups may include your family, neighbors, teachers, classmates, co-workers, or the members of your church, synagogue, or mosque. If you were like Monster Kody in our opening vignette, the “set” would be your main reference group. Even a group you don’t belong to can be a reference group. For example, if you are thinking about going to graduate school, graduate students or mem- bers of the profession you want to join may form a reference group. You would consider their standards as you evaluate your grades or writing skills.

Reference groups exert tremendous influence on us. For example, if you want to become a corporate executive, you

might start to dress more formally, try to improve your vocabulary, read The Wall Street Journal, and change your major to business or law. In contrast, if you want to become a rock musician, you might get elaborate tattoos and body piercings, dress in ways your parents and even many of your peers consider extreme, read Rolling Stone, drop out of college, and hang around clubs and rock groups.

exPoSuRe to contRaDIctoRy StanDaRDS In a SocIally DIveRSe SocIety From these examples, you can see how you use reference groups to evaluate your life. When you see yourself as measuring up to a reference group’s standards, you feel pleased. But you can experience inner turmoil if your behavior—or aspirations—does not match the group’s standards. Although wanting to become a corporate executive would create no inner turmoil for most of us, it would for someone who had grown up in an Amish home. The Amish strongly disapprove of such aspirations for their children. They ban high school and college education, suits and ties, and corporate employment. Similarly, if you want to join the military and your parents are dedicated pacifists, you likely would feel deep conflict, because your parents would have quite different aspira- tions for you.

Contradictions that lead to inner turmoil are common because of two chief character- istics of our society: social diversity and social mobility. These expose us to standards and orientations that are inconsistent with those we learned during childhood. The “internal recordings” that play contrasting messages from different reference groups, then, are one price we pay for our social mobility.

Social Networks Although we live in a huge and diverse society, we don’t experience social life as a sea of nameless, strange faces. This is because of the groups we have been discussing. Among these is our social network, people who are linked to one another. Your social network includes your family, friends, acquaintances, people at work and school, and even “friends of friends.” Think of your social network as a spider’s web. You are at the center, with lines extending outward, gradually encompassing more and more people.

If you are a member of a large group, you probably associate regularly with a few people within that group. In a sociology class I was teaching at a commuter campus, six

All of us have reference groups— the groups we use as standards to evaluate ourselves. How do you think the reference groups of these members of the KKK who are demonstrating in Jaspar, Texas, differ from those of the police officer who is protecting their right of free speech? Although the KKK and this police officer use different groups to evaluate their attitudes and behaviors, the process is the same.

reference group a group whose standards we refer to as we evaluate ourselves

social network the social ties radiating outward from the self that link people together

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 160 11/19/15 8:06 AM

Societies to Social Networks 161

women who didn’t know one another ended up working together on a project. They got along well, and they began to sit together. Eventually, they planned a Christmas party at one of their homes. This type of social network, the clusters within a group, or its internal factions, is called a clique (cleek).

aPPlIeD netWoRk analySIS The analysis of social networks has become part of applied sociology. An interesting application is its use to reduce gang violence. When a gang member is shot, the gang retaliates by shooting members of their rival gang. This leads to endless violence, as each tries to even the score. To try to break this cycle, when the Chicago police arrest a gang member, they add the person’s name to a program that links people. When a gang member is shot, the police click the name of the individual. This person then appears at the center, with his associates and known enemies shown in concentric circles. Click a name and a mug shot appears, with that person’s gang affiliations. The police then know who might be seeking to avenge the shooting (Belkin 2012).

tHe Small WoRlD PHenomenon If you list everyone you know, and each of these individuals lists everyone he or she knows, and all of you keep doing this, would almost everyone in the United States eventually be included on those lists? This takes us to a question social scientists have asked: Just how extensive are the connections among social networks?

It would be too cumbersome to test this question by drawing up such lists, but psy- chologist Stanley Milgram (1933–1984) came up with an interesting idea. In a classic study known as “the small world phenomenon,” Milgram (1967) addressed a letter to “tar- gets”: the wife of a divinity student in Cambridge and a stockbroker in Boston. He didn’t mail the letters to these people, but instead sent them to “starters”; people who did not know these individuals. He asked them to send the letter to someone they knew on a first- name basis who might know the “target.” Those recipients, in turn, were asked to mail the letter to a friend or acquaintance who might know the “target,” and so on. The question was, Would the letters ever reach the “target”? If so, how long would the chain be?

Think of yourself as part of this research. What would you do if you were a “starter,” but the “target” lived in a state in which you knew no one? You would send the letter to someone that you think might know someone in that state. This, Milgram reported, is just what happened. Although none of the senders knew the targets, the letters reached the designated individual in an average of just six steps.

The smallest part of social networks is our friends and acquaintances, the people we hang out with. This part of our social networks overlaps with and forms a core part of our reference groups. From these two photos, can you see how the reference groups and social networks of these youths are not likely to lead them to the same social destination?

Photo taken at the funeral of a 6-month old child in Chicago who was killed as she sat on her father’s lap. A gang member fired a gun into the minivan. How is network analysis being used to reduce such senseless deaths?

clique (cleek) a cluster of people within a larger group who choose to interact with one another

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 161 11/19/15 8:06 AM

162 Chapter 6

Milgram’s research caught the public’s fancy, leading to the phrase “six degrees of separation.” This expression means that, on average, everyone in the United States is separated by just six individuals. Milgram’s conclusions have become so popular that a game, “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon,” was built around it.

IS tHe Small WoRlD PHenomenon an acaDemIc mytH? Psychologist Judith Kleinfeld (2002) decided to replicate Milgram’s study. At Yale University Library where she went to get more details, she went through Milgram’s papers. To her surprise, she found that Milgram had stacked the deck in favor of finding a small world. As men- tioned, one of the “targets” was a Boston stockbroker. Kleinfeld found that this person’s “starters” were investors in blue-chip stocks. She also found that, on average, only 30 percent of the letters reached their “target.”

Since most letters did not reach their targets, even with the deck stacked in favor of success, we can draw the opposite conclusion: People who don’t know one another are dramatically separated by social barriers. As Kleinfeld says, “Rather than living in a small world, we may live in a world that looks like a bowl of lumpy oatmeal, with many small worlds loosely connected and perhaps some small worlds not connected at all.” Somehow, I don’t think that the phrase “lumpy oatmeal phenomenon” will become standard, but it seems reasonable to conclude that we do not live in a small world where everyone is connected by six links.

But not so fast. The plot thickens. Although research with thousands of e-mail chains showed that only about 1 percent reached their targets (Dodds et al. 2003; Muhamad 2010), other research confirms Milgram’s conclusions. Research on 250  million people who exchanged chat messages showed a link of less than seven, and a study of 700  million people on Facebook showed a connection of less than five ( Markoff and Sengupta 2011).

Why such disparity? The problem seems to be the choice of samples and how research- ers measure links. These definitions must be worked out before we can draw solid conclu- sions. Maybe Milgram did stumble onto the truth. We’ll find out as the research continues.

BuIlDIng unIntentIonal BaRRIeRS Besides geography, the barriers that divide us into separate small worlds (lumpy or not) are primarily those of social class, gender, and race–ethnicity. Overcoming these social barriers is difficult because even our own social net- works contribute to social inequality, a topic that we explore in the Cultural Diversity box.

Group Dynamics 6.3 Be familiar with the effects of group size on

stability, intimacy, attitudes and behavior; types and styles of leaders; the asch experiment on peer pressure; the milgram experiment on authority; and the implications of groupthink.

group dynamics is a fascinating area of sociology. This term refers to how groups influence us and how we influence groups. Most of the ways that groups influ- ence us lie below our awareness, however, so let’s see if we can bring some of this to the surface. Let’s con- sider how even the size of a group makes a difference and then examine leadership, conformity, and decision making.

Before doing so, we should define small group, which is a group small enough so that each member can interact directly with all the others. Small groups can be either primary or secondary. A wife, husband, and

Similarity of appearance, activity, and belief help to fuse group identity and loyalty. These Buddhist monks in Myanmar are on their way to collect alms.

group dynamics the ways in which individuals affect groups and the ways in which groups influence individuals

small group a group small enough for everyone to interact directly with all the other members

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 162 11/19/15 8:07 AM

Societies to Social Networks 163

children make up a primary small group, as do workers who take their breaks together. Students in a small introductory sociology class and bidders at an auction form secondary small groups. You might want to look again at the photos on page 157.

Effects of Group Size on Stability and Intimacy In the early 1900s, sociologist Georg Simmel (1858–1918) analyzed how group size affects people’s behavior. He used the term dyad for the smallest possible group, which consists of two people. Dyads, which include marriages, love affairs, and close friend- ships, show two distinct qualities. First, they are the most intense or intimate of human

Cultural Diversity in the United States Do Your Social Networks Perpetuate Social Inequality?

Suppose that an outstanding job—great pay, interesting work, opportunity for advancement—has just opened up where you work. Who are you going to tell?

Consider some of the principles we have reviewed. We are part of in-groups, people with whom we identify; we use reference groups to evaluate our attitudes and behavior; and we interact in social networks. Our in-groups, reference groups, and social networks are likely to consist of people whose backgrounds are similar to our own. For most of us, this means that just as social inequality is built into society, so it is built into our relationships. One consequence is that we tend to perpetuate social inequality.

Go back to the extract that opens this box. Who will you tell about the opening for this outstanding job? Will it be a stranger? Not likely. Most likely it will be a friend or someone to whom you owe a favor. And most likely your social network is made up of people who look much like yourself—similar to your age, education, social class, race–ethnicity, and, probably also, gender. You can see how our social networks both reflect the inequality in our society and help to perpetuate it.

Consider a network of white men in some corporation. As they learn of opportunities (jobs, investments, and so on), they share this information with their networks. This causes opportunities and good jobs to flow to people whose characteristics are similar to theirs. This perpetuates the “good old boy” network, bypassing people who have different characteristics—in this example, women and minorities. No intentional discrimination need be involved. It is just a reflection of our contacts, of our everyday interactions.

To overcome this barrier and advance their careers, women and minorities do networking. They try to meet “someone who knows someone” (Kantor 2009). Like the “good old boys,” they go to parties and join clubs, religious organizations, and political parties. They use Facebook and other online networking sites. One result is a “new girl” network in which women steer business to one another (Jacobs 1997). African American leaders have cultivated their own network, one so tight that one-fifth of the entire national African American

leadership knows one another personally. Add some “friends of a friend,” and three-fourths of the entire leadership belong to the same network (Taylor 1992).

For Your Consideration The perpetuation of social inequality does not require intentional discrimination. Just as social inequality is built into society, so it is built into our personal relationships. → How do you think your social network helps to

perpetuate social inequality? → How do you think we can break this cycle? → How can we create diversity in our social networks?

U.S.A.U.S.A.

When people learn of opportunities, they share this information with their networks. Opportunities then flow to people whose characteristics are similar to theirs.

dyad the smallest possible group, consisting of two persons

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 163 11/19/15 8:07 AM

164 Chapter 6

groups. Because only two people are involved, the interaction is focused on both individuals. Second, dyads tend to be unsta- ble. Because dyads require that both members participate, if one member loses interest, the dyad collapses. In larger groups, by contrast, if one person withdraws, the group can continue, since its existence does not depend on any single member (Simmel 1950).

A triad is a group of three people. As Simmel noted, the addition of a third member changes the group in fun- damental ways. One of the most significant changes is that with three people interaction between the first two decreases. This can create strain. With the birth of a child, for example, hardly any aspect of a couple’s relationship goes untouched. Attention focuses on the baby, and interaction between the husband and wife decreases. The marriage, though, usually becomes stronger. Although the intensity of interaction is less in triads, they are inherently stronger and give greater stabil- ity to a relationship.

Yet, as Simmel noted, triads, too, are unstable. They tend to produce coalitions—two group members aligning them- selves against one. This common tendency for two people to develop stronger bonds and prefer one another leaves the third person feeling hurt and excluded. Another characteristic of tri- ads is that they often produce an arbitrator or mediator, some- one who tries to settle disagreements between the other two. In one-child families, you can often observe both of these charac- teristics of triads— coalitions and arbitration.

The general principle is this: As a small group grows larger, it becomes more stable, but its intensity, or intimacy, decreases. To see why, look at Figure 6.3. As each new person comes into a group, the connections among people multiply. In a dyad, there is only 1 relationship; in a triad, there are 3; in a group of four, 6; in a group of five, 10. If we expand the group to six, we have 15 relationships, while a group of seven yields 21 relationships. If we continue adding mem- bers, we soon are unable to follow the connections: A group of eight has 28 possible relationships; a group of nine, 36; a group of ten, 45; and so on.

It is not only the number of relationships that makes larger groups more stable. As groups grow, they also tend to develop a more formal structure. Leaders emerge and more specialized roles come into play. This often results in such familiar offices as president, secretary, and treasurer. This structure provides a framework that helps the group survive over time.

Effects of Group Size on Attitudes and Behavior You probably have observed one of the consequences of group size. When a group is small, its members act informally, but as the group grows, the members lose their sense of intimacy and become more formal with one another. No longer can the mem- bers assume that the others are “insiders” who agree with their views. Now they must

Group size has a significant influence on how people interact. When a group changes from a dyad (two people) to a triad (three people), the relationships among the participants undergo a shift. How do you think the birth of this child will change the relationship between the mother and father?

Figure 6.3 The Effects of Group Size on Relationships

A Triad A Group of Four

A Group of Six A Group of Seven

One relationship Three relationships

Six relationships

A Group of Five

Ten relationships Fifteen relationships

Twenty-one relationships

A Dyad

A B

A

B C

D B

A

C

C

B

A

D C

E

A

D

F B

E E

C

B A

D

F

G

triad a group of three people

coalition the alignment of some members of a group against others

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 164 11/19/15 8:07 AM

Societies to Social Networks 165

take a “larger audience” into consideration, and instead of merely “talking,” they begin to “address” the group. As their speech becomes more formal, their body lan- guage stiffens.

You probably have observed a second aspect of group dynamics, too. In the early stages of a party, when only a few people are present, almost everyone talks with everyone else. But as more people arrive, the guests break into smaller groups. Some hosts, who want their guests to mix together, make a nuisance of themselves trying to achieve their idea of what a group should be like. The division into small groups is inevitable, however: It follows the basic sociological principles that we have just reviewed. Because the addition of each person increases connections (in this case, “talk lines”), conversation becomes more difficult. The guests break into smaller groups in which they can look at each other directly and interact comfort- ably with one another.

Let’s turn to a third consequence of group size:

Imagine that you are taking a team-taught course in social psychology and your profes- sors have asked you to join a few students to discuss how you are adjusting to college life. When you arrive, they tell you that to make the discussion anonymous, they want you to sit unseen in a booth. You will participate in the discussion over an intercom, talking when your microphone comes on. The professors say that they will not listen to the conversation, and they leave.

You find the format somewhat strange, to say the least, but you go along with it. You have not seen the other students in their booths, but when they talk about their experiences, you find yourself becoming wrapped up in the problems they are sharing. One student even mentions how frightening it is to be away from home because of his history of epileptic seizures. Later, you hear this individual breathe heavily into the microphone. Then he stammers and cries for help. A crashing noise follows, and you imagine him lying helpless on the floor.

Nothing but an eerie silence follows. What do you do?

Your professors, John Darley and Bibb Latané (1968), staged the whole thing, but you don’t know this. No one had a seizure. In fact, no one was even in the other booths. Everything, except your comments, was on tape.

Some participants were told that they would be discussing the topic with just one other student, others with two, and still others with three, four, or five. Darley and Latané found that all students who thought they were part of a dyad rushed out to help. If they thought they were in a triad, only 80 percent went to help—and they were slower in leav- ing the booth. In six-person groups, only 60 percent went to see what was wrong—and they took even longer to leave the booth.

This experiment demonstrates how deeply group size influences our attitudes and behavior: It even affects our willingness to help one another. Students in the dyad knew that no one else could help the student in trouble. The professor was gone, and it was up to them. In the larger groups, including the triad, students felt a diffusion of responsibility: Giving help was no more their responsibility than anyone else’s.

laBoRatoRy FInDIngS anD tHe Real WoRlD Experiments in social psychology can give insight into human behavior—but at the same time, they can woefully miss the mark. Darley and Latané’s classic laboratory experiment has serious flaws when it comes to real life. Look at the photos on the next page that I snapped in Vienna, Austria, and you’ll see something entirely different than what they reported. Many people—strangers to one another—were passing one another on the sidewalk. But as you can see, no diffu- sion of responsibility stopped them from immediately helping the man who had tripped and fallen. Other norms and values that people carry within them are also at work, ones that can trump the diffusion of responsibility.

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 165 11/19/15 8:07 AM

By this point, the po lice officer has notice

d that I have been ta king

photos. You can see him coming toward

me, his hand on wha tever he

is carrying at his hip , his shoulders back,

glowering and read y for a

confrontation. He as ked, “What are you

doing?” I said, “I am taking

pictures” (as though he couldn’t see this)

. He asked, “Do you have

to take pictures of th is man?” I said, “Yes

,” and hoping to def use the

situation, added, “I’ m a sociologist, and

I’m documenting ho w people

help each other in V ienna.” He grunted

and turned away.

This photo really com pletes the series, as t

his individual was a cting

as the guardian of th e community, placin

g a barrier of protect ion around

the participants in th is little drama.

The man is now on his feet, but still a bit shaky. The two who have helped him up are still expressing their concern, especially the young woman.

Two strangers are hel ping the man, with an

other two ready to pit ch

in. They have all stop ped whatever they w

ere doing to help a m an

they did not know.

As I was walking in Vienna, a city of almost 2 million people, I heard a crashing noise behind me. I turned, and seeing that a man had fallen to the sidewalk, quickly snapped this picture. You can see strangers beginning to help the man. This photo was taken about three seconds after the man fell.

Helping a Stranger

Serendipity somet imes accompanies

sociologists as they do their work,

which was certainly the case here.

The entire episode took no more than

three minutes, and I was fortunate to

capture it with my c amera.

Real life sometime s

differs sharply from that

portrayed in resear ch

laboratories.

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 166 11/19/15 8:07 AM

Societies to Social Networks 167

Leadership All of us are influenced by leaders, so it is important to understand leadership. Let’s look at how people become leaders, the types of leaders, and different styles of leadership. Before we do this, though, it is important to clarify that leaders don’t necessarily hold formal positions in a group. leaders are people who influence the behaviors, opinions, or attitudes of others. Even a group of friends has leaders.

WHo BecomeS a leaDeR? Are leaders born with characteristics that propel them to the forefront of a group? No sociologist would agree with such an idea. In general, peo- ple who become leaders are perceived by group members as strongly representing their values or as able to lead a group out of a crisis (Trice and Beyer 1991). Leaders tend to be more talkative, outgoing, determined, and self-confident (Ward et al. 2010).

These findings may not be surprising, since such traits are related to what we expect of leaders. However, researchers have also discovered traits that seem to have no bear- ing on the ability to lead. For example, taller people and those judged better looking are more likely to become leaders (Stodgill 1974; Judge and Cable 2004). Some of the factors that go into our choice of leaders are subtle. In a classic experiment, repeated many times, social psychologists Lloyd Howells and Selwyn Becker (1962) had five people who did not know one another sit at a small rectangular table. Three sat on one side and two on the other. After discussing a topic for a set period of time, the groups chose a leader. The findings are startling: Although only 40 percent of the people sat on the two-person side, 70 percent of the leaders emerged from there. The explanation is that we tend to interact more with people facing us than with people to our side.

tyPeS oF leaDeRS Groups have two types of leaders (Bales 1950, 1953; Cartwright and Zander 1968; Emery et al. 2013). The first is easy to recognize. This person, called an instrumental leader (or task-oriented leader), tries to keep the group moving toward

Adolf Hitler, shown here in Nuremberg in 1938, was one of the most influential—and evil—persons of the twentieth century. Why did so many people follow Hitler? This question stimulated the research by Stanley Milgram (discussed on pages 170–171).

leader someone who influences other people

instrumental leader an individual who tries to keep the group moving toward its goals; also known as a task-oriented leader

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 167 11/19/15 8:07 AM

168 Chapter 6

its goals. These leaders try to keep group members from getting sidetracked, reminding them of what they are trying to accomplish. The expressive leader (or socioemotional leader), in contrast, usually is not recognized as a leader, but he or she certainly is one. This person lifts the group’s morale by such things as cracking jokes and offering sym- pathy. Both types of leadership are essential: The one keeps the group on track, and the other increases harmony and minimizes conflicts.

It is difficult for the same person to be both an instrumental and an expressive leader, since these roles tend to contradict one another. Because instrumental leaders are task oriented, they sometimes create friction as they prod the group to get on with the job. Their actions often cost them popularity. Expressive leaders, in contrast, who stimulate personal bonds and reduce friction, are usually more popular (Olmsted and Hare 1978).

leaDeRSHIP StyleS

Let’s suppose that the president of your college has asked you to head a task force to de- termine how to improve race relations on campus. You can adopt a number of leadership styles, or ways of expressing yourself as a leader. Of the three basic styles, you could be an authoritarian leader, one who gives orders; a democratic leader, one who tries to gain consensus; or a laissez-faire leader, one who is highly permissive. Which style should you choose?

Social psychologists Ronald Lippitt and Ralph White (1958) carried out a classic study of these leadership styles. After matching a group of boys for IQ, popularity, physical energy, and leadership, they assigned them to “craft clubs” made up of five boys each. They trained men in the three leadership styles and then peered through peepholes, took notes, and made movies as the men rotated among the clubs. To control possible influ- ences of the men’s personalities, each man played all three styles.

The authoritarian leaders assigned tasks to the boys and told them what to do. They also praised or condemned the boys’ work arbitrarily, giving no explanation for why they judged it good or bad. The democratic leaders discussed the project with the boys, outlin- ing the steps that would help them reach their goals. When they evaluated the boys’ work, they gave “facts” as the basis for their decisions. The laissez-faire leaders, who gave the boys almost total freedom to do as they wished, offered help when asked, but made few suggestions. They did not evaluate the boys’ projects, either positively or negatively.

The results? The boys under authoritarian leaders grew dependent on their leader. They also became either apathetic or aggressive, with the aggressive boys growing hos- tile toward their leader. In contrast, the boys in the democratic clubs were friendlier and looked to one another for approval. When the leader left the room, they continued to work at a steady pace. The boys with laissez-faire management goofed off a lot and were notable for their lack of achievement. The researchers concluded that the democratic style of leadership works best. This conclusion, however, may be biased, as the research- ers favored a democratic style of leadership in the first place (Olmsted and Hare 1978). Apparently, this same bias in studies of leadership continues (Cassel 1999).

You may have noticed that only boys and men were involved in this experiment. What do you think would happen if we were to repeat the experiment with all-girl groups? With mixed groups of girls and boys? How about if we used both men and women as leaders? Perhaps you will become the sociologist who studies such variations of this classic experiment.

leaDeRSHIP StyleS In cHangIng SItuatIonS Different situations require different styles of leadership. Let’s suppose that you are leading a dozen backpack- ers in the mountains, and it is time to make dinner. If the backpackers have brought their own food, a laissez-faire style would be appropriate. If everyone is expected to pitch in, perhaps a democratic style would be called for. Certainly authoritar- ian leadership—you telling the hikers how to prepare their meals—would create resentment. It would also interfere with the primary goal of the group, having a good time while enjoying nature.

expressive leader an individual who increases harmony and minimizes conflict in a group; also known as a socioemotional leader

leadership styles ways in which people express their leadership

authoritarian leader an individual who leads by giving orders

democratic leader an individual who leads by trying to reach a consensus

laissez-faire leader an individual who leads by being highly permissive

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 168 11/19/15 8:07 AM

Societies to Social Networks 169

Now assume you are leading this same group, but one of your party is lost, and a blizzard is on its way. This situation would call for you to exercise authority. If you sim- ply shrugged your shoulders and said “You figure it out,” you would invite disaster— and probably a lawsuit.

The Power of Peer Pressure: The Asch Experiment You know from personal experience that groups have extensive influence on your life. In this chapter, you’ve seen how even group size makes a difference. But just how extensively do groups influence your opinions and behavior? To answer this, let’s look first at conformity in the sense of going along with our peers. As you read about this experiment, keep in mind that our peers have no authority over us, only the influence that we allow.

Imagine that you are taking another course in social psychology, this time with Dr.  Solomon Asch. You have agreed to participate in an experiment. As you enter his lab- oratory, you see seven chairs, five of them already filled by other students. You are given the sixth. Soon the seventh person arrives. Dr. Asch stands at the front of the room next to a covered easel. He explains that he will show a large card with a vertical line on it, then another card with three vertical lines. Each of you is to tell him which of the three lines matches the line on the first card (see Figure 6.4).

Dr. Asch then uncovers the first card with the single line and the second card with the three lines. The correct answer is easy, for two of the lines are obviously wrong, and one is exactly right. Each person, in order, states his or her answer aloud. You all answer cor- rectly. The second trial is just as easy, and you begin to wonder why you are there.

On the third trial, though, something strange happens. Just as before, it is easy to tell which lines match, but the first student gives a wrong answer. The second student also gives the same incorrect answer. So do the third and the fourth. By now, you are wondering what is wrong. How will the person next to you answer? You can hardly believe it when he, too, gives the same wrong answer. Then it is your turn, and you give what you know is the right answer. The seventh person also gives the same wrong answer.

On the next trial, the same thing happens. You know that the choice of the other six is wrong. They are giving what to you are obviously wrong answers. You don’t know what to think. Why aren’t they seeing things the same way you are? Sometimes they do, but in twelve trials they don’t. Something is seriously wrong, and you are no longer sure what to do.

When the eighteenth trial is finished, you heave a sigh of relief. The experiment is finally over, and you are ready to bolt for the door. Dr. Asch walks over to you with a big smile on his face and thanks you for participating in the experiment. He explains that you were the only real subject in the experiment! “The other six are stooges. I paid them to give those answers,” he says. You feel relieved. Your eyes weren’t playing tricks on you after all.

What were the results? Asch (1952) tested fifty people. One-third (33 percent) gave in to the group half the time, providing what they knew to be wrong answers. Another two out of five (40 percent) gave wrong answers, but not as often. One-quarter (25 percent) stuck to their guns and always gave the right answer. I don’t know how I would do on this test (if I knew nothing about it in advance), but I like to think that I would be part of the 25 percent. You probably feel the same way about yourself. But why should we feel that we wouldn’t be like most people?

The results are disturbing, and researchers are still replicating Asch’s experiment (Mori et al. 2014). In our “land of individualism,” the group is so powerful that most people are willing to say things that they know are not true. And this was a group of strangers!

21 3

The cards used by Solomon Asch in his classic experiment on group conformity

Card 1 Card 2

Figure 6.4 Asch’s Cards

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 169 11/19/15 8:07 AM

170 Chapter 6

How much more conformity can we expect when our group consists of friends, people we value highly and depend on for getting along in life? Again, maybe you will become the sociologist who runs this variation of Asch’s experiment, perhaps using both female and male subjects.

The Power of Authority: The Milgram Experiment Let’s look at the results of another experiment in the following Thinking Critically section.

Thinking Critically If Hitler Asked You to Execute a Stranger, Would You? The Milgram Experiment

Imagine that Dr. Stanley Milgram (1963, 1965), a former student of Dr. Asch, has asked you to participate in a study on punishment and learning. Assume that you do not know about the Asch experiment and have no reason to be wary. When you arrive at the laboratory, you and a second student draw lots for the roles of “teacher” and “learner.” You are to be the teacher. When you see that the learner’s chair has protruding electrodes, you are glad that you are the teacher. Dr. Milgram shows you the machine you will run. You see that one side of the control panel is marked “Mild Shock, 15 volts,” while the center says “Intense Shock, 350 Volts.” The far right side reads “DANGER: SEVERE SHOCK.”

“As the teacher, you will read aloud a pair of words,” explains Dr. Milgram. “Then you will repeat the first word, and the learner will reply with the paired word. If the learner can’t remember the word, you press this lever on the shock generator. The shock will serve as punishment, and we can then determine if punishment improves memory.” You nod, relieved that you haven’t been designated the learner.

“Every time the learner makes an error, increase the punishment by 15 volts,” instructs Dr. Milgram. Then, seeing the look on your face, he adds, “The shocks can be painful, but they won’t cause any permanent tissue damage.” He pauses, and then says, “I want you to see.” You follow him to the “electric chair,” and Dr. Milgram gives you a shock of 45 volts. “There. That wasn’t too bad, was it?” “No,” you mumble.

The experiment begins. You hope for the learner’s sake that he is bright, but, unfortunately, he turns out to be rather dull. He gets some answers right, but you have to keep turning up the dial. Each turn makes you more and more uncomfortable. You find yourself hoping that the learner won’t miss another answer. But he does. When he received the first shocks, he let out some moans and groans, but now he is screaming in agony. He even protests that he suffers from a heart condition.

How far do you turn that dial?

By now, since you are only reading this, not doing it, you probably have guessed that there was no electricity attached

to the electrodes and that the “learner” was a stooge who only pretended to feel pain. The purpose of the experiment was to find out at what point people refuse to participate. Does anyone actually turn the lever all the way to “DANGER: SEVERE SHOCK”?

Milgram wanted the answer because millions of ordinary people did nothing to stop the slaughter of people the Nazis designated as “inferior”—Jews, gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, and people with disabilities. The cooperation of so many ordinary people in mass killing seemed bizarre, and Milgram wanted to see how Americans might react to orders from an authority (Russell 2010).

What Milgram found upset him. Some “teachers” broke into a sweat and protested that the experiment was inhuman and should be stopped. But when the experimenter calmly replied that the experiment must go on, this assurance from an “authority” (“scientist, white coat, university laboratory”) was enough for most “teachers” to continue, even though the “learner” screamed in agony. Even “teachers” who were “reduced to twitching, stuttering wrecks” continued to follow orders.

Milgram varied the experiments. He used both men and women. In some experiments, he put the “teachers”

In the 1960s, social psychologists did highly creative but controversial experiments. This photo, taken during Stanley Milgram’s experiment, should give you an idea of how convincing the experiment was to the “teacher.”

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 170 11/19/15 8:07 AM

Societies to Social Networks 171

Global Consequences of Group Dynamics: Groupthink Suppose you are a member of the U.S. president’s inner circle. It is midnight, and the president has called an emergency meeting. There has just been a terrorist attack, and you must decide how to respond to it. You and the others suggest several options. Even- tually, these are narrowed to only a couple of choices, and at some point, everyone seems to agree on what now appears to be “the only possible course of action.” To criticize the proposed solution at this point will bring you into conflict with all the other important people in the room and mark you as “not a team player.” So you keep your mouth shut. As a result, each step commits you—and them—more and more to the “only” course of action.

Under some circumstances, as in this example, the influence of authority and peers can lead to groupthink. Sociologist Irving Janis (1972, 1982) used this term to refer to the collective tunnel vision that group members sometimes develop. As they begin to think alike, they become convinced that there is only one “right” viewpoint, just a single course of action to follow. They take suggestions of alternatives as a sign of disloyalty. With their perspective narrowed and fully convinced that they are right, they may disregard risk. They might also put aside moral judgments (Hart 1991; Kramer and Dougherty 2013).

Groupthink can bring catastrophe. Consider the Columbia space shuttle disaster of 2003.

Foam broke loose during launch, raising concerns that this might have damaged tiles on the nose cone, making reentry dangerous. Engineers sent e-mails to NASA officials, warning them about the risk. One suggested that the crew do a “space walk” to exam- ine the tiles (Vartabedian and Gold 2003). The team in charge of the Columbia shuttle disregarded the warnings. Convinced that a piece of foam weighing less than 2 pounds could not seriously harm the shuttle, they refused to even consider the possibility (Wald and Schwartz 2003). The fiery results of their closed minds were transmitted around the globe.

Groupthink can lead to consequences even greater than this. In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his chiefs of staff were given evidence that the Japanese were preparing to attack Pearl Harbor. Refusing to believe it, they decided to continue naval operations as usual. The destruction of the U.S. naval fleet ushered the United States into World War II. During the Vietnam War, U.S. officials had evidence of the strength

and “learners” in the same room, so the “teacher” could see the suffering. In others, he put the “learners” in an adjacent room and had them pound and kick the wall during the first shocks and then go silent. The results varied. When there was no verbal feedback from the “learner,” 65 percent of the “teachers” pushed the lever all the way to 450 volts. Of those who could see the “learner,” 40 percent turned the lever all the way. When Milgram added a second “teacher,” a stooge who refused to go along with the experiment, only 5 percent of the “teachers” turned the lever all the way.

Milgram’s research set off a stormy discussion about research ethics (Tolich 2014). Researchers agreed that to reduce subjects to “twitching, stuttering wrecks” was unethical, and almost all deception was banned. Universities began to require that subjects be informed of the nature and purpose of social research.

Although researchers were itching to replicate Milgram’s experiment, it took almost fifty years before they found a

way to satisfy the committees that approve research. The findings: People today obey the experimenter at about the same rate that people did in the 1960s (Burger 2009). The results were even higher on The Game of Death, a fake game show in France, where the contestants were prodded by the show’s host and a shouting audience to administer shocks and win prizes. The contestants kept turning up the dial, with 80 percent of them giving victims what they thought were near lethal 450-volt shocks (Crumley 2010).

For Your Consideration → Taking into account the significance of Milgram’s

findings, do you think that the scientific community overreacted to these experiments? Should we allow such research?

→ Consider both the Asch and Milgram experiments, and use symbolic interactionism, functionalism, and conflict theory to explain why groups have such influence over us.

groupthink a narrowing of thought by a group of people, leading to the perception that there is only one correct answer and that to even suggest alternatives is a sign of disloyalty

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 171 11/19/15 8:07 AM

172 Chapter 6

and determination of the North Vietnamese military. These officials arrogantly threw the evidence aside, refusing to believe that “little, uneducated, barefoot people in pajamas” could defeat the U.S. military.

In each of these cases, options closed as officials committed themselves to a single course of action. Questioning the decisions would have indicated disloyalty and disre- gard for “team play.” No longer did those in power try to weigh events objectively. Inter- preting ongoing events as supporting their one “correct” decision, they plunged ahead, blind to disconfirming evidence and alternative perspectives.

One of the fascinating aspects of groupthink is how it can lead “good” people to do “bad” things. Consider the waterboarding I mentioned earlier. After 9/11, U.S. govern- ment officials defended torture as “the lesser of two evils.” Thought narrowed so greatly that the U.S. Justice Department ruled that the United States was not bound by the Geneva Convention that prohibits torture (Lewis 2005). Just as in Nazi Germany, med- ical professionals, trained to “help humanity,” joined in. They advised the CIA interro- gators, telling them when to stop waterboarding, slamming prisoners’ heads into walls, or shackling a prisoner’s arms to the ceiling—so there wouldn’t be “permanent damage” (Shane 2009; Editorial Board 2014).

Do you see the power of groups and groupthink?

PReventIng gRouPtHInk The leaders of a government tend to surround them- selves with an inner circle that closely reflects their own views. In “briefings,” written summaries, and “talking points,” this inner circle spoon-feeds the leaders information it has selected. As a result, the top leaders, such as the president, are largely cut off from information that does not support their own opinions. You can see how the mental cap- tivity and intellectual paralysis known as groupthink is built into this arrangement.

Perhaps the key to preventing groupthink is the widest possible circulation— especially among a nation’s top government officials—of research by social scientists independent of the government and information that media reporters have gathered freely. If this conclusion comes across as an unabashed plug for sociological research and the free exchange of ideas, it is. Giving free rein to diverse opinions can curb groupthink, which—if not prevented—can lead to the destruction of a society and, in today’s world of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, the obliteration of Earth’s inhabitants.

Summary and Review Societies and Their Transformation 6.1 Summarize the main characteristics of these types

of societies: hunting and gathering, pastoral and horticultural, agricultural, industrial, postindustrial, and biotech.

What is a group?

Sociologists use many definitions of groups, but, in general, a group consists of people who interact with one another and who think of themselves as belonging together. Societies are the largest and most complex group that sociologists study.

How is technology linked to the change from one type of society to another?

On their way to postindustrial society, humans passed through four types of societies. Each emerged from a social revolu- tion that was linked to new technology. The  domestication revolution, which brought the pasturing of animals and the

cultivation of plants, transformed hunting and gathering societies into pastoral and horticultural societies. Then the invention of the plow ushered in agricultural society, while the Industrial Revolution, brought about by machines powered by fuels, led to industrial society. The computer chip ushered in a new type of society called postindustrial (or information) society. Another new type of society, the biotech society, may be emerging.

How is social inequality linked to the transformation of societies?

Hunting and gathering societies had little social inequality, but as societies changed, social inequality grew. The root of the transition to social inequality was the accumulation of a food surplus, made possible through the domestication revolution. This surplus stimulated the division of labor, trade, the accumulation of material goods, the subordina- tion of females by males, the emergence of leaders, and the development of the state. As surpluses increased with each

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 172 11/19/15 8:07 AM

Societies to Social Networks 173

new type of society, so did inequality. A reversal of this trend occurred in the latter part of the industrial society.

Groups within Society 6.2 Discuss the main characteristics of primary groups,

secondary groups, in-groups and out-groups, reference groups, and social networks.

How do sociologists classify groups?

Sociologists divide groups into primary groups, secondary groups, in-groups, out-groups, reference groups, and social networks. The cooperative, intimate, long-term, face-to-face relationships provided by primary groups are fundamental to our sense of self. Secondary groups are larger, relatively temporary, and more anonymous, formal, and impersonal than primary groups. In-groups provide members with a strong sense of identity and belonging. out-groups also foster identity by showing in-group members what they are not. Reference groups are groups whose standards we refer to as we evaluate ourselves. Social networks consist of social ties that link people together.

Group Dynamics 6.3 Be familiar with the effects of group size on

stability, intimacy, attitudes and behavior; types and styles of leaders; the asch experiment on peer pressure; the milgram experiment on authority; and the implications of groupthink.

How does a group’s size affect its dynamics?

The term group dynamics refers to how individuals affect groups and how groups influence individuals. In a small

group, everyone can interact directly with everyone else. As a group grows larger, intimacy decreases but the group’s stability increases. A dyad, consisting of two people, is the most unstable of human groups, but it provides the most intimacy. The addition of a third person, forming a triad, fundamentally changes relationships. Triads are unstable, as coalitions (the alignment of some members of a group against others) tend to form. As groups grow larger, they develop a more formal structure.

What characterizes a leader?

A leader is someone who influences others. Instrumen- tal leaders try to keep a group moving toward its goals, even though this causes friction and they lose popularity. expressive leaders focus on creating harmony and raising group morale. Both types are essential to the functioning of groups.

What are three leadership styles?

authoritarian leaders give orders, democratic leaders try to lead by consensus, and laissez-faire leaders are highly permissive. An authoritarian style appears to be more effective in emergency situations, a democratic style works best for most situations, and a laissez-faire style is usually ineffective.

How do groups produce conformity?

The Asch experiment was cited to illustrate the influence of peer pressure, the Milgram experiment to show the power of authority. Both experiments demonstrate how easily we can succumb to groupthink, a kind of collective tunnel vision. Preventing groupthink requires the free circulation of diverse and opposing ideas.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 6 1. How would your orientations to life (your ideas,

attitudes, values, goals) be different if you had been reared in a hunting and gathering society? In an agricultural society?

2. Identify your in-groups and your out-groups. How have your in-groups influenced the way you

see the world? How have out-groups affected your views?

3. Asch’s experiments illustrate the power of peer pressure. How has peer pressure operated in your life? Think about something that you did, despite not wanting to, because of peer pressure.

M06_HENS5571_13_SE_C06.indd 173 11/19/15 8:07 AM

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 174 11/19/15 7:45 AM

Chapter 7

Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations

Your nightmare has come true. You really have been kicked out of college.

Learning Objectives

7.1 Compare the explanations of Marx and Weber for why traditional societies rationalized. (p. 176)

7.2 Summarize the characteristics of bureaucracies, their dysfunctions, and goal displacement; also contrast ideal and real bureaucracy. (p. 179)

7.3 Discuss the functions of voluntary associations, why people join them, and the significance of the iron law of oligarchy. (p. 187)

7.4 Discuss humanizing the work setting, fads in corporate culture, the “hidden” corporate culture, and worker diversity. (p. 189)

7.5 Describe the capacity of a well-meaning but ruthless government to use technology to enslave our minds and behavior to conform to its desires. (p. 193)

Imagine for a moment that you have just completed your first year at Eastern Michigan Uni- versity at Ypsilanti. You worked hard, but you also know you could have studied more. Your grades are just so-so, but you’ve learned a lot about self-management during your first year in college.

You have signed up for your second-year classes, and you hope to do better this coming semester.

It’s going to be a good year, you have told yourself over and over. You even know what you are going to major in. Sort of. At least you’ve narrowed it to a couple of maybes. You expect that things will come together as you take more courses.

As you look through your e-mail, you see a letter addressed to you from the Associate director of Academic Advising. Strange, you think. You weren’t expecting anything from her office.

“It must be a class schedule change for the fall,” you say to yourself as you open the letter.

The first paragraph is like someone slapping you in the face. Your life doesn’t exactly flash before your eyes, but you do feel your eyes start to water. You can hardly finish the letter after reading this first paragraph.

As a result of your Winter academic performance, you have been dismissed from Eastern Michigan University. This dismissal action is in accordance with policies described in the Uni- versity’s undergraduate catalog (available online at EMU’s Homepage, which is www.emich .edu, under the Student link). Any enrollment for upcoming terms will be cancelled, and you will be ineligible to register for classes.

175

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 175 11/19/15 7:45 AM

176 Chapter 7

You sit down, hardly able to believe your eyes. You stare at the note again. “Maybe it’s a joke,” you say to yourself as you search for the sender’s e-dress. You see that it’s official. Your nightmare has come true. You really have been kicked out of college.

Your head is spinning as you mentally run through your grades. Not the best, you admit to yourself, but to be kicked out—this just doesn’t make sense.

What are you going to tell your parents? They’ve been scrimping and saving for so many years for your college, and now this.

“There must be some mistake!” you say defiantly to the empty room. “I’m going to call EMU right now.”

You grab the phone and make the call. And you are right. It was a mistake, a horrible one. Instead of the dismissal letter going to

the 100 students it was intended for, it had been sent to the entire student body. Based on Baker 2012.

Some colleges have thousands of students. To make the administration of their stu- dents manageable, they have broken the many tasks into separate steps. Each step is a small, integrated part of the entire procedure. Computer programs help immensely, but, as this event indicates, things don’t always go as planned. In this case, a low-level bureaucrat mixed up the codes, releasing the dismissal letter to the entire student body.

Despite their flaws, we need bureaucracies, and in this chapter we’ll look at how society is organized to “get its job done.” As you read this analysis, you may be able to trace the source of some of your frustrations to bureaucracies—as well as understand how your welfare depends on them.

The Rationalization of Society 7.1 Compare the explanations of Marx and Weber for why traditional societies

rationalized.

In the previous chapter, we discussed how human groups have undergone changes so extensive that whole new types of societies emerged. We also saw that we are now caught up in one of those earth-shattering transformations. Underlying our information society (which may be merging into a biotech society) is an emphasis on rationality, the idea that efficiency and practical results should dominate human affairs. Today, we take this approach to life for granted, but life-in-society wasn’t always this way. Let’s examine how this change came about.

Why Did Society Make a Deep Shift in Human Relationships? Life in TradiTionaL SoCieTieS Until recently, people lived in traditional societies. Life there was fundamentally different from what you learned as you grew up. Look at Table 7.1 on the next page. You can see that the heart of traditional society is personal relationships. All of life revolves around deep obligation and responsibility. Everyone has an established place in the society. A good part of socialization is learning your place in the group, the obligations you have to others.

A second key aspect of traditional society is the idea that the past is the best guide for how to live life today. What exists is good because it has passed the test of time. Customs—and relationships based on them—have served people well, and these ways of doing things should be maintained. With the past so prized, it rules the present. Change is viewed with suspicion and comes about slowly, if at all.

The ShifT To raTionaLiTy aS SoCieTieS induSTriaLized This traditional ori- entation to life is a roadblock to industrialization. If a society is to industrialize, people

rationality using rules, efficiency, and practical results to determine human affairs

traditional society a society in which the past is thought to be the best guide for the present; a primary characteristic of tribal, peasant, and feudal societies

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 176 11/19/15 7:45 AM

Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 177

must have different ideas about production and relationships. Look again at Table 7.1. Notice how production in nontraditional societies is based on impersonal, short-term contracts, not personal relationships. The primary concern is the “bottom line” (results, profit or loss), not who will be affected by decisions to hire, fire, and assign tasks. Tra- dition (“This is the way we’ve always done it”) must be replaced with rationality (“Let’s find the most efficient way to do it").

This change to rationality is fundamentally different from all of human history. Yet today we take it for granted that rationality should be the basis for much of social life. This is how we run our schools and businesses. That we take rationality for granted makes it difficult for us to grasp the depths of this historical shift. Perhaps the following illustra- tion will help.

Let’s suppose that family relationships change from personal to rational. If this were to occur, a wife might say to her husband, “Each year, I’m going to do a progress report. I will evaluate how much you’ve contributed to the family budget, how much time you’ve put in on child care and household tasks. And, wav- ing a list, she adds, “how you rank on this standardized list of sexual performance. And on this basis, I’ll keep or replace you.”

I’m sure you’ll agree that such a shift from tradition to rationality would bring about a fundamental change in human relationships. It probably would even produce a new type of marriage and family. This is just what happened when orga- nizations shifted from traditional to rational. Since such a pro- found change did occur, we are left with the question of what brought it about. Why did people shift from a traditional orien- tation to the rationalization of society—the widespread accep- tance of rationality and the development of social organizations centered largely around this idea?

Table 7.1 Production in Traditional and Nontraditional Societies Traditional Societies (Horticultural, Agricultural) Nontraditional Societies (Industrial, Postindustrial)

PRODUCING GOODS

1. Production is done by family members and same-sex groups (men’s and women’s groups).

1. Production is done by workers hired for the job.

2. Production takes place in the home or in fields and other areas adjacent to the home.

2. Production takes place in a centralized location. (Some decentralization is occurring in the information society.)

3. Tasks are assigned according to personal relationships; men, women, and children do specific tasks based on custom.

3. Tasks are assigned according to agreements and training.

4. The “how” of production is not evaluated; the attitude is “We want to keep doing it the way we’ve always done it.”

4. The “how” of production is evaluated; the attitude is “How can we make this more efficient?”

RELATIONSHIPS IN PRODUCTION

5. Relationships are based on history (“the way it’s always been”). 5. Relationships are based on contracts, which change as the situation changes.

6. Relationships are diffuse (vague, covering many areas of life). 6. Relationships are specific; contracts (even if not written) specify conditions.

7. Relationships are long-term, often lifelong. 7. Relationships are short-term, for the length of the contract.

EVALUATING WORKERS

8. It is assumed that arrangements will continue indefinitely. 8. Arrangements are evaluated periodically, to decide whether to continue or to change them.

9. People are evaluated informally according to how they fulfill their traditional roles, much as friends “evaluate” one another today.

9. People are evaluated formally according to how they perform the tasks they are assigned in the organization.

NOTE: This model is an ideal type. Rationality is never totally absent from any society, and no society (or organization) is based entirely on rationality. Even the most rational organizations (those that most carefully and even ruthlessly compute the “bottom line”) have traditional components. To properly understand this table, consider these nine characteristics as being “more” or “less” present.

SOURCE: By the author.

To understand the sociological significance of this photo of cooking and child care in a communal kitchen in Peru, compare what you see here with the list of characteristics of traditional societies in Table 7.1.

rationalization of society a widespread acceptance of rationality and social organizations that are built largely around this idea

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 177 11/19/15 7:46 AM

178 Chapter 7

Marx: Capitalism Broke Tradition An early sociologist, Karl Marx (1818–1883), was one of the first to note that tradition was giving way to rationality. As Marx analyzed this change, he concluded that capitalism was breaking the bonds of tradition. People who tried capitalism were impressed with its greater efficiency. They found that it produced things in greater abundance and yielded high profits. This encouraged them to invest capital in manufacturing. As capitalism spread, traditional thinking receded. Gradually, the rationality of capitalism replaced the traditional approach to life. Marx’s conclusion: The change to capitalism changed the way people thought about life.

Weber: Religion Broke Tradition To sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920), this problem was as intriguing as an unsolved murder is to a detective. Weber wasn’t satisfied with Marx’s answer. He wanted to probe more deeply and find out what brought about capitalism. He found a clue when he noted that capitalism thrived only in certain parts of Europe. “There has to be a reason for this,” he mused. As Weber pursued the matter, he noted that capitalism flourished in Protes- tant countries, while Roman Catholic countries held on to tradition and were relatively untouched by capitalism. “Somehow, then, religion holds the key,” he thought.

But why did Roman Catholics cling to the past, while Protestants embraced change? Weber’s solution to this puzzle has been a source of controversy ever since he first pro- posed it in his influential book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904–1905). Weber concluded that Roman Catholic doctrine emphasized the acceptance of present arrangements: “God wants you where you are. You owe allegiance to the Church, to your family, and to your king. Accept your lot in life and remain rooted.” Weber argued that Protestant theology, in contrast, opened its followers to change. Weber was intimately familiar with Calvinism, his mother’s religion. Calvinists (followers of the teachings of John Calvin, 1509–1564) believed that before birth, people are destined for either heaven or hell—and they do not know their destiny until after they die. Weber said that this teaching filled Calvinists with deep anxiety. Salvation became their chief concern—they wanted to know now where they were going after death.

To resolve their spiritual dilemma, Calvinists arrived at an ingenious solution: God surely did not want those chosen for heaven to be ignorant of their destiny. Therefore, those who were in God’s favor would know it—they would receive a sign from God. But what sign? The answer, claimed Calvinists, would be found not in mystical, spiritual experiences but in things that people could see and measure. The sign of God’s approval was success: Those whom God had predestined for heaven would be blessed with visible success in this life.

This idea transformed the lives of Calvinists. It motivated them to work hard, and because Calvinists also believed that thrift is a virtue, their dedication to work led to an accumulation of money. They could not spend this money on themselves, however. They considered it sinful to purchase items beyond the basic necessities. Capitalism, the invest- ment of capital in the hope of making profits, became an outlet for their excess money. The success of their investments, in turn, became another sign of God’s approval. In this way, Calvinists transformed worldly success into a spiritual virtue. Other branches of Protestantism, although not in agreement with the notion of predestination, also adopted the creed of thrift and hard work. Weber’s conclusion: A changed way of thinking among Protestants (God will give a sign to the elect) produced capitalism.

The TWo VieWS Today Who is correct? Weber, who concluded that Protestantism produced rationality, which then paved the way for capitalism? Or Marx, who concluded that capitalism produced rationality? No analyst has yet reconciled these two opposing answers to the satisfaction of sociologists: The two views still remain side by side.

capitalism an economic system characterized by the private ownership of the means of production, the pursuit of profit, and market competition

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 178 11/19/15 7:46 AM

Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 179

Formal Organizations and Bureaucracies 7.2 Summarize the characteristics of bureaucracies, their dysfunctions, and goal

displacement; also contrast ideal and real bureaucracy.

Regardless of whether Marx or Weber was right about the origin of rationality, this orien- tation to social life profoundly changed how we work. When work is rooted in personal relationships, as in traditional society, a main purpose of business decisions is to main- tain those relationships. For example, the owners of a business will make sure that their relatives and friends have jobs. In contrast, when work is rooted in rationality, business is centered around efficiency in performing tasks and keeping an eye on the bottom line. Bosses look for good workers, not relatives.

As rationality gradually crowded out the traditional orientation, new types of orga- nizations emerged. Let’s look at these organizations and the impact they have on our lives today.

Formal Organizations It is not surprising that formal organizations, secondary groups designed to achieve explicit objectives, are rare in traditional societies. As you have seen, life there is orga- nized around personal relationships. There were three exceptions in traditional societies, however, that foreshadowed the changes ushered in by industrialization. An outstanding example is the twelfth-century guilds of western Europe. Men who performed the same type of work organized to control their craft in a local area. They set prices and standards of workmanship (Bridgwater 1953; “Guilds” 2014). Much like today’s unions, guilds also prevented outsiders (nonmembers of the guild) from working at their particular craft. Two other examples of early formal organizations were armies and the Roman Catholic Church, each with its hierarchical structure. Although they use different names, senior ranks are in charge of junior ranks (commander-in-chief/pope), (general/ cardinal), (private/priest).

Although formal organizations used to be rare, with today’s rationality they have become a central feature of contemporary life. Society has changed so greatly that most of us are even born within a formal organization. We are also educated in formal organizations, we spend our working lives in them, and we are even buried by them. The change is so extensive that we can’t even think of modern society without referring to formal organizations.

One of the main characteristics of formal organizations is that they tend to develop into bureaucracies. As we examine them, let’s start there.

The Characteristics of Bureaucracies Do you know what the Russian army and the U.S. postal service have in common? Or the government of Mexico and your college?

The sociological answer to these questions is that all four of these orga- nizations are bureaucracies. As Weber (1913/1947) pointed out, bureau- cracies have:

1. Separate levels, with assignments f lowing downward and accountability f lowing upward. Each level assigns responsibilities to the level beneath it, and each lower level is accountable to the level above it for fulfilling those assignments. Figure 7.1 on the next page shows the bureaucratic structure of a typical university.

Today’s armies, no matter what country they are from, are bureaucracies. They have a strict hierarchy of rank, division of labor, impersonality and replaceability (an emphasis on the office, not the person holding it), and they stress written records, rules, and communications—essential characteristics identified by Max Weber. This photo was taken in Pyongyang, North Korea.

formal organization a secondary group designed to achieve explicit objectives

bureaucracy a formal organization with a hierarchy of authority and a clear division of labor; emphasis on impersonality of positions and written rules, communications, and records

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 179 11/19/15 7:46 AM

180 Chapter 7

2. A division of labor. Each worker is assigned specific tasks, and the tasks of all the workers are coordinated to accomplish the purpose of the organization. In a college, for example, a teacher does not fix the heating system, the president does not approve class schedules, and a secretary does not evaluate textbooks. These tasks are distributed among people who have been trained to do them.

3. Written rules. In their attempt to become efficient, bureaucracies stress written procedures. In general, the longer a bureaucracy exists and the larger it grows, the more written rules it has. The rules of some bureaucracies cover just about every imaginable situation. In my university, for example, the rules are published in handbooks: separate ones for faculty, students, administrators, civil service workers, and perhaps others that I don’t even know about.

4. Written communications and records. Records are kept for much of what occurs in a bureaucracy (“Be sure to CC all immediate supervisors”). Some workers must detail their activities in written reports. My university, for example, requires that each semester, faculty members produce a summary of the number of hours they spent performing specified activities. They must also submit an annual report listing what they accomplished in teaching, research, and service—all accompanied by copies of publications, evidence of service, and written teaching evaluations from each course. Committees use these materials to evaluate the performance of each faculty member.

5. Impersonality and replaceability. It is the office that is important, not the individual who holds the office. Each worker is a replaceable unit. You work for the organization, not for the replaceable person who holds some post in the organization. When a professor retires, for example, someone else is hired to take his or her place. This makes each person a small cog in a large machine.

Figure 7.1 The Typical Bureaucratic Structure of a Medium-Sized University

Board (of regents; governors; trustees)

President

Vice President for Academic Affairs

College of Education

College of Sciences

College of Business

College of Fine Arts

College of Social Sciences

Department of Sociology

Department Chair

Sociology Faculty

Department of Political Science

Department of Economics

Department of Psychology

Department of Anthropology

College of Engineering

College of Medicine

College of Law

College of Humanities

Vice President for Personnel

Vice President for Administration

Vice President for Development

Vice President for Public Affairs

Source: By the author.

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 180 11/19/15 7:46 AM

Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 181

When society began to be rationalized, production of items was broken into its components, with individuals assigned only specific tasks. Shown in this wood engraving is the production of glass in Great Britain in the early 1800s.

These five characteristics help bureaucracies reach their goals. They also allow them to grow and endure. One bureaucracy in the United States, the postal service, has grown so large that 1 out of every 225 employed Americans works for it (Statistical Abstract 2014:Tables 642, 1150). If the head of a bureau- cracy resigns, retires, or dies, the organization continues without skipping a beat. Unlike a “mom and pop” operation, a bureaucracy does not depend on the individual who heads it.

As we explore in the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page, bureau- cracies have expanded to such an extent that they now envelop our entire lives.

“Ideal” Versus “Real” Bureaucracy Just as people often act differently from the way the norms say they should, so it is with bureaucracies. The characteristics of bureaucracies that Weber identified are ideal types; that is, they are a composite of characteristics based on many specific examples. Think of the judges at a dog show. They have a mental image of how each particular breed of dog should look and behave, and they judge each individual dog according to that mental image. Each dog will rank high on some characteristics and lower on others. In the same way, a particular organization will rank higher or lower on the traits of a bureau- cracy. Instead of labeling a particular organization as a “bureaucracy” or “not

Technology has changed our lives fundamentally. The connection to each telephone call used to have to be made by hand. As in this 1939 photo from London, England, these connections were made by women. Long-distance calls, with their numerous handmade connections, not only were slow, but also expensive. In 1927, a call from New York to London cost $25 a minute. In today’s money, this comes to $300 a minute!

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 181 11/19/15 7:46 AM

182 Chapter 7

a bureaucracy,” it probably makes more sense to consider the extent to which the organi- zation is bureaucratized (Udy 1959; Hall 1963).

Bureaucracies can differ from their organizational charts. The real lines of author- ity (“going through channels”), for example, may be different from those portrayed on Figure 7.1. For example, suppose that before being promoted, the university president taught in the history department. As a result, friends from that department might have direct access to him or her. They may provide “input” (ranging from opinions about how to solve problems to personal grievances or even gossip), skipping their chairperson or even the dean of their college and going directly to the president.

down-to-Earth Sociology The Mcdonaldization of Society The significance of the Mcdonald’s restaurants that dot the United States—and, increasingly, the world—goes far beyond quick hamburgers, milk shakes, and salads. As sociologist George Ritzer (1993, 1998, 2001, 2012) says, our everyday lives are being “Mcdonaldized.” Let’s see what he means.

The McDonaldization of society does not refer just to the robotlike assembly of food at Mcdonalds. This term refers to the standardization of everyday life, a process that is transforming our lives. Want to do some shopping? Shopping malls offer one-stop shopping in controlled environments. Planning a trip? Travel agencies offer “package” tours. They will transport middle-class Americans to ten European capitals in fourteen days. All visitors experience the same hotels, restaurants, and other scheduled sites— and no one need fear meeting a “real” native. Want to keep up with events? USA Today spews out McNews—short, bland, non-analytical pieces that can be digested between gulps of the McShake or the McBurger.

Efficiency brings dependability. You can expect your burger and fries to taste the same whether you buy them in Minneapolis or Moscow. Although efficiency also lowers prices, it does come at a cost. Predictability washes away spontaneity. It changes the quality of our lives by producing sameness—flat, bland versions of what used to be unique experiences. In my own travels, for example, had I taken packaged tours, I never would have had the eye-opening experiences that have added so much to my appreciation of human diversity. (Bus trips with chickens in Mexico, hitchhiking in Europe and Africa, sleeping on a granite table

in a nunnery in Italy and in a cornfield in Algeria are not part of tour agendas.)

For good or bad, our lives are being Mcdonaldized, and the predictability of packaged settings seems to be our social destiny. Education is being rationalized. When this process is

complete, no longer will our children have to put up with real professors, who insist on discussing ideas endlessly, who never come to decisive answers, and who come saddled with idiosyncrasies. At some point, such an education is going to be like quill pens and ink wells, a bit of quaint history.

Our programmed education will eliminate the need for evaluating social issues. We will have packaged solutions to social problems, definitive answers that satisfy our need for closure, and the government’s desire that we not explore its warts.

Computerized courses will teach the same answers to everyone—“politically correct” ways to think about social issues. Mass testing will ensure that students regurgitate the programmed responses. Like carcasses of beef, our courses will be stamped “U.S. government approved.”

Our looming prepackaged society will be efficient. But we will be trapped in the “iron cage” of bureaucracy—just as Weber warned would happen.

For Your Consideration → What do you like and dislike about the standardization

of society?

→ What do you think about the author’s comments on the future of education?

McDonald’s delivery service in South Korea.

McDonaldization of society the process by which ordinary aspects of life are rationalized and efficiency comes to rule them, including such things as food preparation

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 182 11/19/15 7:46 AM

Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 183

Goal Displacement and the Perpetuation of Bureaucracies Bureaucracies are so good at harnessing people’s energies to reach specific goals that they have become a standard feature of our lives. Once in existence, however, bureaucra- cies tend to take on a life of their own. In a process called goal displacement, even after an organization achieves its goal and no longer has a reason to continue, continue it does.

A classic example is the March of Dimes, organized in the 1930s with the goal of fighting polio (Sills 1957). At that time, the origin of polio was a mystery. The public was alarmed and fearful; overnight, a healthy child could be stricken with this crippling disease. To raise money to find a cure, the March of Dimes placed posters of children on crutches near cash registers in almost every store in the United States. The organization raised money beyond its wildest dreams. When Dr. Jonas Salk developed a vaccine for polio in the 1950s, the threat of polio was wiped out almost overnight.

Did the staff that ran the March of Dimes hold a wild celebration and then quietly fold up their tents and slip away? Of course not. They had jobs to protect, so they tar- geted a new enemy—birth defects. But then, in 2001, another ominous threat of success reared its ugly head. Researchers finished mapping the human genome system, a break- through that held the possibility of eliminating birth defects—and their jobs. Officials of the March of Dimes had to come up with something new—and something that would last. Their new slogan, “Stronger, healthier babies,” is so vague that it should ensure the organization’s existence forever: We are not likely to ever run out of the need for “stronger, healthier babies.” This goal displacement is illustrated in the photos below.

Then there is NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), founded during the Cold War to prevent Russia from invading western Europe. The end of the Cold War removed the organization’s purpose. But why waste a perfectly good bureaucracy? As with the March of Dimes, the western powers found a new goal: to combat terrorism and “rogue nations” (Tyler 2002). Russia poked a finger in NATO’s eye over this very point, say- ing that because NATO is looking for a reason to exist it provokes tensions with Russia (RT 2014).

The March of Dimes was founded by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s to fight polio. When a vaccine for polio was discovered in the 1950s, the organization did not declare victory and disband. Instead, its leaders kept the organization intact by creating new goals— first “fighting birth defects,” and now “helping babies.” Sociologists use the term goal displacement to refer to this process of adopting new goals.

goal displacement an organization replacing old goals with new ones; also known as goal replacement

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 183 11/19/15 7:46 AM

184 Chapter 7

Dysfunctions of Bureaucracies Although in the long run no other form of social organization is more efficient, as Weber recognized, bureaucracies have a dark side. Let’s look at some of their dysfunctions.

red Tape: a ruLe iS a ruLe Bureaucracies can be so bound by rules that the results defy logic.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has authority over what flies in the U.S. air. One of its rules is that airplanes must carry a printed flight manual. When Apple- white Aero applied for permission to test a drone it was developing, the FAA insisted that the drone carry a flight manual. “But there’s no one to read it on a drone,” the com- pany objected. “But it’s a rule,” replied the FAA. “You can’t fly the drone without it.” (nicas 2014)

In Spain, I came across an example so ridiculous that it can make your head swim— if you don’t burst from laughing first.

The Civil Registry of Barcelona recorded the death of a woman named Maria Antonieta Calvo in 1992. Apparently, Maria’s evil brother had reported her dead so he could collect the family inheritance.

When Maria learned that she was supposedly dead, she told the Registry that she was very much alive. The bureaucrats at this agency looked at their records, shook their heads, and insisted that she was dead. Maria then asked lawyers to represent her in court. They all refused—because no dead person can bring a case before a judge.

When Maria’s boyfriend asked her to marry him, the couple ran into a slight obsta- cle: No man in Spain (or most other places) can marry a dead woman—so these bureau- crats said, “So sorry, but no license.”

After years of continuing to insist that she was alive, Maria finally got a hearing in court. When the judges looked at Maria, they believed that she really was a living per- son, and they ordered the Civil Registry to declare her alive.

The ending of this story gets even happier: Now that Maria was alive, she was able to marry her boyfriend. I don’t know if the two lived happily ever after, but, after overcoming these mind-numbing bureaucrats, they at least had that chance (“Mujer ‘resucite’” 2006).

LaCk of CoMMuniCaTion beTWeen uniTS Each unit within a bureaucracy per- forms specialized tasks, which are designed to contribute to the organization’s goals. This arrangement usually works quite well, but sometimes the units fail to communicate with one another and end up working at cross-purposes.

In Granada, Spain, the local government was concerned about the run-down appearance of buildings along one of its main streets. Officials assigned one unit of the government to fix the fronts of these buildings, to repair concrete and restore the decorations of iron and stone. The results were impressive, and the unit was proud of what it had accom- plished. There was a problem, though. Another unit of the government had slated these same buildings for demolition (Arías 1993). Neither unit of this bureaucracy knew what the other was doing. One beautified the buildings while the other planned to turn them into heaps of rubble.

bureauCraTiC inCoMpeTenCe

It was time to update France’s state-run railway system. The bureaucrats in Paris con- sidered an array of new trains. Everyone was pleased with the choice: a fleet of sleek trains that would be the envy of any nation. Well worth the $4 billion.

Just one slip-up. Since the new trains were wider than the old ones, they would hit the platforms in over a thousand railway stations (Horobin 2014; Willsher 2014). On some tracks, they would even hit each other if they tried to pass. “Who would be stupid enough to buy a car bigger than their garage?” said the politicians.

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 184 11/19/15 7:46 AM

Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 185

In a tongue-in-cheek analysis of bureaucracies, Laurence Peter proposed the peter principle: Each employee of a bureaucracy is promoted to his or her level of incompetence (Peter and Hull 1969, 2011). People who perform well in a bureaucracy come to the attention of those higher up the chain of command and are promoted. If they continue to perform well, they are promoted again. This process continues until they are promoted to a level at which they can no longer handle the responsibilities well—their level of incompetence. The purchase of new French trains is a remarkable example.

The Peter Principle contains a grain of truth, but if it were generally true bureaucra- cies would be staffed by incompetents, and these organizations would fail. In reality, the purchase of French trains is the exception. Bureaucracies are so successful that they have come to dominate our society.

Since society is evolving, could other forms replace the bureaucracy as our dominant form of organization? Let’s consider this in the Sociology and the New Technology box below.

Alienation of Workers CauSeS of aLienaTion Perceived in terms of roles, rules, and functions rather than as individuals, many workers in bureaucracies begin to feel more like objects than   people.

Sociology and the New Technology Social Networking as the New Contender to Bureaucracies Should we assume that bureaucracies are the ending point of organizational development? Actually, with the way people are connecting electronically today, a new contender might be emerging now. Using iPhones, iPads, laptops, tablets, and phablets, people are sending billions of verbal messages each day, as well as countless photos and real-time visuals to friends, family, and associates.

With these changes in communicating brought by the microchip, millions of people who would have worked in bureaucracies, in factories and offices, now work independently through the Internet. They run businesses and manage careers without bricks-and-mortar locations, without a firm bureaucratic structure framing their activities. They depend on bureaucracies, such as Google, of course, but they

make a living through online social networking, not working within a bureaucracy.

This change might indicate the emergence of a form of social organization that will replace the dominance of the

bureaucracy. Bureaucracies will not disappear. Their efficiency in producing goods and in distributing services will guarantee that they continue. But social networking outside the bureaucratic setting will become an increasingly significant way that people organize themselves to meet their goals. If this continues, at some point bureaucracy might become a hazy “out there” sort of concept for our children.

For Your Consideration → do you think that social

networking will replace the bureaucracy as the dominant form of social organization? Why or why not?

The microchip not only changes the way we do things, but it is also reshaping society. This reshaping is so sweeping that things we had taken for granted can take on the appearance of a quaint former way of life. Even the bureaucracy, the dominant form of social organization, might be on the way of being displaced. Already, the bureaucratic employer with paid vacations and lifetime pensions at age 60 or 65 have begun to disappear.

Peter Principle a tongue-in-cheek observation that the members of an organization are promoted for their accomplishments until they reach their level of incompetence; there they cease to be promoted, remaining at the level at which they can no longer do good work

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 185 11/19/15 7:46 AM

186 Chapter 7

With boring, repetitive tasks—from factory workers inserting bolts to office workers filling out forms— workers can come to feel estranged from both their labor and their work environment. Marx termed these reactions alienation, a result, he said, of workers being cut off from the finished product of their labor. He pointed out that before industrialization, workers used their own tools to produce an entire product, such as a chair or table. Now the capitalists own the tools (machinery, desks, computers) and assign each worker only a single step or two in the entire production process.

The aLienaTed bureauCraT Some alienated workers quit their jobs. Others remain in the organization because they see no viable alternative. Some wait it out because they have “only so many years until retirement.” Alienated workers hate every minute of work, and it shows—in their attitudes toward clients, toward fellow workers, and toward supervisors. Alienated workers do not take initiative, and they use company rules to jus- tify doing as little as possible.

Despite poor attitude and performance, alienated workers often keep their jobs. Some are able to stay because of seniority, while others threaten costly, time-consuming, and embarrassing legal action if anyone tries to fire them. Some alienated workers are shunted off into small bureaucratic corners, where they spend the day doing trivial tasks and have little chance of coming in contact with the public. This treatment only alienates them further.

reSiSTing aLienaTion Workers don’t want to feel alienated. They want to feel valued and to have a sense of control over their work. So they resist alienation. A major form of their resistance is forming primary groups at work. They band together in informal settings—at lunch, around desks, or for a drink after work.

There, they give one another approval for jobs well done and express sympathy for the shared need to put up with cantankerous bosses, meaningless routines, and endless rules. In these contexts, they relate to one another not just as workers but also as peo- ple who value one another. They flirt, laugh, tell jokes, and talk about their families and goals. Adding this multidimensionality to their work relationships helps them main- tain their sense of being individuals rather than mere cogs in a machine.

As in the photo to the left, workers often decorate their work areas with items that have meaning to them. The sociological implication is that these workers are staking a claim to individuality. They are rejecting an identity as machines that exist to perform functions.

Bureaucracies have their dysfunctions and can be slow and even stifling. Most, however, are highly functional in uniting people’s efforts toward reaching goals.

How is this worker trying to avoid becoming a depersonalized unit in a bureaucratic-economic machine?

© Tom Cheney/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com

alienation Marx’s term for workers’ lack of connection to the product of their labor; caused by workers being assigned repetitive tasks on a small part of a product—this leads to a sense of powerlessness and normlessness; others use the term in the general sense of not feeling a part of something

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 186 11/19/15 7:46 AM

Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 187

Voluntary Associations 7.3 discuss the functions of voluntary associations, why people join them, and the

significance of the iron law of oligarchy.

Another common form of organization is voluntary associations. Let’s examine their characteristics.

Back in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman, traveled across the United States, observing the customs of this new nation. His report, Democracy in America (1835/1966), was popular both in Europe and in the United States. It is still quoted for its insights into the American character. One of de Tocqueville’s observations was that Americans joined a lot of voluntary associations, groups made up of volunteers who organize on the basis of some mutual interest.

Americans have continued this pattern. A visitor entering one of the thousands of small towns that dot the U.S. landscape is often greeted by a sign proclaiming some of the town’s voluntary associations: Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Kiwanis, Lions, Elks, Eagles, Knights of Columbus, Chamber of Commerce, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and perhaps a host of others. One type of voluntary association is so prevalent that a separate sign sometimes indicates which varieties the town offers: Roman Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, and so on. Not listed on these signs are many other voluntary associations, such as political parties, unions, health clubs, National Right to Life, National Organization for Women, Alcoholics Anonymous, Gamblers Anony- mous, Association of Pinto Racers, and Citizens United For or Against This and That.

Americans love voluntary associations and use them to express a wide variety of interests. Some groups are local, consisting of only a few volunteers; others are national, with a paid professional staff. Some are temporary, organized to accomplish some spe- cific task, such as arranging the Fourth of July fireworks. Others, such as the Scouts and political parties, are permanent—large, secondary organizations with clear lines of command—and they are also bureaucracies.

Functions of Voluntary Associations Whatever their form, voluntary associations are numerous because they meet people’s needs. People do not have to belong to these organizations. They join because they believe in “the cause” and obtain benefits from their participation. Functionalists have identified seven functions of voluntary associations.

1. They advance particular interests. For example, adults who are concerned about children’s welfare volunteer for the Scouts because they think kids are better off joining this group than hanging out on the street. In short, voluntary associations get things done, whether this means organizing a neighborhood crime watch or a local arts association.

2. They offer people an identity. They give their members a feeling of belonging, and for many, a sense of doing something worthwhile. This function is so important for some individuals that the voluntary association even provides a sense of purpose in life.

3. They help maintain social order. This is easy to see in the case of organizations that focus on political action, such as those that “get out the vote” or those that promote patriotism. But to the extent that any organization helps to incorporate individuals into society, it helps to maintain social order.

Sociologist David Sills (1968) identified four other functions, which apply only to some voluntary associations.

4. Some voluntary groups mediate between the government and the individual. For example, some groups provide a way for people to put pressure on lawmakers or to promote candidates for political office.

voluntary associations groups made up of people who voluntarily organize on the basis of some mutual interest; also known as voluntary memberships and voluntary organizations

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 187 11/19/15 7:46 AM

188 Chapter 7

5. By providing training in organizational skills, some groups help people climb the occupational ladder.

6. Other groups help bring people into the political mainstream. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is an example of such a group.

7. Finally, some voluntary associations pave the way for social change. As they challenge established ways of doing things, boundaries start to give way. The confrontations of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherds, for example, are reshaping taken- for-granted definitions of “normal” when it comes to the environment.

Motivations for Joining People have many motivations for joining voluntary associations. Some join because they hold strong convictions about the purpose of the organization, and they want to help fulfill the group’s goals. Others participate because membership helps them polit- ically or professionally—or looks good on a college or job application. Some may even join because they have romantic interests in a group member. With so many motivations for joining and because their commitment is fleeting, some people move in and out of voluntary associations almost as fast as they change clothes.

Within each organization, however, is an inner circle—individuals who stand firmly behind the group’s goals, who actively promote the group, and who are committed to main- taining the organization. If this inner circle loses its commitment, the group is likely to fold.

Let’s look more closely at this inner circle.

The Inner Circle and the “Iron Law” of Oligarchy The inner CirCLe The key members of a voluntary association, its inner circle, often grow distant from the regular members. They become convinced that only they can be trusted to make the group’s important decisions. To see this principle at work, let’s look at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW).

Sociologists Elaine Fox and George Arquitt (1985) studied three local posts of the Veter- ans of Foreign Wars. They found that although the leaders of the VFW concealed their atti- tudes from the rank-and-file members, the inner circle viewed them as a bunch of ignorant

boozers. Because the leaders couldn’t stand the thought that such people might represent them in the community and at national meetings, a curious situation arose. The rank-and-file members were eligible for top leadership positions, but they never became leaders. In fact, the inner circle was so effective in controlling these top positions that even before an election, they could tell you who was going to win. “You need to meet Jim,” the sociolo- gists were told. “He’s the next post commander after Sam does his time.”

At first, the researchers found this puzzling. The election hadn’t been held yet. As they investigated further, they found that leader- ship was determined behind the scenes. The current leaders appointed their favored people to chair the key committees. This spotlighted their names and accomplishments, propelling the members to elect them. By appointing its own members to highly visible positions, then, the inner circle maintained control over the entire organization.

The iron LaW of oLigarChy Like the VFW, in most voluntary associations an elite inner circle keeps itself in power by passing the leadership positions among its members. Sociologist Robert Michels (1876–1936) coined the term the iron law of oligarchy to refer to how organizations come to be dominated by a small, self-perpetuating elite. (Oligarchy means a system in which many are ruled by a few.)

In a process called the iron law of oligarchy, a small, self-perpetuating elite tends to take control of formal organizations. The text explains that the leaders of the local VFW posts separate themselves from the rank-and-file members, such as those shown here in Mokena, Illinois.

iron law of oligarchy Robert Michels’ term for the tendency of formal organizations to be dominated by a small, self- perpetuating elite

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 188 11/19/15 7:46 AM

Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 189

What many find disturbing about the iron law of oligarchy is that people are excluded from leadership because they don’t represent the inner circle’s values, or, in some instances, their background or even the way they look. This is true even of organi- zations that are committed to democratic principles. For example, U.S. political parties— supposedly the backbone of the nation’s representative government—are run by an inner circle that passes leadership positions from one elite member to another. This principle also shows up in the U.S. Congress. With their control of political machinery and access to free mailing, 90 to 95 percent of U.S. senators and representatives who choose to run are reelected (Statistical Abstract 2006:Table 394; Cillizza 2013).

The iron law of oligarchy is not without its limitations, of course. Regardless of their personal feelings, members of the inner circle must keep attuned to the opinions of the rank-and-file members. If the oligarchy gets too far out of line, it runs the risk of a grassroots rebellion that would throw the elite out of office. This threat softens the iron law of oligarchy by making the leadership responsive to the membership. The iron law of oligarchy, then, is actually more like a copper law of oligarchy. In addition, because not all organizations become captive to an elite, it is a strong tendency, not an inevitability.

Working for the Corporation 7.4 discuss humanizing the work setting, fads in corporate culture, the

“hidden” corporate culture, and worker diversity.

Since you are likely to be working for a bureaucracy after college, let’s examine some of its characteristics and how these might affect your career.

Humanizing the Work Setting Bureaucracies have transformed society by harnessing people’s energies to reach goals. Weber (1946) predicted that because bureaucracies were both efficient and had the capacity to replace themselves, they would come to dominate social life. All we have to do is look around us to see how this prediction has come true (Rothschild and Whitt 1986; Perrow 1991).

The many rules that enshroud bureaucracies can produce harsh, sterile workplaces that suck the creativity and energy out of people. Because workers thrive in warm, supportive environments, some corporations are humanizing the work setting. This means that they are trying to produce places to work that enhance people’s abilities and relationships—and, not incidentally, make them more productive at the same time.

Let’s look at two ways that corporations try to humanize the work setting: worker empowerment and child care. Keep in mind that the companies are not motivated by some altruistic urge to make life better for their workers but by the same motivation as always—the bottom line. It is in management’s self-interest to reduce worker turnover, increase productivity, and make their company more competitive.

Worker eMpoWerMenT One way to give workers more power is to establish work teams, small groups of workers who set goals and develop solu- tions to reach them. These self-managed teams hold daily progress sessions and weekly reviews (Feiler 2013). Some teams even replace bosses, setting their own schedules and hiring and firing workers (Lublin 1991; Kanter 2009). Employees in work teams are absent less, are more productive, and are quicker to react to technological innovation and to changes in competition (Drucker 1992; Petty et al. 2008).

The office of the future? Today’s new workers expect—and are receiving—greater “humanization” of the workplace. This office in Southampton, Hampshire, England includes a tree house, a pool table, a putting green, a giant swing, a cinema, and, as you see, this fun slide to relieve tensions.

humanizing the work setting organizing a workplace in such a way that it develops rather than impedes human potential

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 189 11/19/15 7:46 AM

190 Chapter 7

Why would empowering workers bring such positive results? Let’s apply concepts we discussed in the last chapter. In small work groups, people form primary relationships. This prevents their indi- viduality from being lost in a bureaucratic maze. As their peers acknowledge their contributions to the group, they come to feel appreciated. The group’s successes become the individual’s successes—as do its failures. With these personal ties creating face- to-face accountability, alienation is reduced, and workers make more of an effort. Not all teams work together well, however, and researchers are trying to determine what makes some teams succeed and others fail (Pentland 2012).

CorporaTe ChiLd Care Some companies improve the work setting by offering on-site child care. This eases the strain on parents, since they can keep in touch with their children while at work. They get to observe the quality of the child care, and they can even spend time with their children during breaks and lunch hours (Kantor 2006, 2009; Torres 2012). Some corporations that don’t offer on-site child care offer back-up care for both children and dependent adults.

This service helps employees avoid missing work when they face emergencies, such as a sitter who can’t make it.

As more women have become managers, their needs have found a greater voice in policy. A notable example is that the federal medical reform law requires employers to provide “lactation rooms” for nursing mothers who return to work. This must be a place other than a bathroom that is shielded from view and from the intrusion of others (Miller 2012). An issue that has arisen is how much time the employer must give the mothers to express milk for their babies (Shellenbarger 2011).

The ConfLiCT perSpeCTiVe Conflict theorists point out that the term humanizing the work setting is camouflage for what is really going on. Workers and owners walk dif- ferent paths in life, and their basic relationship is confrontational. Owners exploit work- ers to extract greater profits, and workers try to resist that exploitation. What employers call humanizing the work setting is just one of endless attempts to manipulate workers into cooperating in their own exploitation. Nice-sounding terms like humanizing conceal the capitalists’ goal of exploiting workers.

WorkerS’ aTTeMpTS To huManize Work It isn’t only supervisors who make decisions to humanize the work setting. Workers also take steps to overcome the bore- dom and drudgery of work. I have mentioned primary groups, and you saw the photo of a worker resisting alienation. Some of the actions of workers are humorous, while others are a threat to the corporation. In the Sociology and the New Technology box on the next page, let’s consider surfing at work as a form of humanizing work life.

Fads in Corporate Culture Ways to humanize the work setting—and again, not incidentally, to increase productivity—go through fads. Something that is hot one day may be cold the next. In the 1980s, quality circles were the rage. Thinking they had discovered the secret

Conflict theorists would say that this cartoon is more realistic than the organization chart shown in Figure 7.1 (p. 180). They would revise the cartoon, however, to show one big fish (owners) eating a lot of little fish (workers).

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 190 11/19/15 7:46 AM

Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 191

Sociology and the New Technology Surfing at Work Few people work constantly at their jobs. Most of us take breaks and, at least once in a while, goof off. We meet fellow workers in the “break room,” and we talk in the hallway. Much of this interaction is good for the company, since it bonds us to fellow workers and ties us to our jobs.

Sometimes our personal lives cross over into our workday. We check in with our child’s school or make arrangements for a babysitter. Bosses expect such personal calls from the office. Some even wink as we make a date or nod as we arrange to have our car worked on. Bosses, too, make their own personal calls. Such things, which help to humanize work, are expected. It’s the abuse that gets people in hot water.

Another way that workers humanize work is to use work computers for personal purposes. A certain amount of this is tolerated, but the abuse, called cyberslacking, certainly isn’t. Some workers download music, gamble, and play games at work. They shop, exchange jokes, send personal e-mail, trade stocks, and post messages in chat rooms. Some visit porno sites. Some cyberslackers even operate their own businesses online—when they’re not battling virtual enemies during “work.”

The master cyberslacker is a programmer who has become somewhat of a folk hero (Poole 2013). “Bob,” as he is known, outsourced his own job to a company in China. Bob paid the Chinese company one-fifth of his salary. Bob’s supervisors were pleased with “Bob’s” work, which was “clean” and always on time. Bob was even voted the best coder in the building.

With the Chinese doing his work, how did Bob spend his time? He was online all day. In his little cubicle, he would visit Facebook and eBay and watch cute cat videos.

Cyberslacking has given birth to cybersleuths, investigators who use software programs that can recover

every note employees have ever written, every Web site they have visited, even every keystroke they have made (Tokc-Wilde 2011). Cybersleuths can bring up every file that employees have deleted, every word they’ve erased. What

some workers forget is that hitting the delete button does not erase anything. It simply pushes the text into the background of the hard drive. With just a few clicks, cybersleuths can expose “deleted” information. It’s like opening a hidden diary. It was the company’s cybersleuths who investigated “Bob” and found out how he spent his days at work.

Then there are the rants at the world or against some individual on the social media sites. When you delete them from Facebook or LinkedIn, are they gone? Or when you delete a photo that you posted only for your close friends, does it disappear? So you might think. But they are far from gone. Programs can find them and expose them for the world to see.

For whatever reason, some people get a kick out of posting photos online of themselves drunk, naked, having sex, holding guns, making obscene gestures at the world, or doing obnoxious things (Barrett and Saul 2011). These photos

prevent many otherwise qualified applicants from landing a job. Let’s suppose that there has been a little online searching before the candidate arrives. When the interviewer looks at the eager, new, well-dressed college graduate on the other side of the desk, can you see why images of bongs, exposed breasts, or drooling, spaced-out looks will come to mind—and how those images can torpedo that job interview?

For Your Consideration → do you think that employees have a right to use company

computers for personal purposes on company time? How much personal use do you think is reasonable?

→ do you think that employers have a right to check what prospective employees have posted online?

Candidates for jobs are sometimes rejected when the prospective employer finds negative images or information on social media sites.

of success, tens of thousands of U.S. firms had workers and a manager or two meet regularly to try to improve working conditions and their company’s products. The results were few, though, and quality circles were quietly stuffed into the corporate garbage bin. Corporations continue to hop from one fad to another. Today, consultants

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 191 11/19/15 7:46 AM

192 Chapter 7

make a living selling ways to build “emotional integration” among a company’s leaders ( Gutner 2014). Can you see how “emotional integration” is destined to fly into the office waste bin?

There are even “fads within fads.” The current fads within the fad of “team build- ing” include cooking classes, ice-sculpting, and putting on fat suits to participate in pseudo sumo wrestling. A cooking team might be given the ingredients to make a cer- tain dish, but not be given the recipe. As the team tries to solve this problem, they build mutual understandings and the capacity to work together in other settings—or so goes the consultant’s sales pitch. It seems safe to predict that, like quality circles, these team-building exercises will soon pass—to be replaced by still some other corpo- rate fad.

Self-Fulfilling Stereotypes in the “Hidden” Corporate Culture As you might recall from Chapter 4, stereotypes can be self-fulfilling. That is, stereotypes can produce the very characteristics they are built around. The example used there was of stereotypes of appearance and personality. Sociologists have also uncovered self-fulfilling stereotypes in corporate life (Rivera 2012; Whiteley et al. 2012). Let’s see how they might affect your career after college.

SeLf-fuLfiLLing STereoTypeS and proMoTionS Corporate and depart- ment heads have ideas of “what it takes” to get ahead. Not surprisingly, since they themselves got ahead, they look for people who have characteristics similar to their own. They feed better information to workers who have these characteristics, bring them into stronger networks, and put them in “fast-track” positions. With such advantages, these workers perform better and become more committed to the com- pany. This, of course, confirms the supervisor’s expectations, the initial stereotype of a successful person.

But for workers who don’t look or act like the corporate leaders, the opposite hap- pens. Thinking of these people as less capable, the bosses give them fewer opportunities and challenges. When these workers realize that they are working beneath their abilities and they see others get ahead, they lose motivation, become less committed to the com- pany, and don’t perform as well. This, of course, confirms the stereotypes the bosses had of them in the first place.

In her research on U.S. corporations, Kanter (1977, 1983) found that such self- fulfilling stereotypes are part of a “hidden“ corporate culture. That is, these stereotypes and their powerful effects on workers remain hidden to everyone, even the supervisors. What is visible is the surface—workers with superior performance and greater commitment to the company getting promoted. To bosses and work- ers alike, this seems to be just the way it should be. Hidden below this surface, however, are the higher and lower expectations and the opening and closing of opportunities that produce the attitudes and the accomplishments—or the lack of them.

Diversity in the Workplace At one point in U.S. history, most workers were white men. Over the years, this gradually changed, and now 47 percent of workers are women and 32 percent are minorities (Statistical Abstract 2014:Tables 620, 621). With such extensive diversity, the stereotypes in the hidden corporate culture will give way, although only grudg- ingly. In the following Thinking Critically section, let’s consider diversity in the workplace.

corporate culture the values, norms, and other orientations that characterize corporate work settings

self-fulfilling stereotype preconceived ideas of what someone is like that lead to the person’s behaving in ways that match the stereotype

hidden corporate culture stereotypes of the traits that make for high-performing and under performing workers, which end up producing both types of workers

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 192 11/19/15 7:46 AM

Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 193

The cultural and racial–ethnic diversity of today’s work force has led to the need for diversity training.

Thinking Critically diversity in the Workplace What is diversity? It certainly is much more than skin color.

diversity refers to differences in age, ethnicity, gender, religion,

sexual orientation, and social class (Bezrukova et al. 2012).

Here is an indication of how diverse the United States is:

More than half of U.S. workers are minorities, immigrants, and

women. The San Jose, California, electronic phone book lists

ten times more Nguyens than Joneses (Albanese 2010). It used to be assumed that immigrants and most

minorities would join the “melting pot.” They would give up their distinctive traits and become like the dominant group. Today, though, people are more likely to prize their distinctive traits. With assimilation (being absorbed into the dominant culture) less likely than in the past, most large companies have “diversity training” (Hays-Thomas and Bendick 2013). They hold lectures and workshops so that employees can learn to work with colleagues of diverse cultures and racial–ethnic backgrounds.

Coors Brewery is a prime example. In the 1980s, Coors was remarkably different than it is today. One of the Coors brothers even felt comfortable giving a racially charged speech. Today, Coors holds diversity workshops, sponsors gay dances, and pays for a corporate-wide mammography

program. Coors even took a public stance against an amendment to the Colorado constitution that would have banned same-sex marriage. The company even has rabbis certify its suds as kosher and sends employees to gay bars to promote its beer (Kim 2004). Quite a change.

Coors even adopted the slogan “Coors cares.” Cute, but this slogan does not mean that Coors cares about diversity. What Coors cares about is the same as other corporations, the bottom line. Blatant racism and sexism once made no difference to profitability. Now they do. When the Coors brother gave that racially charged speech, boycotts went into effect, throwing Coors into a financial tailspin. To promote diversity is to promote profitability, so companies must promote diversity—or at least give the appearance of doing so.

Pepsi provides a good example of a positive and effective approach to diversity training. Managers are given the assignment of sponsoring a group of employees who are unlike themselves. Men sponsor women, African Americans sponsor whites, and so on. The executives are expected to try to understand the work situation from the perspective of the people they sponsor, to identify key talent, and to mentor at least three people in their group. Accountability is built in: The sponsors are required to give updates of their mentoring to their own supervising executives (Terhune 2005).

For Your Consideration → do you think that corporations and government agencies

need diversity training? Why or why not?

→ Can you suggest practical ways to overcome divisions of diversity among workers?

Technology and the Maximum-Security Society 7.5 describe the capacity of a well-meaning but ruthless government to use

technology to enslave our minds and behavior to conform to its desires.

One of the most ominous aspects of bureaucracy is the potential to use its organizing capac- ity along with the power of the microchip to create a police state. The Big Brother in Orwell’s classic novel 1984 may turn out to be a master computer that makes servants of us all.

With cameras monitoring the workplace and recording video images of us as we walk on the street and shop in stores, with our smart phones and cars broadcasting our location, and with the National Security Agency’s vast spy network crisscrossing the nation, we may be rushing headlong into a maximum-security society (Marx 2004; Feeney 2014). In the following Sociology and the New Technology box with which we close this chapter, let’s consider this potential, that technology may be used to imprison us.

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 193 11/19/15 7:46 AM

194 Chapter 7

As part of our developing surveillance society, our government is accumulating images of faces. The goal is to have the faces of all citizens and residents in government computerized files so any person can be identified immediately by face recognition software, even if the individual is just one in a crowd of thousands.

Sociology and the New Technology Welcome to the Memory Hole: Enjoy the Security State Back in the early 1900s, Max Weber did his classic analysis of bureaucracy, which you studied in this chapter. One of his observations was that bureaucracy is so effective that it has the power to place us in little cages. Little did Weber realize how right he was.

In Weber’s time, advanced technology was the typewriter and the fairly new things called electricity and cars. Today’s pace of technological change is so fast that this week’s “new thing” is outdated by next month. Or so it seems.

The primary technological change of our time is the computer. Not only has the computer made us more productive, but also it has transformed everyday life, changing even the ways we communicate at work and with our families. Its effects go deep, impacting even our way of thinking, our orientation to the world. These changes—deep and profound— are deserving of sociological study and intelligent analysis. After all, it is our lives that we are talking about.

But beyond such consequences of the computer is its ominous threat to our freedom. The computer’s power— combined with bureaucracy and the State’s felt need for secrecy and security—can make us slaves of the State.

We live in perilous times—Ebola and its equivalents haunt the air we breathe, violent criminals lurk in the darkness, and terrorists are ready to blow us up at the mall or at some sport event. Or so it seems. We yearn for safety and security.

And your friendly government is ready to provide it.

The uniformed personnel and the armored vehicles obligingly supplied by the military to local police departments are only part of our transition to the Security State. These are but physical manifestations of the deeper probe into our minds. In the background lie computer programs, with their powerful algorithms that can sort billions of pieces of data in seconds. The face-recognition software, the files on citizens, the monitoring devices surreptitiously placed in our paths. But especially those files, those vast streams of information, inaccessible to those being monitored, even unknown to them. The individual’s name might have appeared in some intercepted message, or perhaps computers indicated interlacing connections. No cumbersome court orders bothered with.

All citizens become suspects, because, after all, you never know about anyone for sure. It is the government’s responsibility to provide security, but those pesky, intolerable, insolent whistleblowers. Instead of loyalty to the organization, they betray it. Snowden, Assange, Binney, drake, and the others—letting people know that they are being spied on, that their e-mail and

telephone calls are algorithmically massaged. The surveillance machine works best in secret.

The power of these software programs is beyond comprehension. Just one example of what exists now, much less of what is to come. At the press of a button, Amazon can delete information from every Kindle anywhere in the world. No exaggeration. Amazon has already done this. When Amazon determined that the copies of some of its books were bootlegged, it vaporized them from everyone’s Kindle (van Buren 2014).

Great Britain is providing a beautiful example of how a government can protect its citizens. It is enshrouding its people within a protective shield that will prevent them from viewing unapproved sites: pornography, violence, extremism, terrorism, anorexia, and suicide-related sites. Sites that mention alcohol

or smoking will not be banned, but they will be monitored. The protective Security State at work, knowing what is bad and good for people’s minds.

Iran and North Korea, of course, also love filtering devices. The Chinese, Russians, Germans, and others are busy doing the same thing in their own way. And we can’t forget the U.S. Army, which protects its soldiers from what they see while abroad.

Back in 1948, George Orwell peered into the future through his novel 1984. Orwell lived in a predigital world, and I’m amazed at his prescience. The future he envisioned is arriving rapidly. The bureaucracy paired with the computer will give us secure lives, very secure. Our acts will be monitored, all behind the scenes, not visible to us. With advances in brain research, the government should one day be able to monitor even our thoughts, for unapproved thinking can be dangerous to the Security State.

Eventually, the State will bring us what Orwell called the “memory hole.” Orwell envisioned little slots where paper was inserted to be destroyed, with history rewritten to match the views approved by society’s controllers. Computer programs make such slots quaint relics. The new programs will be able to rewrite history, forcing unpleasant information down the memory hole, thrust out of existence.

doesn’t this make you feel safe and secure? You should have a warm, fuzzy feeling knowing that your government will protect you—even from your own evil thoughts. How comforting to conform precisely, even in your thinking, to whatever the authorities decide is proper and correct.

You won’t even have to decide whether to participate or not. This decision will be made for you. How good of the Security State to relieve you even of this burden.

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 194 11/19/15 7:46 AM

Bureaucracy and Formal Organizations 195

Summary and Review The Rationalization of Society 7.1 Compare the explanations of Marx and Weber for

why traditional societies rationalized.

how did the rationalization of society come about?

The term rationalization of society refers to a transformation in people’s thinking and behaviors—a shift from time- honored traditional ways to efficiency in producing results. Karl Marx attributed rationalization to capitalism. Max Weber, who developed this term, traced this change to Protestant (Calvinist) theology, which he said brought about capitalism.

Formal Organizations and Bureaucracies 7.2 Summarize the characteristics of bureaucracies,

their dysfunctions, and goal displacement; also contrast ideal and real bureaucracy.

What are formal organizations?

formal organizations are secondary groups designed to achieve specific objectives. Their dominant form is the bureaucracy, which Weber said consists of a hierarchy, division of labor, written rules and communications, impersonality, and replaceability of positions. goal displacement is also common. These characteristics make bureaucracies efficient and enduring.

What dysfunctions are associated with bureaucracies?

The dysfunctions of bureaucracies include red tape, lack of communication between units, incompetence (as seen in the peter principle), and alienation. In Weber’s view, the impersonality of bureaucracies tends to produce alienation among workers—the feeling that no one cares about them and that they do not fit in. Marx’s view of alienation is somewhat different: Workers do not identify with the product of their labor because they participate in only a small part of the production process.

Voluntary Associations 7.3 discuss the functions of voluntary associations,

why people join them, and the significance of the iron law of oligarchy.

What are the functions of voluntary associations?

Voluntary associations are groups of volunteers who organize on the basis of common interests. These

associations promote mutual interests, provide a sense of identity and purpose, help to govern and maintain order, mediate between the government and the individual, give training in organizational skills, provide access to political power, and pave the way for social change.

What is “the iron law of oligarchy”?

Sociologist Robert Michels noted that inner circles usually run formal organizations and that they limit leadership to their own members. The dominance of a formal organization by an elite that keeps itself in power is called the iron law of oligarchy.

Working for the Corporation 7.4 discuss humanizing the work setting, fads in

corporate culture, the “hidden” corporate culture, and worker diversity.

What does it mean to humanize the work setting?

humanizing a work setting means to organize work in a way that it develops rather than impedes human potential. Among the attempts to make bureaucracies more humane are empowering workers and establishing corporate day care. Conflict theorists see attempts to humanize the work setting as a way of manipulating workers. Workers also do their own humanizing of work.

how does a hidden corporate culture affect workers?

Within companies is a hidden corporate culture , stereotypes of the traits that produce successful and unsuccessful workers. People who match a corporation’s hidden culture of the traits of success tend to be put on career tracks that enhance their chances of success. Those who do not match these self-fulfilling stereotypes are set on courses that minimize their performance.

Technology and the Maximum-Security Society 7.5 describe the capacity of a well-meaning but

ruthless government to use technology to enslave our minds and behavior to conform to its desires.

What threat to freedom do bureaucracies pose today?

The bureaucracy’s organizing capacity along with the power of the microchip holds the potential to create a police state that will imprison us all.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 7 1. You are likely to work for a bureaucracy. How do you think

this will affect your orientations to life? How can you make the hidden corporate culture work to your advantage?

2. Do you think the Peter Principle is right? Why or why not?

3. Why do you think the iron law of oligarchy is such a common feature of voluntary organizations?

4. How do you think we can keep from being imprisoned by bureaucracy and the microchip?

M07_HENS5571_13_SE_C07.indd 195 11/19/15 7:46 AM

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 196 11/19/15 8:01 AM

Chapter 8

Deviance and Social Control

“They would ‘clean’ their hands by spitting slimy tobacco juice into them.”

Learning Objectives

8.1 Summarize the relativity of deviance, the need for norms, and the types of sanctions; contrast sociobiological, psychological, and sociological explanations of deviance. (p. 198)

8.2 Apply the symbolic interactionist perspective to deviance by explaining differential association, control, and labeling. (p. 201)

8.3 Apply the functionalist perspective to deviance by explaining how deviance can be functional for society, how mainstream values can produce deviance (strain theory), and how social class is related to crime (illegitimate opportunities). (p. 208)

8.4 Apply the conflict perspective to deviance by explaining how social class is related to the criminal justice system and how the criminal justice system is oppressive. (p. 214)

8.5 Be able to discuss street crime and imprisonment, the three-strikes laws, the decline in violent crime, recidivism, bias in the death penalty, the medicalization of deviance, and the need for a more humane approach. (p. 216)

In just a few moments I was to meet my first Yanomamö, my first primitive man. What would it be like? . . . I looked up [from my canoe] and gasped when I saw a dozen burly, naked, filthy, hideous men staring at us down the shafts of their drawn arrows. Immense wads of green tobacco were stuck between their lower teeth and lips, making them look even more hideous, and strands of dark-green slime dripped or hung from their noses. We arrived at the village while the men were blowing a hallucinogenic drug up their noses. One of the side effects of the drug is a runny nose. The mucus is always saturated with the green powder, and the Indians usually let it run freely from their nostrils. . . . I just sat there holding my notebook, helpless and pathetic. . . .

The whole situation was depressing, and I wondered why I ever decided to switch from civil engineering to anthropology in the first place. . . . [Soon] I was covered with red pigment, the result of a dozen or so complete examinations. . . . These examinations capped an otherwise grim day. The Indians would blow their noses into their hands, flick as much of the mucus off that would separate in a snap of the wrist, wipe the residue into their hair, and then carefully examine my face, arms, legs, hair, and the contents of my pockets. I said [in their language], “Your hands are dirty”; my comments were met by the Indians in the following way: they would “clean” their hands by spitting a quantity of slimy tobacco juice into them, rub them together, and then proceed with the examination.

197

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 197 11/19/15 8:01 AM

198 Chapter 8

This is how Napoleon Chagnon describes the culture shock he felt when he met the Yanomamö tribe of the rain forests of Brazil. His following months of fieldwork continued to bring surprise after surprise, and often Chagnon (1977) could hardly believe his eyes—or his nose.

If you were to list the deviant behaviors of the Yanomamö, what would you include? The way they appear naked in public? Use of hallucinogenic drugs? Let mucus hang from their noses? Or the way they rub hands filled with mucus, spittle, and tobacco juice over a fright- ened stranger who doesn’t dare to protest? Perhaps. But it isn’t this simple. As we shall see, deviance is relative.

What Is Deviance? 8.1 Summarize the relativity of deviance, the need for norms, and the types of

sanctions; contrast sociobiological, psychological, and sociological explanations of deviance.

Sociologists use the term deviance to refer to any violation of norms, whether the infrac- tion is as minor as driving over the speed limit, as serious as murder, or as humorous as Chagnon’s encounter with the Yanomamö. This deceptively simple definition takes us to the heart of the sociological perspective on deviance, which sociologist Howard S. Becker (1966) described this way: It is not the act itself, but the reactions to the act, that make something deviant. What Chagnon saw disturbed him, but to the Yanomamö, those same behaviors represented normal, everyday life. What was deviant to Chagnon was conformist to the Yanomamö. From their viewpoint, you should check out strangers the way they did—and nakedness is good, as are hallucinogenic drugs. And it is natural to

let mucus flow.

The RelaTiviTy of Deviance Chagnon’s abrupt introduc- tion to the Yanomamö allows us to see the relativity of deviance, a major point made by symbolic interactionists. Because different groups have different norms, what is deviant to some is not deviant to others. This principle applies not just to cultures but also to groups within the same society. Look at the photo to the left and the one on page 200.

This principle also applies to norms of sexuality, the focus of the Cultural Diversity box on the next page.

The relativity of deviance also applies to crime, the violation of rules that have been written into law. In the extreme, an act that is applauded by one group may be so despised by another group that it is punishable by death. Making a huge profit on business deals is one example. Americans who do this are admired. Like Donald Trump and Warren Buffet, they may even write books about their exploits. In China, however, until recently, this same act was considered a crime called profiteering. Those found guilty were hanged in a public square as a lesson to all.

The Chinese example also lets us see how even within the same society, the meaning of an act can change over time. With China’s switch to capitalism, making large profits has changed from a crime punishable by death to an act to be admired.

a neuTRal TeRm Unlike the general public, sociologists use the term deviance nonjudgmentally, to refer to any act to which people respond negatively. When sociologists use this term, it does not mean that they are saying that an act is bad, just that people judge it negatively. To sociologists, then, all of us are deviants of one sort or another, since we all violate norms from time to time.

I took this photo on the outskirts of Hyderabad, India. Is this man deviant? If this were a U.S. street, he would be. But here? No houses have running water in his neighborhood, and the men, women, and children bathe at the neighborhood water pump. This man, then, would not be deviant in this culture. And yet, he is actually mug- ging for my camera, making the three bystanders laugh. Does this additional factor make this a scene of deviance?

deviance the violation of norms (or rules or expectations)

crime the violation of norms written into law

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 198 11/19/15 8:01 AM

Deviance and Social Control 199

STigma To be considered deviant, a person does not even have to do anything. Sociolo- gist Erving Goffman (1963) used the term stigma to refer to characteristics that discredit peo- ple. These include violations of norms of appearance (a facial birthmark, a huge nose, ears that stick out) and norms of ability (blindness, deafness, mental handicaps). Also included are involuntary memberships, such as being a victim of AIDS or the brother of a rapist. The stigma can become a person’s master status, defining him or her as deviant. Recall from Chapter 4 that a master status cuts across all other statuses that a person occupies.

How Norms Make Social Life Possible No human group can exist without norms: Norms make social life possible by making behav- ior predictable. What would life be like if you could not predict what others would do? Imagine for a moment that you have gone to a store to purchase milk:

Suppose the clerk says, “I won’t sell you any milk. We’re overstocked with soda, and I’m not going to sell anyone milk until our soda inventory is reduced.”

Cultural Diversity around the World Human Sexuality in Cross-Cultural Perspectives Human sexuality illustrates how a group’s definition of an act, not the act itself, determines whether it will be considered deviant. Let’s look at some examples reported by anthropologist Robert Edgerton (1976).

Norms of sexual behavior vary so widely around the world that what is considered normal in one society may be considered deviant in another. In Kenya, a group called the Pokot place high emphasis on sexual pleasure, and they expect that both a husband and wife will reach orgasm. If a husband does not satisfy his wife, he is in trouble—especially if she thinks that his failure is because of adultery. If this is so, the wife and her female friends will sneak up on her husband when he is asleep. The women will tie him up, shout obscenities at him, beat him, and then urinate on him. As a final gesture of their contempt, before releasing him they will slaughter and eat his favorite ox. The husband’s hours of painful humiliation are intended to make him more dutiful concerning his wife’s conjugal rights.

People can also become deviants for following their group’s ideal norms instead of its real norms. As with many groups, the Zapotec Indians of Mexico profess that sexual relations should take place exclusively between husband and wife. However, the Zapotec also have a covert norm, an unspoken understanding, that married people will have affairs but that they will be discreet about them. In one Zapotec community, the only person who did not have an extramarital affair was condemned by everyone in the village. The reason was not that she did not have an affair but that she told the other wives who their husbands were sleeping with. It is an

interesting case; if this virtuous woman had had an affair—and kept her mouth shut— she would not have become a deviant. Clearly, real norms can conflict with ideal norms—another illustration of the gap between ideal and real culture.

For Your Consideration → How do the behaviors of the Pokot

wives and husbands mentioned here look from the perspective of U.S. norms? What are those U.S. norms?

→ What norms did the Zapotec woman break?

→ How does cultural relativity apply to the Pokot and Zapotec? (We discussed this concept in Chapter 2.)

MexicoMexico

KenyaKenya

A Pokot woman in traditional dress.

stigma “blemishes” that discredit a person’s claim to a “normal” identity

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 199 11/19/15 8:01 AM

200 Chapter 8

You don’t like it, but you decide to buy a case of soda. At the checkout, the clerk says, “I hope you don’t mind, but there’s a $5 service charge on every fifteenth customer.” You, of course, are the fifteenth.

Just as you start to leave, another clerk stops you and says, “We’re not working anymore. We decided to have a party.” Suddenly a CD begins to blast, and everyone in the store starts to dance. “Oh, good, you’ve brought the soda,” says a different clerk, who takes your package and passes sodas all around.

Life is not like this, of course. You can depend on grocery clerks to sell you milk. You can also depend on paying the same price as everyone else and not being forced to attend a party in a store. Why can you depend on this? Because we live in a world of norms that govern the behavior of both store clerks and ourselves. We are socialized to follow norms, to play the basic roles that society assigns to us.

Without norms, we would have social chaos. Norms lay out the basic guidelines for how we should play our roles and interact with others. In short, norms bring about social order, a group’s customary social arrangements. Our lives are based on these arrange- ments, which is why deviance often is perceived as threatening: Deviance undermines pre- dictability, the foundation of social life. Consequently, human groups developed a system of social control—formal and informal means of enforcing norms. At the center of social control are sanctions.

Sanctions As we discussed in Chapter 2, people do not enforce folkways strictly, but they become upset when people break mores (MO-rays). Expressions of disapproval for deviance, called negative sanctions, range from frowns and gossip for breaking folkways to imprisonment and death for violating mores. In general, the more seriously the group takes a norm, the harsher the penalty for violating it. In contrast, positive sanctions— from smiles to formal awards—are used to reward people for conforming to norms. Get- ting a raise is a positive sanction; being fired is a negative sanction. Getting an A in Intro to Sociology is a positive sanction; getting an F is a negative one.

Most negative sanctions are informal. You might stare if you observe someone dressed in what you consider to be inappropriate clothing, or you might gossip if a married per- son you know spends the night with someone other than his or her spouse. Whether you consider the breaking of a norm an amusing matter that warrants no sanction or a serious

infraction that does, however, depends on your perspective. Let’s suppose that a woman appears at your college graduation in a bikini. You might stare, laugh, and nudge the person next to you. If this is your mother, however, you are likely to feel that different sanctions are appropriate. Similarly, if it is your father who spends the night with an 18-year-old college freshman, you are likely to do more than gossip.

in Sum In sociology, the term deviance refers to all violations of social rules, regardless of their seriousness. The term is neutral, not a judgment about the behavior. Deviance is so relative that what is deviant in one group may be conformist in another. Because of this, we must consider deviance from within a group’s own framework: It is their meanings that underlie their behavior.

Competing Explanations of Deviance: Sociobiology, Psychology, and Sociology If social life is to exist, norms are essential. So why do people violate them? To better understand the reasons, it is useful to know how sociological explanations differ from biological and psychological ones. Let’s compare them.

Violating background assumptions is a common form of deviance. Although we have no explicit rule that says, “Do not put snakes through your nose,” we all know that it exists (perhaps as a subcategory of “Don’t do strange things in public”). Is this act also deviant for this man in Chennai, India?

social order a group’s usual and customary social arrangements, on which its members depend and on which they base their lives

social control a group’s formal and informal means of enforcing its norms

negative sanction an expression of disapproval for breaking a norm, ranging from a mild, informal reaction such as a frown to a formal reaction such as a fine or a prison sentence

positive sanction an expression of approval for following a norm, ranging from a smile or a good grade in a class to a material reward such as a prize

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 200 11/19/15 8:01 AM

Deviance and Social Control 201

BioSocial explanaTionS Sociobiologists explain deviance by looking for answers within individuals. They assume that genetic predispositions lead people to such behaviors as juvenile delinquency and crime (Lombroso 1911; Wilson and Herrnstein 1985; Barnes and Jacobs 2013). An early explanation was that men with an extra Y chromosome (the “XYY” theory) were more likely to become criminals. Another was that people with “squar- ish, muscular” bodies were more likely to commit street crime—acts such as mugging, rape, and burglary. These theories were abandoned when research did not support them.

With advances in the study of genetics, biosocial explanations are being proposed to explain differences in crime by sex, race, social class, and age (juvenile delinquency) (Walsh and Beaver 2009; Stetler et al. 2014). The basic explanation is that over the mil- lennia, people with certain characteristics were more likely to survive than were people with different characteristics. As a result, different groups today inherit different propen- sities (tendencies) for empathy, self-control, and risk-taking.

A universal finding is that in all known societies, men commit more violent crimes than women do. There are no exceptions. Here is how sociobiologists explain this. It took only a few pelvic thrusts for men to pass on their genes. After that, they could leave if they wanted to. The women, in contrast, had to carry, birth, and nurture the children. Women who were more empathetic (inclined to nurture their children) engaged in less dangerous behavior. These women passed genes for more empathy, greater self-control, and less risk-taking to their female children. As a result, all over the world, men engage in more violent behavior, which comes from their lesser empathy, lower self-control, and greater tendency for taking risks.

But behavior, whether deviant or conforming, does not depend only on genes, add the biosocial theorists (Barnes and Jacobs 2013). Our inherited propensities (the bio part) are modified and stimulated by our environment (the social part). Biosocial research holds the potential of opening a new understanding of deviance.

pSychological explanaTionS Psychologists focus on abnormalities within the individual. Instead of genes, they examine what are called personality disorders. Their supposition is that deviating individuals have deviating personalities (Mayer 2007; Liu 2014) and that subconscious motives drive people to deviance.

Researchers have never found a specific childhood experience to be invariably linked with deviance. For example, some children who had “bad toilet training,” “suf- focating mothers,” or “emotionally aloof fathers” become embezzling bookkeepers—but others become good accountants. Just as college students and police officers represent a variety of bad—and good—childhood experiences, so do deviants. Similarly, people with “suppressed anger” can become freeway snipers or military heroes—or anything else. In short, there is no inevitable outcome of any childhood experience. Deviance is not associ- ated with any particular personality.

Sociological explanaTionS In contrast with both sociobiologists and psycholo- gists, sociologists search for factors outside the individual. They look for social influences that “recruit” people to break norms. To account for why people commit crimes, for example, sociologists examine such external influences as socialization, membership in subcultures, and social class. Social class, a concept that we discuss in depth in Chapter 10, refers to peo- ple’s relative standing in terms of education, occupation, and especially income and wealth.

To explain deviance, sociologists apply the three sociological perspectives— symbolic interactionism, functionalism, and conflict theory. Let’s compare these three explanations.

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective 8.2 apply the symbolic interactionist perspective to deviance by explaining

differential association, control, and labeling.

As we examine symbolic interactionism, it will become more evident why sociologists are not satisfied with explanations that are rooted in sociobiology or psychology. A basic

genetic predisposition inborn tendencies (for example, a tendency to commit deviant acts)

street crime crimes such as mugging, rape, and burglary

personality disorders the view that a personality disturbance of some sort causes an individual to violate social norms

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 201 11/19/15 8:01 AM

202 Chapter 8

principle of symbolic interactionism is that we are thinking beings who act according to how we interpret situations. Let’s consider how our membership in groups influences how we view life and, from there, our behavior.

Differential Association Theory The TheoRy Going directly against the idea that biology or personality is the source of deviance, sociologists stress our experiences in groups (Deflem 2006; Chambliss 1973/2016). Consider an extreme: boys and girls who join street gangs and those who join the Scouts. Obviously, each will learn different attitudes and behaviors concerning deviance and conformity. Edwin Sutherland coined the term differential association to indicate this: From the different groups we associate with, we learn to deviate from or con- form to society’s norms (Sutherland 1924, 1947; Rendon 2014).

Sutherland’s theory is more complicated than this, but he basically said that the dif- ferent groups with which we associate (our “different(ial) association”) give us messages about conformity and deviance. We may receive mixed messages, but we end up with more of one kind of message than the other (an “excess of definitions,” as Sutherland put it). The end result is an imbalance—attitudes that tilt us in one direction or another. Con- sequently, we learn to either conform or to deviate.

familieS You know how important your family has been in forming your views toward life, so it probably is obvious to you that the family makes a big difference in whether people learn deviance or conformity. Researchers have confirmed this informal observation. Of the many studies, this one stands out: Of all prison inmates across the United States, about half have a father, mother, brother, sister, or spouse who has served time in prison (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2003:Table 6.0011; Glaze and Marus- chak 2008:Table 11). In short, families that are involved in crime tend to set their children on a lawbreaking path.

fRienDS, neighBoRhooDS, anD SuBculTuReS Most people don’t know the term differential association, but they do know how it works. Most parents want to move out of “bad” neighborhoods because they know that if their kids have delinquent friends, they are likely to become delinquent, too. Sociological research also supports this com- mon observation (Miller 1958; Rendon 2014).

In some neighborhoods, violence is so woven into the subculture that even a wrong glance can mean your death (“Why ya lookin’ at me?”) (Gardiner and Fox 2010). If the neighbors feel that a victim deserved to be killed, they refuse to testify because “he got what was coming to him” (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003). Killing can even be viewed as hon- orable:

Sociologist Ruth Horowitz (1983, 2005), who did participant observation in a lower- class Chicano neighborhood in Chicago, discovered how the concept of “honor” pro- pels young men to deviance. The formula is simple. “A real man has honor. An insult is a threat to one’s honor. Therefore, not to stand up to someone is to be less than a real man.”

Now suppose you are a young man growing up in this neighborhood. You likely would do a fair amount of fighting, since you would interpret many things as attacks on your honor. You might even carry a knife or a gun, because words and fists wouldn’t always be sufficient. Along with members of your group, you would define fighting, knifing, and shooting quite differently from the way most people do.

Sociologist Victor Rios (2011), who did participant observation of young male African American and Latino gang members in Oakland, California, reports that these same ideas of masculinity continue. They also continue to produce high rates of violence, including homicide.

differential association Edwin Sutherland’s term to indicate that people who associate with some groups learn an “excess of definitions” of deviance, increasing the likelihood that they will become deviant

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 202 11/19/15 8:01 AM

Deviance and Social Control 203

Members of the Mafia also intertwine ideas of manliness with killing. For them, to kill is a measure of manhood. If a Mafia member were to seduce the capo’s wife or girlfriend, for example, the seduction would slash at the capo’s manliness and honor. This would require swift, violent retaliation. The offender’s body would be found in the trunk of a car somewhere with his penis stuffed in his mouth. Not all killings bring the same respect, for “the more awesome and potent the victim, the more worthy and meritorious the killer” (Arlacchi 1980).

From this example, you can again see the relativity of deviance. Killing is deviant in mainstream society, but for members of the Mafia, not to kill after certain of their norms are broken would be the deviant act.

DiffeRenTial aSSociaTion in The cyBeR age The computer has brought major changes to social interaction. I have seen people lying on the beach with friends, not interacting with those next to them, but each absorbed in communicating on a smartphone. I’m sure you have seen people walking on the sidewalk, engrossed in smartphones, barely aware of the presence of passersby. With whom are they associating?

Friends and family remain the focus of most of these communications. But the com- puter has also opened easy access to areas of life previously hidden and unavailable. Sociologists have begun to study how this can impact people’s orientations to confor- mity. An example is how terrorist groups use the social media to motivate people to do violence (Castillo 2015). Differential association with the social media is new, and at this point everything about this intriguing topic is preliminary.

pRiSon oR fReeDom? As was mentioned in Chapter 3, an issue that comes up over and over again in sociology is whether we are prisoners of socialization. Symbolic inter- actionists stress that we are not mere pawns in the hands of others. We are not destined to think and act as our groups dictate. Rather, we help to produce our own orientations to life. By joining one group rather than another (differential association), for example, we help to shape the self. One college student may join a feminist group that is trying to change ideas about fraternities and rape, while another associates with women who shoplift on weekends. Their choices point them in different directions. The one who joins the fem- inist group may develop an even greater interest in producing social change, while the one who associates with shoplifters may become even more oriented toward criminal activities.

Control Theory Do you ever feel the urge to do something that you know you shouldn’t, something that would get you in trouble? Most of us fight temptations to break society’s norms. We find that we have to stifle things inside us—urges, hostilities, raunchy desires of various sorts. And most of the time, we manage to keep ourselves out of trouble. The basic question that control theory tries to answer is, With the desire to deviate so common, why don’t we all just “bust loose”?

The TheoRy Sociologist Walter Reckless (1973), who devel- oped control theory, stressed that we have two control systems that work against our motivations to deviate. Our inner controls include our internalized morality—conscience, religious princi- ples, ideas of right and wrong. Inner controls also include fears of punishment and the desire to be a “good” person (Hirschi

Do you understand how the definitions of deviance that Mafia members use underlie their behavior? Although their definitions are markedly different from ours, the process is the same. Shown here is the head of the Camorra, the Neapolitan version of the Mafia, as he is arrested near Naples, Italy. He was convicted of murder.

The social control of deviance takes many forms. One of the most prominent is the actions of the police. This man tried to interfere with capitalism by participating in a demonstration to block Wall Street in Manhattan, New York.

control theory the idea that two control systems—inner controls and outer controls—work against our tendencies to deviate

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 203 11/19/15 8:02 AM

204 Chapter 8

1969; Gottfredson 2011). Our outer controls consist of people—such as family, friends, and the police—who influence us not to deviate.

As sociologist Travis Hirschi (1969) pointed out, the stronger our bonds are with society, the more effective our inner controls are. These bonds are based on attachments (our affection and respect for people who conform to mainstream norms), commitments (having a stake in society that you don’t want to risk, such as your place in your family, being a college student, or having a job), involvements (participating in approved activities), and beliefs (convictions that certain actions are wrong).

This theory is really about self-control, said Hirschi. Where do we learn self-control? As you know, this happens during childhood, especially in the family when our parents supervise us and punish our deviant acts (Gottfredson 2011). Sometimes they use shame to keep us in line. You probably had that finger shaken at you. I certainly recall it aimed at me. Do you think that more use of shaming, discussed in the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page, could help strengthen people’s internal controls?

applying conTRol TheoRy

Suppose that your friends invite you to go to a nightclub. When you get there, you notice that everyone seems unusually happy—almost giddy. They seem to be euphoric in their animated conversations and dancing. Your friends tell you that almost everyone here has taken the drug Ecstasy, and they invite you to take some with them.

What do you do?

Let’s not explore the question of whether taking Ecstasy in this setting is a deviant or a con- forming act. This is a separate issue. Instead, concentrate on the pushes and pulls you would feel. The pushes toward taking the drug: your friends, the setting, and perhaps your curi- osity. Then there are your inner controls—those inner voices of conscience and parents, per- haps of teachers, as well as your fears of arrest and the dangers of illegal drugs. There are also the outer controls—perhaps the uniformed security guard looking in your direction.

So, what would you decide? Which is stronger: your inner and outer controls or the pushes and pulls toward taking the drug? It is you who can best weigh these forces, since they differ with each of us. This little example puts you at the center of what control theory is all about.

Labeling Theory Suppose for one undesirable moment that people think of you as a “whore,” a “pervert,” or a “cheat.” (Pick one.) What power such a reputation would have—over both how oth- ers would see you and how you would see yourself. How about if you became known as “very intelligent,” “truthful in everything,” or “honest to the core”? (Choose one.) You can see how this type of reputation would give people different expectations of your character and behavior—and how the label would also shape the way you see yourself.

This is what labeling theory focuses on: the significance of reputations, how reputations or labels help set us on paths that propel us into deviance or divert us away from it.

RejecTing laBelS: how people neuTRalize Deviance Not many of us want to be called “whore,” “pervert,” or “cheat.” We resist negative labels, even lesser ones than these that others might try to pin on us. Did you know that some people are so suc- cessful at rejecting labels that even though they beat people up and vandalize property, they consider themselves to be conforming members of society? How do they do it?

Sociologists Gresham Sykes and David Matza (1957/1988) studied boys like this. They found that the boys used five techniques of neutralization to deflect society’s norms.

Denial of responsibility. Some boys said, “I’m not responsible for what happened because . . .” And they were quite creative about the “becauses.” Some said that what happened was an “accident.” Other boys saw themselves as “victims” of society. What else could you expect? “I’m like a billiard ball shot around the pool table of life.”

labeling theory the view that the labels people are given affect their own and others’ perceptions of them, thus channeling their behavior into either deviance or conformity

techniques of neutralization ways of thinking or rationalizing that help people deflect (or neutralize) society’s norms

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 204 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 205

Down-to-Earth Sociology Shaming: Making a Comeback? Shaming can be effective, especially when members of a primary group use it. In some communities, where the individual’s reputation was at stake, shaming was the centerpiece of the enforcement of norms. Violators were marked as deviant and held up for all the world to see. In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, town officials forced Hester Prynne to wear a scarlet “A” sewn on her dress. The “A” stood for Adulteress. Wherever she went, Prynne had to wear this badge of shame—every day for the rest of her life.

As our society grew large and urban, the sense of community diminished, and shaming lost its effectiveness. Shaming is now starting to make a comeback.

• In Houston, Texas, a couple stole $265,000 from the crime victims’ fund. The couple was sentenced to stand in front of a local mall for five hours every weekend for six years, each wearing a sign reading, “I am a thief.” They also had to post a sign outside their house stating they were convicted thieves (“Woman Ordered to . . .” 2012).

• In Arizona, one sheriff parades the women prisoners in chain gangs, where they are forced to pick up street trash. He makes the men in his jail wear pink underwear. The men also wear pink striped prison uniforms while they work in chain gangs (Billeaud 2008).

• Online shaming sites have also appeared. Captured on cell phone cameras are bad drivers, older men who leer at teenaged girls, and people who don’t pick up their dog’s poop (Saranow 2007).

• In Spain, where one’s reputation with neighbors still matters, debt collectors dress in tuxedos and top hats and walk slowly to the debtor’s front door. The sight shames debtors into paying (Catan 2008).

• And as shown in the photo above, in Cleveland, Ohio, a judge ordered a woman who drove on a sidewalk in order to pass a school bus to hold a sign at the intersection reading, “Only an idiot would drive on the sidewalk to avoid a school bus” (“Woman Ordered to . . .” 2012).

Sociologist Harold Garfinkel (1956) gave the name degradation ceremony to an extreme form of shaming. The individual is called to account before the group, witnesses

denounce him or her, the offender is pronounced guilty, and the individual is stripped of his or her identity as a group member. In some courts martial, officers who are found guilty stand at attention before their peers while others rip the insignia of rank from their uniforms. This ceremony screams that the individual is no longer a member of the group. Although Hester Prynne was not banished from the group physically, she was banished morally; her degradation

ceremony proclaimed her a moral outcast from the community. The scarlet “A” marked her as not “one of them.”

Although we don’t use scarlet A’s today, informal degradation ceremonies still occur. Consider what happened to this New York City police officer (Chivers 2001):

Joseph Gray had been a police officer in New York City for fifteen years. As with some of his fellow officers, alcohol and sex helped relieve the pressures of police work. After spending one afternoon drinking

in a topless bar, bleary-eyed, Gray plowed his car into a vehicle carrying a pregnant woman, her son, and her sister. All three died. Gray was accused of manslaughter and drunk driving.

The New York newspapers and television stations kept hammering this story to the public. Three weeks later, as Gray left police headquarters after resigning, an angry crowd surrounded him. Gray hung his head in public disgrace as Victor Manuel Herrera, whose wife and son were killed in the crash, followed him, shouting, “You’re a murderer!” (Gray was later convicted of drunk driving and manslaughter.)

For Your Consideration → How do you think law enforcement officials might use

shaming to reduce law breaking?

→ How do you think school officials could use shaming?

→ Suppose that you were caught shoplifting at a store near where you live. Would you rather spend a week in jail with no one but your family knowing it or six hours a day for a week walking in front of the store you stole from wearing a placard that proclaims in bold red capital letters: “I AM A THIEF!” and in smaller letters says: “I am sorry for stealing from this store and making you pay higher prices”? Why?

For doing what the sign says, this woman must humiliate herself by holding the sign. The judge evidently neglected to tell the woman not to disguise herself by wearing sunglasses.

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 205 11/19/15 8:02 AM

206 Chapter 8

Denial of injury. A favorite explanation was “What I did wasn’t wrong because no one got hurt.” The boys would call vandalism “mischief,” gang fights a “private quarrel,” and stealing cars “borrowing.” They might acknowledge that what they did was illegal but claim that they were “just having a little fun.”

Denial of a victim. Some boys thought of themselves as avengers. Trashing a teach- er’s car was revenge for an unfair grade, while shoplifting was a way to get even with “crooked” store owners. In short, even if the boys did accept responsibility and admit that someone had gotten hurt, they protected their self-concept by claiming that the people “deserved what they got.”

Condemnation of the condemners. Another technique the boys used was to deny that others had the right to judge them. They accused people who pointed fingers at them of being “hypocrites”: The police were “on the take,” teachers had “pets,” and parents cheated on their taxes. In short, they said, “Who are they to accuse me of something?”

Appeal to higher loyalties. A final technique the boys used to justify their actions was to consider loyalty to the gang more important than the norms of society. They might say, “I had to help my friends. That’s why I got in the fight.” Not inciden- tally, the boy may have shot two members of a rival group, as well as a bystander!

applying neuTRalizaTion These techniques of neutralization have implications far beyond this group of boys, since it is not only delinquents who try to neutralize the norms of mainstream society. Look again at these techniques—don’t they sound familiar? Consider how you might be using these same techniques. Let’s take them one by one.

(1) “I was so mad that I couldn’t help myself.”

(2) “Who really got hurt?”

(3) “Don’t you think she deserved that, after what she did?”

(4) “Who are you to talk?”

(5) “I had to help my friends—wouldn’t you have done the same thing?”

All of us attempt to neutralize the moral demands of society; neutralization helps us to sleep at night.

emBRacing laBelS: The example of ouTlaw BikeRS

Years ago, in a defensive statement, the American Motorcyclists’ Association said that 99 percent of motorcyclists are law abiding citizens, that only 1 percent are thugs and criminals. The Outlaws, Hells Angels, and Warlocks then began to proudly display 1% on their uniforms (Stutzman 2014).

Sociologist Mark Watson (1980/2006) did participant observation with outlaw bikers. He rebuilt Harleys with them, hung around their bars and homes, and went on “runs” (trips) with them. He concluded that outlaw bikers see the world as “hostile, weak, and effeminate.” Holding the conventional world in con- tempt, gang members pride themselves on breaking its norms and getting in trouble, laughing at death, and treating women as lesser beings whose primary value is to provide them with services— especially sex. They take pleasure in shocking people by their appearance and behavior. They pride themselves in looking “dirty, mean, and generally undesirable.” Outlaw bikers also regard themselves as losers, a view that is woven into their unusual embrace of deviance.

While most people resist labels of deviance, some embrace them. In what different ways do these photos illustrate the embracement of deviance?

degradation ceremony a term coined by Harold Garfinkel to refer to a ritual whose goal is to remake someone’s self by stripping away that individual’s self-identity and stamping a new identity in its place

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 206 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 207

Although most of us resist attempts to label us as deviant, it is not only outlaw bikers who revel in a deviant identity. Some teenagers make certain by their clothing, music, hair- styles, and body art that no one misses their rejection of adult norms. Their status among fellow members of a subculture—within which they are almost obsessive conformists—is vastly more important than any status outside it.

laBelS can Be poweRful To label a teenager a delinquent can trigger a process that leads to greater involvement in deviance (Liberman 2014). Because of this, judges sometimes use diversion: To avoid the label of delinquent, they divert youthful offenders away from the criminal justice system. Instead of sending them to reform school or jail, they assign them to social workers and counselors. In the following Thinking Critically section, let’s consider how powerful labeling can be.

Stereotypes, both positive and negative, help to form the perception and reaction of authorities. What stereotypes come to mind when you look at this photo?

Thinking Critically The Saints and the Roughnecks: Labeling in Everyday Life As you recall from Chapter 4, the Saints and the Roughnecks

were high school boys. Both groups were “constantly

occupied with truancy, drinking, wild parties, petty theft, and

vandalism.” Yet their teachers looked on the Saints as “headed

for success” and the Roughnecks as “headed for failure.” By

the time they finished high school, not one Saint had been

arrested, while the Roughnecks had been in constant trouble

with the police. Why did the members of the community perceive

these boys so differently? Chambliss (1973/2016) concluded that social class created this split vision. As symbolic interactionists emphasize, social class is like a lens that focuses our perceptions. The Saints came from respectable, middle-class families, while the Roughnecks were from less respectable, working-class families. These backgrounds led teachers and the authorities to expect good things from the Saints but trouble from the Roughnecks. And, like the rest of us, teachers and police saw what they expected to see.

The boys’ social class also affected their visibility. The Saints had automobiles, and they did their drinking and vandalism out of town. Without cars, the Roughnecks hung around their own street corners. There, their drinking and boisterous behavior drew the attention of police, confirming the negative impressions that the community already had of them.

The boys’ social class also equipped them with distinct styles of interaction. When police or teachers questioned them, the Saints were apologetic. Their show of respect for authority elicited a positive reaction from teachers and police, allowing the Saints to escape school and legal problems. The Roughnecks, said Chambliss, were “almost the polar opposite.” When questioned, they were hostile. Even when these boys tried to assume a respectful attitude, everyone could see through it. As a result, the teachers and police let the Saints off with warnings, but they came down hard on the Roughnecks.

Certainly, what happens in life is not determined by labels alone, but the Saints and the Roughnecks did live up to the labels that the community gave them. As you may recall, all but one of the Saints went on to college. One earned a Ph.D., one became a lawyer, one a doctor, and the others business managers. In contrast, only two of the Roughnecks went to college. They earned athletic scholarships and became coaches. The other Roughnecks did not fare so well. Two of them dropped out of high school, later became involved in separate killings, and were sent to prison. Of the final two, one became a local bookie, and no one knows the whereabouts of the other.

For Your Consideration → Did you see anything like the reactions to the Saints and the

Roughnecks in your high school? If so, how did it work?

→ Besides labels, what else could have been involved in the life outcomes of these boys?

→ In what areas of life do you see the power of labels?

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 207 11/19/15 8:02 AM

208 Chapter 8

how Do laBelS woRk? How labels work is complicated because they involve self-concepts and reactions that vary from one individual to another. To analyze this process would require a book. For our purposes, let’s just note that unlike its meaning in sociology, in everyday life the term deviant is emotionally charged with a negative judgment. This label closes doors of opportunity. It can lock people out of conforming groups and push them into almost exclusive contact with people who have been sim- ilarly labeled.

in Sum Symbolic interactionists examine how people’s definitions of the situation underlie their deviating from or conforming to social norms. They focus on group membership (differential association), how people balance pressures to conform and to deviate (control theory), and the significance of reputations (labeling theory).

The Functionalist Perspective 8.3 apply the functionalist perspective by explaining how deviance can be

functional for society, how mainstream values can produce deviance (strain theory), and how social class is related to crime (illegitimate opportunities).

When we think of deviance, its dysfunctions are likely to come to mind. Functionalists point out that deviance also has functions.

Can Deviance Really Be Functional for Society? Most of us are upset by deviance, especially crime, and assume that society would be bet- ter off without it. In contrast to this common assumption, the classic functionalist theorist Emile Durkheim (1893/1933, 1895/1964) came to a surprising conclusion. Deviance, he said—including crime—is functional for society. Deviance contributes to the social order in three ways:

1. Deviance clarifies moral boundaries and affirms norms. By moral boundaries, Durkheim referred to a group’s ideas about how people should think and act. Deviance challenges those boundaries. To call a member into account is to say, in effect, “You broke an important rule, and we cannot tolerate that.” Punishing deviants affirms the group’s norms and clarifies what it means to be a member of the group.

2. Deviance encourages social unity. To affirm the group’s moral boundaries by punishing deviants creates a “we” feeling among the group’s members. By saying, “You can’t get away with that,” the group affirms the rightness of its ways.

3. Deviance promotes social change. Not everyone agrees on what to do with people who push beyond the accepted ways of doing things. Some group members may even approve of the rule-breaking behavior. Boundary violations that gain enough support become new, acceptable behaviors. Deviance, then, may force a group to rethink and redefine its moral boundaries, helping groups—and whole societies— to adapt to changing circumstances.

In the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page, you can see these three func- tions of deviance, as well as the central point of symbolic interactionism, that deviance involves a clash of competing definitions.

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 208 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 209

Strain Theory: How Mainstream Values Produce Deviance Functionalists argue that crime is a natural outcome of the conditions that people experi- ence, not some alien element in our midst (Agnew 2012). Even mainstream values can gen- erate crime. Consider what sociologists Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960) identified as the crucial problem of the industrialized world: the need to locate and train talented people—whether they were born into wealth or into poverty—so that they can take over the key technical jobs of society. When children are born, no one knows which ones will have the ability to become dentists, nuclear physicists, or engineers. To get the most talented people to compete with one another, society tries to motivate everyone to strive for success.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Running Naked with Pumpkins on Their Heads: Deviance or Freedom of Self-Expression? They can hardly sleep the night before Halloween, thinking about all the fun to come. When night falls, they put sneakers on their feet, their creatively carved pumpkins on their heads, and run into the street. There is nothing between the pumpkins and the sneakers—except whatever nature endowed them with (Simon 2009).

They join one another for their annual chilly, late-night run. Do the gawkers bother them? Maybe a little, but it’s all in good fun. The crowd is waiting, hooting and hollering and waving them on. “Not so fast,” replied the police in Boulder, Colorado, where the naked pumpkin run was held on the last day of each October. “You are breaking the law.”

Although the Boulder police pride themselves on tolerance, they don’t see the run in quite the same way as the participants do. “The law,” they say, “clearly states that no one can show genitalia in public.”

“Are women’s breasts genitalia?” they’ve been asked. “No, those are okay,” replied the police. “But watch the rest of it—uh, that is, don’t watch . . . uh, that is, don’t show anything else. You know what we mean. If you do, we will arrest you, and you’ll end up on the sexual offenders list.”

“Bad sports,” replied the naked pumpkin runners, pouting just a bit. “You’re trying to ruin our fun.”

“We didn’t make the laws,” the police replied, not pleased about the many who became angry at their lack of understanding. “We just enforce them.”

The police won. They made arrests. Some participants were found guilty. This scared the others, and no one was

willing to organize another naked pumpkin run (Miller 2010). “I’m going to be a teacher,” said one former participant. “I’d risk a hundred dollar fine for a good time, but having to register as a sex offender would trash my plans.”

But the arrests did not turn out to be the end. The idea is catching on in some cities in California. Fremont and Greenlake have begun their own naked pumpkin runs.

For Your Consideration → Here is a basic principle of deviance: As people

break rules, sometimes deliberately to test the boundaries of acceptable behavior, the group enforces its norms—or bends them to accommodate the deviants. How do the naked pumpkin runners illustrate this principle?

→ Can you apply control theory to the naked pumpkin runners? How about labeling theory? The conflict perspective?

Breaking the boundaries of conformance is part of social change. As with the naked pumpkin run, running naked, an expression of freedom and fun, can be a way of testing those boundaries. This photo was taken on an almost freezing October night in Boulder, Colorado.

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 209 11/19/15 8:02 AM

210 Chapter 8

Table 8.1 How People Match Their Goals to Their Means Do They Feel the Strain That Leads to Anomie?

Mode of Adaptation

Cultural Goals

Institutionalized Means

No Conformity Accept Accept

Deviant Paths:

Yes 1. Innovation Accept Reject

2. Ritualism Reject Accept

3. Retreatism Reject Reject

4. Rebellion Reject/Replace Reject/Replace

SourCe: Based on Merton 1968.

We are quite successful in getting almost everyone to want cultural goals, success of some sort, such as wealth or prestige. But we are far from successful when it comes to providing everyone access to the institutionalized means, the legitimate ways to reach success. People who find their way to success blocked can come to see the institutional- ized goals (such as working hard or pursuing higher education) as not applying to them- selves. Sociologist Robert Merton (1956, 1949/1968) referred to this situation as anomie, a sense of normlessness. These people experience frustration, or what Merton called strain.

Table 8.1 presents a summary of Merton’s strain theory. The most common reaction to means and goals is conformity. Most people find at least adequate access to the institutional- ized means and use them to try to reach cultural goals. They try to get a quality education, good jobs, and so on. If well-paid jobs are unavailable, they take less desirable jobs. If they can’t get into Harvard or Stanford, they go to a state university. Others take night classes and go to vocational schools. In short, most people take the socially acceptable path.

cultural goals the objectives held out as legitimate or desirable for the members of a society to achieve

institutionalized means approved ways of reaching cultural goals

strain theory Robert Merton’s term for the strain engendered when a society socializes large numbers of people to desire a cultural goal (such as success), but withholds from some the approved means of reaching that goal; one adaptation to the strain is crime, the choice of an innovative means (one outside the approved system) to attain the cultural goal

fouR DevianT paThS The next four responses in Table 8.1 represent deviant reac- tions to the gap that people find between the goals they want and their access to the insti- tutionalized means to reach them. Let’s look at each. Innovators are people who accept the goals of society but use illegitimate means to try to reach them. Embezzlers, for instance, accept the goal of achieving wealth, but they reject the legitimate avenues for doing so. Other examples are drug dealers, robbers, and con artists.

The second deviant path is taken by people who start out wanting the cultural goals but become discouraged and give up on achieving them. Yet they still cling to conven- tional rules of conduct. Merton called this response ritualism. Although ritualists have given up on getting ahead at work, they survive by rigorously following the rules of their job. Teachers whose idealism is shattered (who are said to suffer from “burnout”), for example, remain in the classroom, where they teach without enthusiasm. Their response is considered deviant because they cling to the job even though they have abandoned the goal, which may have been to stimulate young minds or to make the world a better place.

People who choose the third deviant path, retreatism, reject both the cultural goals and the institutionalized means of achieving them. Some people stop pursuing success and retreat into alcohol or drugs. Although their path to withdrawal is considerably dif- ferent, women who enter a convent or men a monastery are also retreatists.

The final deviant response is rebellion. Convinced that their society is corrupt, reb- els, like retreatists, reject both society’s goals and its institutionalized means. Unlike retreatists, however, rebels seek to give society new goals, as well as new means for reaching them. Revolutionaries are the most committed type of rebels.

Merton either did not recognize anarchy as applying to his model or he did not think of it. In either case, the angry anarchist who wants to destroy society is not shown on Table 8.1. Like the retreatist and the rebel, anarchists have given up on both society’s goals and means. Unlike the rebel, however, they do not want to replace the goals and means with

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 210 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 211

anything. And unlike the retreatist, they do not want to withdraw and let others live in peace. Instead, they want to annihilate what exists and whoever stands in their way.

in Sum Strain theory underscores the sociological principle that deviants are the prod- uct of society. Mainstream social values (cultural goals and institutionalized means to reach those goals) can produce strain (frustration, dissatisfaction). People who feel this strain are more likely than others to take deviant (nonconforming) paths.

Illegitimate Opportunity Structures: Social Class and Crime Over and over in this text, you have seen the impact of social class on people’s lives— and you will continue to do so in coming chapters. Let’s look at how the social classes produce different types of crime.

STReeT cRime In applying strain theory, functionalists point out that industrialized societies have no trouble socializing the poor into wanting to own things. Like others, the poor are bombarded with messages urging them to buy everything from iPhones and iPads to designer jeans and new cars. Television and movies spew out images of middle-class people enjoying luxurious lives. The poor get the message—full-fledged Americans can afford society’s many goods and services.

Yet, the most common route to success, education, presents a bewildering world to the poor. Run by the middle class, schools are at odds with their background. In the schools, what the poor take for granted is unacceptable, questioned, even mocked. Their speech, for example, is built around nonstandard grammar. It is also often laced with what the middle class considers obscenities. Their ideas of punctuality and their poor preparation in reading and paper-and-pencil skills also make it difficult to fit in. Facing such barriers, the poor are more likely than their more privileged counterparts to drop out of school. Educational fail- ure, of course, slams the door on many legitimate avenues to success.

Not all doors slam shut, though. Woven into life in urban slums is what Cloward and Ohlin (1960) called an illegitimate opportunity structure. An alternative door to suc- cess opens: “hustles” such as robbery, burglary, drug dealing, prostitution, pimping, and gambling (Anderson 1978, 1990/2006; Duck and Rawls 2011). Pimps and drug dealers, for example, present an image of a glamorous life—people who are in control and have plenty of “easy money.” For many of the poor, the “hustler” becomes a role model.

It should be easy to see, then, why street crime attracts disproportionate numbers of the poor. In the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page, let’s look at how gangs are part of the illegitimate opportunity structure that beckons disadvantaged youth.

whiTe-collaR cRime As with the poor, the forms of crime of the more privileged classes also match their life situation. And how different their illegitimate opportunities are! Physicians don’t hold up cabbies, but they do cheat Medicare. Investment managers like Bernie Madoff don’t rob gas stations, but they do run fraudulent schemes that cheat people around the world. Mugging, pimping, and burgling are not part of this more privileged world, but evading income tax, bribing public officials, and embezzling are. Sociologist Edwin Sutherland (1949) coined the term white-collar crime to refer to crimes that people of respectable and high social status commit in the course of their occupations.

A special form of white-collar crime is corporate crime, executives breaking the law in order to benefit their corporation. For example, to increase corporate profits, Sears executives defrauded $100 million from victims so poor that they had filed for bankruptcy. To avoid a criminal trial, Sears pleaded guilty. This frightened the parent companies of Macy’s and Bloomingdales, which were doing similar things, and they

illegitimate opportunity structure opportunities for crimes that are woven into the texture of life

white-collar crime Edwin Sutherland’s term for crimes committed by people of respectable and high social status in the course of their occupations; for example, bribery of public officials, securities violations, embezzlement, false advertising, and price fixing

corporate crime crimes committed by executives in order to benefit their corporation

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 211 11/19/15 8:02 AM

212 Chapter 8

settled out of court (McCormick 1999). Not one of the corporate thieves at Sears, Macy’s, or Bloomingdales spent even a day in jail.

Citigroup, another household name, is notorious for breaking the law. In 2004, this com- pany was caught stealing from the poor. For this crime, Citigroup paid $70 million (O’Brien 2004). In 2008, Citigroup was caught red-handed again, this time stealing money from its customers’ credit cards. For these crimes, Citigroup was fined $18 million (Read 2008). Like a career criminal addicted to easy money, this company continued its lawbreaking ways. In 2014,

Citigroup was fined $7 billion for deceiving investors in subprime mortgages (Grossman and Rexrode 2014). Another big-name crim- inal, Bank of America, paid $17 billion for its lawbreaking (Rexrode and Barrett 2014). Not one of Citigroup’s or BOA’s corporate crime chiefs spent even a single day in jail.

If these same executives had used guns to rob people on the street, you know what would have happened. White-col- lar crime, in contrast, is seldom taken seriously—even when those crimes result in death. In the 1930s, workers were hired to blast a tunnel through a mountain in West Virginia. The company knew the silica dust would kill the miners, and in just three months about six hundred died (Dunaway 2008). No owner went to jail. In the 1980s, Firestone executives recalled faulty tires in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela but allowed them to remain on U.S. vehicles. When their tires blew out, about two hundred Americans died (White et al. 2001). Not a single Fires- tone executive went to jail.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Islands in the Street: Urban Gangs in the United States Gangs are part of urban life, but why do people join gangs?

For more than ten years, sociologist Martín Sánchez- Jankowski (1991) did participant observation of thirty-seven ethnic gangs: African American, Chicano, Dominican, Irish, Jamaican, and Puerto Rican. The members of these gangs in Boston, Los Angeles, and New York City earned money through gambling, arson, mugging, and armed robbery. They also sold moonshine, drugs, guns, stolen car parts, and protection. Sánchez-Jankowski ate, slept, and fought with the gangs, but by mutual agreement he did not participate in drug dealing or other illegal activities. He was seriously injured twice during the study.

Contrary to stereotypes, Sánchez-Jankowski did not find that the motive for joining a gang was to escape a broken home (there were as many members from intact families as from broken homes) or to seek a substitute family (the same number of boys said they were close to their families as those who said they were not). Rather, the boys joined to gain access to money, sex, and drugs, to maintain anonymity in committing crimes, to get protection, and to help the community. This last reason may seem surprising,

but in some neighborhoods, gangs protect residents from outsiders and spearhead political change (Kontos et al. 2003). The boys also saw the gang as an alternative to the boring, dead-end jobs held by their parents.

Neighborhood residents are ambivalent about gangs. Although they fear the violence, the gang members are the children of people who live in the neighborhood, and many of the adults once belonged to gangs. In addition, some gangs provide better protection than the police.

Particular gangs will come and go, but gangs are likely to remain part of the city. Why? As functionalists point out, gangs fulfill needs of poor youth who live on the margins of society.

For Your Consideration → What functions do gangs fulfill (what needs do they meet)?

→ Suppose that you have been hired as an urban planner for the city of Chicago. How could you arrange to meet the needs that gangs fulfill in ways that minimize violence and encourage youth to follow mainstream norms?

White collar crime can be deadly and yet the criminals go unpunished. Faulty ignition switches on GM cars, not fixed after the problem was known, killed over 100 people. This paralyzed child is looking at a photo of himself as a toddler before he became a victim of this crime.

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 212 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 213

In 2001, General Motors found out that a jarring of the ignition key could shut down the car’s engine and electrical system and disable the air bags. Did they fix the ignition? No. For a dozen years GM kept quiet. What did their decision makers care, as long as the profits and their bonuses kept rolling in? Their decision cost the lives of 124 people. No one went to jail. Not one person was even arrested. GM just paid a fine (Spector and Matthews 2015).

Consider this: Under federal law, causing the death of a worker by willfully violating safety rules is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison. Yet to harass a wild burro on federal lands is punishable by a year in prison (Barstow and Bergman 2003).

At $500 billion a year (Reiman and Leighton 2010), “crime in the suites” costs more than “crime in the streets.” This refers only to dollar costs. The physical and emotional costs are another matter. For example, no one has figured out a way to compare the suffering of rape vic- tims with the pain of elderly couples who lost their life savings to Madoff’s white-collar fraud.

Fear, however, centers on street crime, especially the violent stranger who can change your life forever. As the Social Map shows, the chances of such an encounter depend on where you live. You can see that entire regions are safer—or more dangerous—than others. In general, the northern states are safer, the southern states more dangerous.

Violent crimes per 100,000 people.

Safer than average (123–256)

Average safety (268–411)

More dangerous than average (420–608)

Safest

1. Maine (123)

2. Vermont (135)

3. New Hampshire (188)

Most Dangerous

3. South Carolina (572)

2. Alaska (607)

1. Tennessee (608)

ME 123

VT 135

NH 188

UT 195 VA

197

ID 201

WY 219

WI 237

KY 238

ND 247OR

248

RI 248

NE 253

SD 254

IA 256

MN 256

MT 268

MS 270

CT 273

HI 287

WA 295

OH 307

NJ 308

WV 316

CO 320

IN 332

NC 350

KS 354

PA 355

GA 373

NY 398

AZ 406

TX 409

CA 411

AL 420

MA 428

IL 429

MI 445

MO 447

OK 455 AR

481

MD 494

FL 515

LA 555

DE 560

NV 562

NM 568

SC 572

AK 607

TN 608 DC

1,202

Figure 8.1 How Safe is Your State? Violent Crime in the United States

NoTe: Violent crimes are murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. I estimated Minnesota’s rate, based on earlier data and reduced rates since then. The chance of becoming a victim of a violent crime is five times higher in Tennessee, the most dangerous state, than in Maine, the safest state. Washington, D.C., not a state, is in a class by itself. Its rate of 1,202 is ten times higher than Maine’s rate.

SourCe: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2014:Table 321.

genDeR anD cRime Gender is not just something we do. Gender is a feature of society that surrounds us from birth. Gender pushes us, as male or female, into different corners in life, offering and nurturing some behaviors while it withdraws others. The opportunity to commit crime is one of the many consequences of how society sets up a gender order. The social changes that opened business and the professions to women also brought new oppor- tunities for women to commit crime. From stolen property to illegal weapons, Table 8.2 on the next page shows how women have taken advantage of this new opportunity.

in Sum Functionalists stress that just as the social classes differ in opportunities for income and education, so they differ in opportunities for crime. As a result, street crime is greater among the lower social classes and white-collar crime greater among the higher social classes. The growing crime rates of women illustrate how changing gender roles have given women more access to what sociologists call “illegitimate opportunities.”

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 213 11/19/15 8:02 AM

214 Chapter 8

The Conflict Perspective 8.4 apply the conflict perspective to deviance by explaining how social class is related

to the criminal justice system and how the criminal justice system is oppressive.

Class, Crime, and the Criminal Justice System TRW sold transistors to the federal government to use in its military satellites. The tran- sistors failed, and the government had to shut down its satellite program. TRW said that the failure was a surprise, that it was due to some unknown defect. U.S. officials then paid TRW millions of dollars to investigate the failure.

Then a whistle blower appeared, informing the government that TRW knew the transis- tors would fail in satellites even before it sold them. The government sued Northrop Grumman Corporation, which had bought TRW, and the corporation was found guilty (Drew 2009).

What was the punishment for a crime this serious? The failure of these satellites compro- mised the defense of the United States. When the executives of TRW were put on trial, how long were their prison sentences? Actually, these criminals weren’t even put on trial, and not one spent even a night in jail. Grumman was fined $325 million. Then—and this is hard to believe—on the same day, the government settled a lawsuit that Grumman had brought against it for $325 million. Certainly a rare coincidence.

Contrast this backdoor deal between influential people with what happens to the poor who break the law. A poor person who is caught stealing even a $1,000 car can end up serv- ing years in prison. How can a legal system that proudly boasts “justice for all” be so incon- sistent? According to conflict theory, this question is central to the analysis of crime and the criminal justice system—the police, courts, and prisons that deal with people who are accused of having committed crimes. Let’s see what conflict theorists have to say about this.

The Criminal Justice System as an Instrument of Oppression Conflict theorists regard power and social inequality as the main characteristics of society. The criminal justice system, they stress, is a tool designed by the powerful to maintain their power and privilege. For the poor, in contrast, the law is an instrument of oppression (Davis and Sorensen 2013; Chambliss 2000, 1973/2016). The idea that the law operates impartially to bring justice to all, they say, is a cultural myth promoted by the capitalist class to secure the cooperation of the poor in their own oppression.

Table 8.2 Women and Crime: What a Change of all those arrested, what percentage are women?

Crime 1992 2012 Change

Burglary 9.2% 16.7% 182%

Drunken driving 13.8% 24.5% 178%

Car theft 10.8% 19.2% 178%

Stolen property 12.5% 20.3% 162%

Robbery 8.5% 13.3% 156%

Aggravated assault 14.8% 22.7% 153%

Larceny/theft 32.1% 43.4% 135%

Arson 13.4% 18.1% 135%

Illegal drugs 16.4% 20.5% 125%

Illegal weapons 7.5% 8.2% 19%

Forgery and counterfeiting 34.7% 37.3% 17%

Fraud 42.1% 40.1% 25%

SourCe: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2014:Table 342 and earlier years; FBI 2014:Table 33.

criminal justice system the system of police, courts, and prisons set up to deal with people who are accused of having committed a crime

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 214 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 215

The working poor and those below them pose a special threat to the power elite. Receiving the least of society’s material rewards, they hold the potential to rebel and overthrow the current social order (see Figure 10.5 on page 272). To prevent this, the law comes down hard on the poor and the underclass. They are the least rooted in society. They have only low-paying, part-time, or seasonal work—if they have jobs at all. Because their street crimes threaten the social order that keeps the elite in power, they are punished severely. From this class come most of the prison inmates in the United States.

The criminal justice system, then, does not focus on the executives of corporations and the harm they do through manufacturing unsafe products, creating pollution, and manipulating prices. Yet the viola- tions of the capitalist class cannot be ignored totally; if they become too extreme, they might outrage the working class, encouraging them to rise up and revolt. To prevent this, a flagrant violation by a member of the capitalist class is occasionally prosecuted. The publicity given to the case provides evidence of the “fairness” of the criminal justice sys- tem, which helps to stabilize the social system—and keeps the power- ful in their positions of privilege.

The powerful are usually able to bypass the courts altogether, appearing instead before an agency that has no power to imprison (such as the Federal Trade Commission). These agencies are directed by people from wealthy backgrounds who sympathize with the intricacies of the corporate world. It is they who oversee most cases of price manipulation, insider stock trading, violations of fiduciary duty, and so on. Is it surprising, then, that the typical sanction for corporate crime is a token fine?

In early capitalism, children worked alongside adults. At that time, just as today, most street criminals came from the marginal working class, as did these boys who worked 14 hours a day in the coal mines of Pennsylvania. This photo is from 1908.

The cartoonist’s hyperbole makes an excellent commentary on the social class disparity of our criminal justice system. Not only are the crimes of the wealthy not as likely to come to the attention of authorities as are the crimes of the poor, but when they do, the wealthy can afford legal expertise to wiggle around the law that the poor cannot.

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 215 11/19/15 8:02 AM

216 Chapter 8

in Sum Conflict theorists stress that the power elite developed the legal system to stabilize the social order. They use it to control the poor, who pose a threat to the powerful. The poor hold the potential of rebelling as a group, which could dislodge the power elite from their place of privilege. To prevent this, the criminal justice system makes certain that heavy penalties come down on the poor.

Reactions to Deviance 8.5 Be able to discuss street crimes and imprisonment, the three-strikes laws,

the decline in violent crime, recidivism, bias in the death penalty, the medicalization of deviance, and the need for a more humane approach.

Whether it involves cheating on a sociology quiz or holding up a liquor store, any viola- tion of norms invites reaction. Before we turn to reactions to violent crimes, let’s consider reactions to sexting in the Down-to-Earth Sociology box below.

Street Crime and Prisons Here’s a horrendous statistic for you to consider: The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population but about 25 percent of the world’s prisoners (Brayne 2013). One

Down-to-Earth Sociology Sexting: Getting on the Phone Isn’t What It Used to Be

The eighth-grade girls were having a sleepover. As they talked about how they could impress the boys they were interested in, they came up with an idea. They took off their clothes, covered themselves with whipped cream, and sent pictures to boys of themselves licking it off.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, but the girls didn’t think so the next day. As they walked to class, the boys stood around leering, laughing, and holding up the girls’ images on their cell phones.

The boys who received the images had forwarded them to their friends—who forwarded them to their friends, and so on.

Even some parents received the photos on their cell phones, and, as they say, then all hell broke loose.

If two people over the age of 18 sext, exchange sexually explicit electronic messages or images of themselves, this is a matter between them. If someone forwards those images, it is still a problem between those individuals. But since those under the age of 18 are legally minors, the law classifies their sexually explicit photos as child pornography. This means that both those who send the messages and those who pass them on to others are guilty of producing or

disseminating child pornography. Anyone convicted of this form of sexting will have to register as sex offenders for decades!

“You’re all getting excited about nothing,” said one 17-year-old girl. “You’re overlooking the positive side to

sexting. You can’t get pregnant from it, and you can’t transmit STDs. It’s a kind of safe sex.”

Lawmakers and enforcers, who are grappling with sexting, don’t agree. Some think that the current laws are just fine, but the general consensus seems to be that applying child pornography laws isn’t the right road to follow. Most proposals for legal change center around educational programs and community service for minors who transmit images of “sexually explicit acts.” Then, of course, there is the more severe penalty—taking their cell phones away.

For Your Consideration → Do you think there should be any sanctions for sexting by

minors, or should this be a private matter, much as it is for adults?

→ If you think there should be sanctions, which ones? The same ones for sexters age 13 and age 17? The same sanctions for nudity or for the depiction of sexual intercourse?

Sexting can be fun. It can also be dangerous. If a photo is of an underage person, an individual can be convicted of a sexual offense against a child. If only adults are involved, sexting can still be risky. This man, Anthony Weiner, might have been mayor of New York City, but the voters did not like his transmitting suggestive photos of himself to women.

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 216 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 217

of 35 adults, 7 million Americans, is on probation or parole or in jail or prison (Statistical Abstract 2014:Tables 363, 364, 369). No other country comes close to these totals.

To see how the number of prisoners has surged, look at Figure 8.2. Arrests and con- victions have increased at such a torrid pace that the states and federal government hav- en’t been able to build prisons fast enough to hold all of their incoming prisoners. To keep up, they have hired corporations to operate private prisons for them. About 133,000 prisoners are held in these “for-profit” prisons (Carson 2014).

As you can see from Figure 8.2, the number of prisoners peaked in 2009 and has dropped slightly since then. With the decline in violent crime, which we will review shortly, this decrease is likely to be permanent. The broken line on this figure gives a rough indication of what the future might look like.

Who are these prisoners? Let’s compare them with the U.S. population. As you look at Table 8.3 on the next page, several things may strike you. Close to half (46 percent) of all prisoners are younger than 35, and almost all the prisoners are men. Then there is this remarkable statistic: Although African Americans make up just 12.5 percent of the U.S. population, there are more African American prisoners than white prisoners. On any given day, one out of every eight African American men in their twenties is in jail or prison. For Latinos, the rate is one of twenty-six; for whites, one of one hundred (Warren et al. 2008).

900

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

1970 1980 1990 2010 2020

Year

1,000

800

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

2000

1,500

1,600

1,700

1,800

1,900

2,000

316,000

774,000

1,391,000

196,000

2009 was the peak of incarceration, with

1,616,000 prisoners

1,575,000

N um

b er

o f

fe d

er al

a nd

s ta

te p

ri so

ne rs

(in t

ho us

an d

s)

Figure 8.2 How Much Is Enough? The Explosion in the Number of U.S. Prisoners

NoTe: Between 1970 and 2013, the U.S. population increased 55 percent, while the number of prisoners increased 800 percent, fifteen times faster than the population. If the number of prisoners had grown at the same rate as the U.S. population, we would have about 304,000 prisoners, about one-fifth of today’s total. Or if the U.S. population had increased at the same rate as that of U.S. prisoners, the U.S. population would be 1,640,000,000—more than the population of China.

SourCe: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995:Table 349; 2014:Tables 2, 6, 363; Carson 2014. The broken line is the author’s estimate.

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 217 11/19/15 8:02 AM

218 Chapter 8

Finally, note how marriage and education—two of the major ways that society “anchors” people into mainstream behavior—keep people out of prison. About half of prisoners have never married. And look at the power of education, a major component of social class. As I mentioned earlier, social class funnels some people into the criminal justice system while it diverts others away from it. You can see how people who drop out of high school have a high chance of ending up in prison—and how unlikely it is for a college graduate to have this unwelcome destination in life.

For about the past twenty years or so, the United States has followed a “get tough” policy. One of the most significant changes was “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” laws, which have had unintended consequences, as you will see in the Thinking Critically section on the next page.

The Decline in Violent Crime As you have seen, judges have put more and more people in prison, and legislators have passed the three-strikes laws. As these changes took place, the crime rate dropped sharply. Sociologists conclude that getting tough on criminals reduced crime, but it is only

Table 8.3 Comparing Prison Inmates with the U.S. Population

Characteristics Percentage of Prisoners with These Characteristics

Percentage of u.S. Population Age 18 and over with These Characteristicsa

Age

18–24 13.4% 13.10%

25–34 32.6% 17.6%

35–44 26.4% 16.9%

45–54 19.2% 18.4%

55 and older 8.2% 34.0%

race-ethnicity

African American 38.1% 12.5%

White 34.3% 66.1%

Latino 21.2% 14.8%

Otherb 6.4% 6.5%

Sex

Male 93.2% 49.2%

Female 6.8% 50.8%

Marital Statusc

Never married 54.7% 27.6%

Married 21.9% 56.0%

Divorced and Widowed 23.0% 16.4%

education

Less than high school 30.6% 12.4%

High school graduate 45.8% 30.4%

Some college 18.8% 26.3%

College graduate 4.8% 30.9%

SourCe: By the author. Based on Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2013:Tables 6.0001, 6.45, 6.81. Statistical Abstract of the United States 2014:Tables 11, 59, 243, 366. aBecause this column refers to Americans age 18 and over, the percentages will not agree with other totals in this book. For education, the percentages are based on Americans age 25 and over. bBy default, the remainder after Sourcebook lists African American, white, and Hispanic. cThe marital status of prisoners applies only to inmates on death row. Data not available for other inmates.

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 218 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 219

Thinking Critically What Should We Do About Repeat Offenders? “Three Strikes” Laws In the 1980s, violent crime soared. Americans grew fearful.

When a rapist–molester on parole abducted, raped, and killed

a 12-year-old, the public was outraged. In the midst of fear

and outrage, politicians passed “three-strikes” laws: Anyone

convicted of a third felony receives a mandatory sentence.

California’s version required twenty-five years to life.

• In Los Angeles, a 64-year-old man who stole a package of cigarettes was sentenced to twenty-five-years-to-life in prison (Phillips 2013).

• Another California man passed a bad check for $94. He was sentenced to twenty-five years to life (Jones 2008).

• A Florida man stored cocaine in his girlfriend’s attic. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but his 27-year-old girlfriend, a mother of three, was sent to prison for life. The judge said the sentence was unjust, but he had no choice (Tierney 2012).

• In New York City, a man who was about to be sentenced for selling crack said to the judge, “I’m only 19. This is terrible.” He then hurled himself out of a courtroom window, plunging to his death sixteen stories below (Cloud 1998).

A sort of Oops! moment followed. This isn’t quite what was intended. The public had in mind men convicted of a third brutal rape or a third murder being sent to prison

for life. In their haste to pass the three-strikes laws, however, the politicians neglected to limit them to violent crimes.

With the longer sentences taking many repeat offenders off the street, few felt rushed to change these laws. Judges, though, began to complain that these laws prevented them from taking into consideration basic circumstances that surround a crime. Eventually, the gap between justice and unfair sentencing became too great to bear, and in 2012 California softened its draconian law, limiting three-strikes to violent crimes. This made several thousand shoplifters, petty thieves, and the like eligible for release, but kept the murderers, child molesters, and rapists behind bars.

For Your Consideration Apply the symbolic interactionist, functionalist, and conflict perspectives to the passage of the three-strikes laws and to their revision.

→ For symbolic interactionism, how does the meaning of these laws depend on where someone is in the criminal justice system?

→ For functionalism, what are some of the functions (benefits) of three-strikes laws? Their dysfunctions?

→ For the conflict perspective, which groups are in conflict? Who has the power to enforce their will on others?

one of the reasons that violent crime dropped (Baumer and Wolff 2013). Other reasons include higher employment, less illegal drug use, a lower birth rate, and even abortion. There are even those who say that the best explanation is the elimination of lead in gas- oline (Drum 2013). We can rule out employment: When the unemployment rate shot up with the economic crisis, the lower crime rates continued (Oppel 2011). This matter is not yet settled. We’ll see what answers future research brings.

Recidivism If a goal of prisons is to teach their clients to stay away from crime, they are colossal failures. We can measure their failure by the recidivism rate—the percentage of released prisoners who are rearrested. Within just three years of their release, two out of three (68 percent) are rear- rested, and half are back in prison (Durose et al. 2014). Looking at Figures 8.3 and 8.4, it is safe to conclude that prisons fail to teach people that crime doesn’t pay.

60%

40%

20%

0

0 6 12 24 60

Year

100%

80%

18 30 36 42 48 54

Arrests

Back to prison

Figure 8.3 How Fast They Return: Recidivism of U.S. Prisoners

SourCe: Modified by the author from Figure 1 of Durose et al. 2014.

recidivism rate the percentage of released convicts who are rearrested

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 219 11/19/15 8:02 AM

220 Chapter 8

The Death Penalty and Bias As you know, capital punishment, the death pen- alty, is the most extreme measure the state takes. As you also know, the death penalty arouses both impassioned opposition and support. Advances in DNA testing have given opponents of the death penalty a strong argument: Innocent people have been sent to death row, and some have been exe- cuted. Others are just as passionate about retain- ing the death penalty. They point to such crimes as those of the serial killers discussed in the Down- to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

geogRaphy It is clear that the death penalty is not administered evenly. Consider geogra- phy: You can see from the Social Map below that where people commit murder greatly affects their chances of being put to death.

Social claSS The death penalty also shows social class bias. As you know from news reports, it is rare for a rich person to be sentenced to death.

Although the government does not collect statistics on social class and the death penalty, this common observation is borne out by the education of the prisoners on death row. Half of the prisoners on death row (52 percent) have not finished high school (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2014).

genDeR There is also gender bias in the death penalty. Gender bias is so strong that it is almost unheard of for a woman to be sentenced to death, much less executed. Although women commit 9.6 percent of the murders, they make up only 1.8 percent of death row inmates (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2009:Table 6.81). Even on death row, the gender

Car theft

The rearrest rates of those who had been convicted of:

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Illegal weapons

Illegal drugs

Drunk driving

Murder

Burglary

Of 405,000 prisoners released from U.S. prisons, what percentage were rearrested within three years?

78%

74%

73%

68%

48%

42%

Robbery 67%

Fraud 69%

Rape 51%

Figure 8.4 Recidivism by Type of Crime

SourCe: By the author. Based on Durose et al. 2014:Table 8.

States with death penalty

States without death penalty

States with death penalty that have not executed anyone

Highest Number of Executions

1. Texas (477)

2. Virginia (109)

3. Oklahoma (96)

AL 55

AK 0

AZ 28 AR

27

CA 13

CO 1

CT 1

DE 15

DC 0

FL 71

GA 52

HI 0

ID 2

IL 12

IN 20

IA 0

KS 0

KY 3

LA 28

ME 0

MD 5

MA 0 MI 0

MN 0

MS 15

MO 68

MT 3

NE 3

NV 12

NH 0

NJ 0

NM 1

NY 0

NC 43

ND 0

OH 46

OK 96

OR 2

PA 3

RI 0

SC 43

SD 1

TN 6

TX 477

UT 7

VT 0

VA 109

WA 5

WV 0

WI 0

WY 1

Figure 8.5 Executions in the United States

NoTe: Executions since 1977, when the death penalty was restored. The executions in states without the death penalty occurred before those states banned the death penalty.

SourCe: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2014:Table 368; Jones 2014.

capital punishment the death penalty

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 220 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 221

Down-to-Earth Sociology The Killer Next Door: Serial Murderers in Our Midst Here is my experience with serial killers. As I was watching television one night, I was stunned by the images coming from Houston, Texas. Television cameras showed the police digging up dozens of bodies from under a boat storage shed. A few days later, I drove from Illinois, where I was teaching, to Houston, where 33-year-old Dean Corll had befriended Elmer Wayne Henley and David Brooks, two teenagers from broken homes. Together, they had killed twenty-seven boys. Elmer and David would pick up young hitchhikers and deliver them to Corll to rape and kill. They even brought him their neighbors and high school classmates.

On a city map, I plotted the locations of the homes of the local murder victims. Many clustered around the homes of the teenage killers. I then talked to one of Elmer’s neighbors, as he was painting his front porch. His 15-year-old son had gone to get a haircut one Saturday morning. That was the last time he saw his son alive. The police refused to investigate. They insisted that his son had run away.

I decided to spend my coming sabbatical writing a novel on this case. To get into the minds of the killers, I knew that I would have to “become” them day after day. Corll kept a piece of plywood in his apartment. In each of its corners, he had cut a hole. He and the boys would spread-eagle their handcuffed victims on this board and torture them for hours. Sometimes, they would even pause to order pizza. I began to be concerned about immersing myself in torture and human degradation. Would I be the same person afterward? I decided not to write the book.

The three killers led double lives so successfully that their friends and family were unaware of their criminal activities. Henley’s mother swore to me that her son couldn’t possibly be guilty—he was a good boy. Some of Elmer’s high school friends told me that his being involved in homosexual rape and murder was ridiculous—he was interested only in girls. I was interviewing them in Henley’s bedroom, and for proof, they pointed to a pair of girls’ panties that were draped across a lamp shade.

Serial murder is killing three or more victims in separate events. The murders may occur over several days, weeks, or years. The elapsed time between murders distinguishes serial killers from mass murderers, those who do their killing all at once. Here are some infamous examples:

• During the 1960s and 1970s, Ted Bundy, shown below, raped and killed dozens of women in four states.

• Between 1974 and 1991, Dennis Rader killed ten people in Wichita, Kansas. Rader had written to the newspapers, proudly calling himself the BTK (Bind, Torture, and Kill) strangler.

• In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Aileen Wuornos hitchhiked along Florida’s freeways. She killed seven men after having sex with them.

• In 2009, Anthony Sowell of Cleveland, Ohio, was discovered living with eleven decomposing bodies of women he had raped and strangled (UPI 2009).

• The serial killer with the most victims appears to be Virginia de Souza, a physician in Brazil, who, between 2006 and 2014, is thought to have killed 320 patients to “free up the wards.” She injected her victims with muscle relaxants and then cut off their air supply (Roper 2013).

Is serial murder more common now than it used to be? Not likely. In the past, police departments had little communication with one another, and seldom did anyone connect killings in different jurisdictions. Today’s more efficient communications and investigative techniques, coupled with DNA matching, make it easier for the police to know when a serial killer is

operating in an area. Part of the perception that there are more serial killers today is also due to ignorance of our history: In our frontier past, for example, serial killers went from ranch to ranch.

For Your Consideration → Do you think that serial killers should be given the

death penalty? Why or why not?

→ How does your social location influence your opinion on the death penalty?

Ted Bundy is shown here on trial in Miami for killing two women, both college students. He often used charm and wit to win the confidence of his victims. Like most serial killers, he blended in with society. Bundy was executed for his murders.

serial murder the killing of several victims in three or more separate events

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 221 11/19/15 8:02 AM

222 Chapter 8

bias continues: Of those condemned to death, the state is more likely to execute a man than a woman. As Figure 8.6 shows, only 0.9 percent of the 5,136 prisoners executed in the United States since 1930 have been women. Rather than gender bias, perhaps the chances of being sentenced to death or being executed reflect the women’s previ- ous offenses and the relative brutality of their murders. Not likely, but maybe. We need research to find out.

Race–eThniciTy At one point, racial-ethnic bias was so flagrant that the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to the death penalty. Donald Partington (1965), a lawyer in Virginia, was shocked by the bias he saw in the courtroom, and he decided to document it. He found that 2,798 men had been convicted for rape and attempted rape in Virginia between 1908 and 1963—56 percent whites and 44 percent blacks. For rape, 41 men had been executed. For attempted rape, 13 had been executed. All those executed were black. Not one of the whites was executed.

After listening to evidence like this, in 1972 the Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty, as applied, was unconstitutional. The execution of prison- ers stopped—but not for long. The states wrote new laws, and in 1977, they again began to execute prisoners. Since the death penalty was reinstituted, 62 percent of those put to death have been white and 38 percent African American (Statistical Abstract 2014:Table 367). (Latinos are evidently counted as whites in this statistic.) In North Carolina, African Americans who kill whites are three times as likely to be sentenced to death as are whites who kill African Americans (Radelet and Pierce 2011). We don't have this statistic for other states.

The official responses to deviance that we have discussed assume that the state (government) is functioning. What happens when the state breaks down? Let’s consider this in the following Thinking Critically section.

99.1%

0.9%

44 Women

5,092 Men

Figure 8.6 Who Gets Executed? Gender Bias in Capital Punishment

Thinking Critically Vigilantes: When the State Breaks Down Many of us chafe under the coercive nature of the state: the

IRS, Homeland Security, the NSA, the many police agencies

from the CIA and FBI to who knows how many other groups

that go by three capital letters. Little cameras litter society,

seemingly recording our every move. We certainly have given up a lot of freedoms—and we are

likely to give up many more in the name of security. We can chafe and complain all we want, but as stressed at the end of the preceding chapter, this wave of surveillance is seemingly unstoppable.

There is another side to what is happening. The guns that the many uniformed and plainclothes men and women are carrying can also be aimed at us. But for now, they bring security. They indicate that the state is operating; perhaps overreacting, but operating nonetheless.

What happens when the state fails, when the men and women who are authorized to carry guns don’t protect citizens from the bad guys who carry guns?

One reaction is vigilantism, people taking the law into their own hands. Remember what we call the Wild West? Citizens

armed themselves, formed posses, chased the bad guys, and dispensed quick justice at the end of a rope. You’ve seen the movies.

And this is what is happening in Mexico right now. From the local to the national, the Mexican government

has failed. The drug lords have infiltrated the police and the politicians. The most wanted drug lord in Mexico, “El Chapo” Guzman, who headed the feared Sinaloa cartel, would drive openly into the state capital in an armored SUV. The police could never see him. Guzman would even meet with the state governor (Johnson 2014). The man who directed Mexico’s national drug enforcement agency was on the drug lords’ payroll. Army generals take money to protect drug deals. They even let dealers use army vehicles to transport drugs.

It is difficult to overstate the extent of corruption in Mexico, but let’s add a couple more shocking findings. A secret billion dollar bank account was traced to the brother of Mexico’s president. (But why rush to judgment? Perhaps some taxi driver gave the president’s brother a billion-dollar

SourCe: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2014:Table 367.

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 222 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 223

The Trouble with Official Statistics We must be cautious when it comes to official crime statistics. According to official statistics, working-class boys are more delinquent than middle-class boys. Yet, as we have seen, who actually gets arrested for what is influenced by social class, a point that has far-reaching implications. As symbolic interactionists point out, the police follow a symbolic system as they enforce the law. Ideas of “typical criminals” and “typical good citizens” permeate their work. The more a suspect matches their stereotypes of a lawbreaker (which they call “criminal profiles”), the more likely that person is to be arrested. police discretion, the decision whether to arrest someone or even to ignore a matter, is a routine part of police work. Official crime statistics reflect these and many other biases.

Crime statistics do not have an objective, independent existence. They are not like oranges that you pick out in a grocery store. Rather, they are a human creation. If the police enforce laws strictly, crime statistics go up. Loosen up the enforcement, and crime

“Enough is enough!” This physician (center) in Michoacan, Mexico, organized vigilantes to replace the corrupt police. The police arrested him for carrying illegal guns.

tip because he was a good passenger.) In Gomez Palacio, prison administrators let prisoners out so they could kill members of a rival drug gang. They even loaned the prisoners their guns and cars to do the killing. Afterward, the men dutifully returned to the prison, turned in the cars and guns, and went back to their cells. Incredible, I know. But true.

The death toll is shocking. Shooting deaths by the police, the army, and the gangsters run over 100,000. In one town, Iguala in the state of Guerrero, the mayor is accused of ordering his police to arrest forty-three students and turn them over to the local drug cartel to be killed (de Cordoba and Montes 2014).

The Mexican people have begun to take the law into their own hands. In the state of Guerrero, country folk have put on masks, grabbed their old hunting rifles, raided the homes of drug dealers, and put them in makeshift jails. They have blockaded the roads leading to their little towns. They won’t let drug dealers, or any strangers, in. They won’t even let the federal police, the state police, or the army in. The official “enforcers of the law” are too corrupt, they say. They trust only the neighbors they grew up with.

The state can’t tolerate competition in the use of violence. It claims this right for itself. A conflict, then, between the vigilantes and the state is inevitable. And it has begun. In the state of Michoacan, the people took up arms against the Knights Templar, the drug cartel that is terrorizing their area. As the citizen militias were gaining the upper hand, the military stepped in to stop them. This confused the people, who asked why the military was trying to disarm them and not the drug cartel. “First we must disarm you, so there won’t be bloodshed,” the military replied. “Then we can go after the drug dealers.”

The vigilantes asked if they could accompany the police and military as they pursue the drug cartel. The reply, “No, that’s our job. You go home.”

This didn’t make sense to the people, and they resisted. The military killed several of the citizens.

The people still don’t understand. The state isn’t doing its job, their lives are in danger, and the local citizens think they know how to take care of the problem.

The reaction of the local police, the honest ones? “Maybe the citizens can do something about the problem. We can’t. If we try, the drug dealers will go to our homes and kill our families. They don’t know who these masked men are.”

Based on Sheridan 1998; Malkin 2010; Archibold 2012; Casey 2013; Casey and Harrup 2014; Johnson 2014; Perez and Cordoba 2014.

For Your Consideration → We don’t yet know the consequences of this incipient vigilante

movement in Mexico. But what else can the citizens do?

→ How much freedom are you willing to give up to have security?

→ Where is a balance between personal freedom and state security?

police discretion the practice of the police, in the normal course of their duties, to either arrest or ticket someone for an offense or to overlook the matter

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 223 11/19/15 8:02 AM

224 Chapter 8

statistics go down. New York City provides a remarkable example. To keep their crime statistics low, the police keep some crime victims waiting in the police station for hours. The victims give up and leave, and the crime doesn’t enter their official records. In other cases, the police simply listen to crime victims but make no written record of the crime (Baker and Goldstein 2011). It is likely that such underreporting occurs in most places.

As a personal example, someone took my mailbox (rural, located on the street). When I called and reported the theft, a police officer arrived promptly. He was incredibly friendly. He looked around and spotted the mailbox in the ditch. He retrieved it and then personally restored it to its post. He even used his tools to screw it back on. He then said, “I’m chalking this one up to the wind.” I didn’t object. I knew what he was doing. No crime to report, no paperwork for him, and the area has one less incident to go into the crime statistics.

The Medicalization of Deviance: Mental Illness When the woman drove her car into the river, drowning her two small children strapped to their little car seats, people said that she had “gone nuts,” “went bonkers,” and just plain “lost it.”

neiTheR menTal noR illneSS? When people cannot find a satisfying explanation for why someone does something weird or is “like that,” they often say that a “sickness in the head” is causing the unacceptable behavior. To medicalize something is to make it a medical matter, to classify it as a form of illness that properly belongs in the care of physicians. For the past hundred years or so, especially since the time of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), the Viennese physician who founded psychoanalysis, there has been a growing tendency toward the medicalization of deviance. In this view, deviance, includ- ing crime, is a sign of mental sickness. Rape, murder, stealing, cheating, and so on are external symptoms of internal disorders, consequences of a confused or tortured mind, one that should be treated by mental health experts.

Thomas Szasz (1920–2012), a renegade in his profession of psychiatry, disagreed. He (1996, 1998, 2010) argued that what are called mental illnesses are neither mental nor ill- nesses. They are simply problem behaviors. Szasz broke these behaviors for which we don’t have a ready explanation into two causes: physical illness and learned deviance.

Some behaviors that are called “mental illnesses” have physical causes. That is, something in an individual’s body leads to unusual perceptions or behavior. For exam- ple, a chemical imbalance in the brain can cause depression. The individual’s behaviors— crying, long-term sadness, or lack of interest in family, work, school, or grooming—are

symptoms of this physical problem, one that can be treated by drugs. Another example is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a “mental

illness” that seems to have come out of nowhere (Saul 2014). As Szasz said, “No one explains where this disease came from or why it didn’t exist 50 years

ago. No one is able to diagnose it with objective tests.” A teacher or parent complains that a child is misbehaving, and a psychiatrist or doctor says the

child is suffering from ADD. Misbehaving children have been a problem throughout history, but now, with doctors looking to expand their terri-

tory, this problem behavior has become a sign of “mental illness” that they can treat.

All of us have troubles. Some of us face a constant barrage of problems as we go through life. Most of us

continue the struggle, perhaps encouraged by relatives and friends and motivated by job, family responsi-

bilities, religious faith, or life goals. Even when the odds seem hopeless, we carry on, not perfectly, but as best we can.

People whose behaviors violate norms are sometimes called mentally ill. “Why else would they do such things?” is a common response to deviant behaviors that we don’t understand. Mental illness is a label that contains the assumption that there is something wrong “within” people that “causes” their disapproved behavior. The surprise with this man, who changed his legal name to “Scary Guy,” is that he speaks at schools across the country, where he promotes acceptance, awareness, love, and understanding.

medicalization of deviance to make deviance a medical matter, a symptom of some underlying illness that needs to be treated by physicians

medicalization the transformation of a human condition into a medical matter to be treated by physicians

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 224 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 225

Some people, however, fail to cope well with life’s challenges. Overwhelmed, they become depressed, uncooperative, or hostile. Some strike out at others, while some, in Merton’s term, become retreatists and withdraw into their homes, refusing to come out. These may be inappropriate ways of coping, stressed Szasz, but they are behaviors, not mental illnesses. Szasz concluded that “mental illness” is a myth foisted on a naive public. Our medical profession uses pseudoscientific jargon that people don’t understand so it can expand its area of control and force nonconforming people to accept society’s defini- tions of “normal.”

Szasz’s controversial claims force us to look anew at the forms of deviance that we usually refer to as mental illness. To explain behavior that people find bizarre, he directs our attention not to disorders deep within the “subconscious” but, instead, to how people learn those behaviors. To ask, “What is the origin of someone’s inappropriate or bizarre behavior?” then becomes similar to asking “Why do some women steal?” “Why do some men rape?” “Why do some teenagers cuss their parents and stalk out of the room?” The answers depend on those people’s particular experiences in life, not on an illness in their mind. Some sociologists find Szasz’s renegade analysis refreshing because it points us away from illnesses of the mind to social experiences. Others, however, are uncomfortable with it, and some disagree wholeheartedly. Regardless of these disagreements, Szasz’s analysis applies not just to mental illness but also to deviance in general.

The homeleSS menTally ill

Jamie was sitting on a low wall surrounding the landscaped courtyard of an exclusive restaurant. She appeared unaware of the stares elicited by her layers of mismatched clothing, her matted hair and dirty face, and the shopping cart that overflowed with her meager possessions.

After sitting next to Jamie for a few minutes, I saw her point to the street and concentrate, slowly moving her finger horizontally. I asked her what she was doing.

“I’m directing traffic,” she replied. “I control where the cars go. Look, that one turned right there,” she said, now withdrawing her finger.

“Really?” I said. After a while she confided that her cart talked to her. “Really?” I said again. “Yes,” she replied. “You can hear it, too.” At that, she pushed the shopping cart a bit. “Did you hear that?” she asked. When I shook my head, she demonstrated again. Then it hit me. She was referring to

the squeaking wheels! I nodded. When I left Jamie, she was pointing a finger toward the sky, for, as she told me, she

also controlled the flight of airplanes.

To most of us, Jamie’s behavior and thinking are bizarre. They simply do not match any reality we know. Could you or I become like Jamie?

Suppose for a bitter moment that you are homeless and have to live on the streets. You have no money, no place to sleep, no bathroom. You do not know if you are going to eat, much less where. You have no friends or anyone you can trust. You live in constant fear of being beaten and raped. Do you think this might be enough to drive you over the edge?

Consider just the problems involved in not having a place to bathe. (Shelters are often so dangerous that many homeless people prefer to sleep in public settings.) At first, you try to wash in the restrooms of gas stations, bars, the bus station, or a shopping cen- ter. But you are dirty, and people stare when you enter and call the management when they see you wash your feet in the sink. You are thrown out and told in no uncertain terms never to come back. So you get dirtier and dirtier. Eventually, you come to think of being dirty as a fact of life. Soon, maybe, you don’t even care. The stares no longer bother you—at least not as much.

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 225 11/19/15 8:02 AM

226 Chapter 8

No one will talk to you, and you withdraw more and more into yourself. You begin to build a fantasy life. You talk openly to yourself. People stare, but so what? They stare anyway. Besides, they are no longer important to you.

Jamie might be mentally ill. Some organic problem, such as a chemical imbalance in her brain, might underlie her behavior. But perhaps not. How long would it take you to exhibit bizarre behaviors if you were homeless—and hopeless? The point is that living on the streets can cause mental illness—or whatever we want to label socially inappropriate behaviors that we find difficult to classify. Homelessness and mental illness are reciprocal: Just as “men- tal illness” can cause homelessness, so the trials of being home- less, of living on cold, hostile streets, can lead to unusual thinking and behaviors.

The Need for a More Humane Approach As Durkheim (1895/1964:68) pointed out, deviance is inevitable— even in a group of saints.

Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes, properly so called, will there be unknown; but faults which appear invisible to the layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary society.

With deviance inevitable, one measure of a society is how it treats its deviants. Our prisons certainly don’t say much good about U.S. society. Filled with the poor, uned- ucated, and unskilled, they are warehouses of the unwanted. White-collar criminals continue to get by with a slap on the wrist while street criminals are punished severely. Some deviants, who fail to meet current standards of admission to either prison or men- tal hospitals, take refuge in shelters, as well as in cardboard boxes tucked away in urban recesses. Although no one has the answer, it does not take much reflection to see that there are more humane approaches than these.

Because deviance is inevitable, the larger issues are to find ways to protect people from deviant behaviors that are harmful to themselves or others, to tolerate behaviors that are not harmful, and to develop systems of fairer treatment for deviants. In the absence of fundamental changes that would bring about an equitable society, most efforts are, unfortunately, like putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. What we need is a more humane social system, one that would prevent the social inequalities that are the focus of the next four chapters.

Summary and Review What Is Deviance? 8.1 Summarize the relativity of deviance, the need

for norms, and the types of sanctions; contrast sociobiological, psychological, and sociological explanations of deviance.

Deviance (the violation of norms) is relative. What people consider deviant varies from one culture to another and from group to group within the same society. As symbolic interactionists stress, it is not the act but the reactions to the act that make something deviant. All groups develop

systems of social control to punish deviants—those who violate their norms.

how do sociological and individualistic explanations of deviance differ?

To explain why people deviate, sociobiologists and psychologists look for reasons within the individual, such as genetic predispositions or personality disorders. Sociologists, in contrast, look for explanations outside the individual, in social experiences.

Mental illness and drug/alcohol addiction are common among the homeless. This photo was taken in New York City, but it could have been taken in any large city in the United States.

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 226 11/19/15 8:02 AM

Deviance and Social Control 227

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective 8.2 apply the symbolic interactionist perspective to

deviance by explaining differential association, control, and labeling.

how do symbolic interactionists explain deviance?

Symbolic interactionists have developed several theories to explain deviance such as crime (the violation of norms that are written into law). According to differential association theory, people learn to deviate by associating with others. According to control theory, each of us is propelled toward deviance, but most of us conform because of an effective system of inner and outer controls. People who have less effective controls deviate.

labeling theory focuses on how labels (names, reputations) help to funnel people into or divert them away from deviance. People often use techniques of neutralization to deflect social norms.

The Functionalist Perspective 8.3 apply the functionalist perspective by explaining

how deviance can be functional for society, how mainstream values can produce deviance (strain theory), and how social class is related to crime (illegitimate opportunities).

how do functionalists explain deviance?

Functionalists point out that deviance, including criminal acts, is functional for society. Functions include affirming norms and promoting social unity and social change. According to strain theory, societies socialize their members into desiring cultural goals. Many people are unable to achieve these goals in socially acceptable ways—that is, by institutionalized means. Deviants, then, are people who either give up on the goals or use disapproved means to attain them. Merton identified five types of responses to cultural goals and institutionalized means: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. Because of illegitimate opportunity structures, some people have easier access to illegal means of achieving goals.

The Conflict Perspective 8.4 apply the conflict perspective by explaining how

social class is related to the criminal justice system and how the criminal justice system is oppressive.

how do conflict theorists explain deviance?

Conflict theorists take the position that the group in power imposes its definitions of deviance on other groups. From this perspective, the law is an instrument of oppression used by the powerful to maintain their position of privilege. The ruling class, which developed the criminal justice system, uses it to punish the crimes of the poor while diverting its own criminal activities away from this punitive system.

Reactions to Deviance 8.5 Be able to discuss street crime and imprisonment,

the three-strikes laws, the decline in violent crime, recidivism, bias in the death penalty, the medicalization of deviance, and the need for a more humane approach.

what are common reactions to deviance in the united States?

In following a “get-tough” policy, the United States has imprisoned millions of people. African Americans and Latinos make up a disproportionate percentage of U.S. prisoners. The death penalty shows biases by geography, social class, gender, and race–ethnicity.

are official statistics on crime reliable?

The conclusions of both symbolic interactionists (that the police operate with a large measure of discretion) and conflict theorists (that a power elite controls the legal system) indicate that we must be cautious when using crime statistics.

what is the medicalization of deviance?

The medical profession has attempted to medicalize many forms of deviance, claiming that they represent mental illnesses. Thomas Szasz disagreed, asserting that these are problem behaviors, not mental illnesses. The situation of homeless people indicates that problems in living can lead to bizarre behavior and thinking.

what is a more humane approach?

Deviance is inevitable, so the larger issues are to find ways to protect people from deviance that harms themselves and others, to tolerate deviance that is not harmful, and to develop systems of fairer treatment for deviants.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 8 1. Select some deviance with which you are personally

familiar. (It does not have to be your own—it can be something that someone you know did.) Choose one of the three theoretical perspectives to explain what happened.

2. As explained in the text, deviance can be mild. Recall some instance in which you broke a social rule in

dress, etiquette, or speech. What was the reaction? Why do you think people reacted like that? What was your response to their reactions?

3. What do you think should be done about the U.S. crime problem? What sociological theories support your view?

M08_HENS5571_13_SE_C08.indd 227 11/19/15 8:02 AM

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 228 11/19/15 8:48 AM

Learning Objectives

Chapter 9

Global Stratification

9.1 Compare and contrast slavery (including bonded labor), caste, estate, and class systems of social stratification. (p. 230)

9.2 Contrast the views of Marx and Weber on what determines social class. (p. 238)

9.3 Contrast the functional and conflict views of why social stratification is universal. (p. 240)

9.4 Discuss the ways that elites keep themselves in power. (p. 243)

9.5 Contrast social stratification in Great Britain and the former Soviet Union. (p. 245)

9.6 Compare the three worlds of global stratification: the Most Industrialized Nations, the Industrializing Nations, and the Least Industrialized Nations. (p. 246)

9.7 Discuss how colonialism and world system theory explain how the world’s nations became stratified. (p. 251)

9.8 Explain how neocolonialism, multinational corporations, and technology help to maintain global stratification. (p. 257)

9.9 Identify strains in today’s system of global stratification. (p. 259)

Let’s contrast two “average” families from around the world: For Getu Mulleta, 33, and his wife, Zenebu, 28, of rural Ethiopia, life is a constant struggle

to avoid starvation. They and their seven children live in a 320-square-foot manure-plastered hut with no electricity, gas, or running water. They have a radio, but the battery is dead. The family farms teff, a grain, and survives on $130 a year.

The Mulletas’ poverty is not due to a lack of hard work. Getu works about eighty hours a week, while Zenebu puts in even more hours. Housework for Zenebu includes fetching water, cleaning animal stables, and making fuel pellets out of cow dung for the open fire over which she cooks the family’s food. Like other Ethiopian women, she eats after the men.

In Ethiopia, the average male can expect to live to age 48, the average female to 50. The Mulletas’ most valuable possession is their oxen. Their wishes for the future: more

animals, better seed, and a second set of clothing. Springfield, Illinois, is home to the Kellys—Rick, 36, Patti, 34, Julie, 10, and Michael, 7.

The Kellys live in a three-bedroom, 2₁⁄₂-bath, 2,505-square-foot ranch-style house with a fire- place, central heating and air conditioning, a basement, and a two-car garage. Their home is equipped with a refrigerator, freezer, washing machine, clothes dryer, dishwasher, garbage disposal, vacuum cleaner, food processor, microwave, and a convection stovetop and oven. They also own computers, cell phones, color televisions, a Kindle, several digital cameras,

They live in a 320-square- foot manure-plastered hut

229

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 229 11/19/15 8:23 AM

230 Chapter 9

an iPod, an iPad, a printer-scanner-fax machine, blow dryers, a juicer, an espresso coffee maker, a pickup truck, and an SUV.

Rick works forty hours a week as a cable splicer for a telephone company. Patti teaches school part-time. Together they make $60,974, plus benefits. The Kellys can choose from among dozens of superstocked supermarkets. They spend $5,411 for food they eat at home, and another $3,571 eating out, a total of 15 percent of their annual income.

In the United States, the average life expectancy is 77 for males, 82 for females. On the Kellys’ wish list are a solar car with Internet connection, another laptop computer (with

a terabyte of memory and solid-state drive), a phablet, an Ultra HighDefinition bendable TV, a virtual reality simulator, a boat, a motor home, an ATV, and an in-ground heated swimming pool.

Menzel 1994; Statistical Abstract 2014:Tables 112, 717, 726, 996.

Systems of Social Stratification 9.1 Compare and contrast slavery (including bonded labor), caste, estate, and class

systems of social stratification.

Some of the world’s nations are wealthy, others poor, and some in between. This division of nations, as well as the layering of groups of people within a nation, is called social strat- ification. Social stratification is one of the most significant topics we will discuss in this book. As you saw in the opening vignette, social stratification profoundly affects our life chances—from our access to material possessions to the age at which we die.

Social stratification also affects the way we think about life. Look at the photo below. If you were born into this family, you would expect hunger to be a part of life and would not expect all of your children to survive. You would also be illiterate and would assume that your children would be as well. In contrast, if you are an average U.S. parent, you expect your children not only to survive but to be well fed, not only to be able to read but to go to college. You can see that social stratification brings with it not just material things but also ideas of what we can expect out of life.

The Mulleta family of Ethiopia, described in the opening vignette, displaying all of their possessions.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 230 11/19/15 8:23 AM

Global Stratification 231

Social stratification is a system in which groups of people are divided into layers according to their relative property, power, and prestige. It is important to emphasize that social stratification does not refer to individuals. It is a way of ranking large groups of peo- ple into a hierarchy according to their relative privileges.

It is also important to note that every society stratifies its mem- bers. Some societies have more inequality than others, but social stratification is universal. In addition, in every society of the world, gender is a basis for stratifying people. On the basis of their gen- der, people are either allowed or denied access to the good things offered by their society.

Let’s consider four major systems of social stratification: slav- ery, caste, estate, and class.

Slavery Slavery, whose essential characteristic is that some individuals own other people, has been common throughout history. The Old Testa- ment even lays out rules for how owners should treat their slaves. So does the Quran. The Romans had slaves, as did the Africans and Greeks. In classical Greece and Rome, slaves did the work, freeing citizens to engage in politics and the arts. Slavery was most widespread in agricultural societies and least common among nomads, especially hunters and gatherers (Landtman 1938/1968; Rowthorn et al. 2011).

Let’s examine the causes and conditions of slavery. You probably will be surprised to learn how remarkably slavery has varied around the world.

CauSeS of Slavery Contrary to popular assumption, slavery was usually based not on racism but on one of three other factors. The first was debt. In some societies, creditors would enslave people who could not pay their debts. The second was crime. Instead of being killed, a murderer or thief might be enslaved by the victim’s family as compensa- tion for their loss. The third was war. When one group of people conquered another, they often enslaved some of the vanquished. Historian Gerda Lerner (1986) notes that women were the first people enslaved through warfare. When tribal men raided another group, they killed the men, raped the women, and then brought the women back as slaves. The women were valued for sexual purposes, for reproduction, and for their labor.

Roughly 2,500 years ago, when Greece was but a collection of city-states, slavery was common. A city that became powerful and conquered another city would enslave some of the vanquished. Both slaves and slaveholders were Greek. Similarly, when Rome became the supreme power of the Mediterranean area about two thousand years ago, following the custom of the time, the Romans enslaved some of the Greeks they had conquered. More educated than their conquerors, some of these slaves served as tutors in Roman homes. Slavery, then, was a sign of debt, of crime, or of defeat in battle. It was not a sign that the slave was viewed as inherently inferior.

ConditionS of Slavery The conditions of slavery have varied widely around the world. In some places, slavery was temporary. Slaves of the Israelites were set free in the year of jubilee, which occurred every fifty years. Roman slaves ordinarily had the right to buy themselves out of slavery. They knew what their purchase price was, and some were able to meet this price by striking a bargain with their owners and selling their services to others. In most instances, however, slavery was a lifelong condition. Some criminals, for example, became slaves when they were given life sentences as oarsmen on Roman warships. There they served until death, which often came quickly to those in this exhausting service.

social stratification the division of large numbers of people into layers according to their relative property, power, and prestige; applies to both nations and to people within a nation, society, or other group

slavery a form of social stratification in which some people own other people

Slaves are commodities, items for sale at the highest price. With the price of slaves higher in New Orleans than in Kentucky, Talbott became an arbitrageur, making a profit by buying slaves at a lower price in one area and selling them at a higher price in another area.

SourCe: Corbis

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 231 11/19/15 8:23 AM

232 Chapter 9

Slavery was not necessarily inheritable. In most places, the children of slaves were slaves themselves. But in some instances, the child of a slave who served a rich family might even be adopted by that family, becoming an heir who bore the family name along with the other sons or daughters of the household. In ancient Mexico, the children of slaves were always free (Landtman 1938/1968:271).

Slaves were not necessarily powerless and poor. In almost all instances, slaves owned no property and had no power. Among some groups, however, slaves could accumulate property and even rise to high positions in the community. Occasionally, a slave might even become wealthy, loan money to the master, and, while still a slave, own slaves him- self or herself (Landtman 1938/1968). This, however, was rare.

Bonded laBor in the new world A gray area between slavery and contract labor is bonded labor, also called indentured service. People who wanted to start a new life in the American colonies but could not pay for their passage across the ocean would arrange for a ship captain to transport them on credit. When they arrived, wealthy col- onists would pay the captain for the voyage, and these penniless people would become the colonists’ servants for a set number of years. During this period, the servants were

required by law to serve their masters. If they ran away, they became out- laws who were hunted down and forcibly returned. At the end of their period of indenture, they were free to work and to live where they chose (Main 1965; Post 2009).

Slavery in the new world When there were not enough inden- tured servants to meet the growing need for labor in the American col- onies, some colonists tried to enslave Native Americans. This attempt failed, in part because Indians who escaped knew how to survive in the wilderness and were able to make their way back to their tribes. The col- onists then turned to Africans, who were being brought to North and South America by the Dutch, English, Portuguese, and Spanish.

Because slavery has a broad range of causes, some analysts conclude that racism didn’t lead to slavery but, rather, that slavery led to racism. To defend slavery, U.S. slave owners developed an ideology, beliefs that justify social arrangements, making those arrangements seem necessary and fair. They developed the view that their slaves were inferior. Some even said that they were not fully human. In short, the colonists wove elaborate justifications for slavery, built on the presumed superiority of their own group.

To make slavery even more profitable, slave states passed laws that made slavery inheritable; that is, the babies born to slaves became the property of the slave owners (Stampp 1956). These children could be

sold, bartered, or traded. To strengthen their control, slave states passed laws making it illegal for slaves to hold meetings or to be away from the master’s premises without car- rying a pass (Lerner 1972). Sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois (1935/1992:12) noted that “gradu- ally the entire white South became an armed camp to keep Negroes in slavery and to kill the black rebel.”

The Civil War did not end legal discrimination. For example, until 1954, many states operated separate school systems for blacks and whites. Until the 1950s, in order to keep the races from “mixing,” it was illegal in Mississippi for a white and an African American to sit together on the same seat of a car! There was no outright ban on blacks and whites being in the same car, however, so whites could employ African American chauffeurs.

Slavery today Slavery continues to rear its ugly head in several parts of the world (Crane 2012). The Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Niger, and Sudan have a long history of slavery, and not until the 1980s was slavery made illegal in Mauritania and Sudan

bonded labor (indentured service) a contractual system in which someone sells his or her body (services) for a specified period of time in an arrangement very close to slavery, except that it is entered into voluntarily

During my research in India, I inter- viewed this 8-year-old girl. Mahashury is a bonded laborer who was exchanged by her parents for a 2,000 rupee loan (about $14). To repay the loan, Mahashury must do construction work for one year. She will receive one meal a day and one set of clothing for the year. Because this centuries- old practice is now illegal, the master bribes Indian officials, who inform him when they are going to inspect the construction site. He then hides his bonded laborers. I was able to interview and photograph Mahashury because her master was absent the day I visited the construction site.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 232 11/19/15 8:23 AM

Global Stratification 233

(Ayittey 1998). It took until 2003 for slavery to be banned in Niger, where it still continues (Mwiti 2013). In 2015, in the Iraqi area, ISIS sold captured women as sex slaves.

The enslavement of children for work and sex is a problem in Africa, Asia, and South America (Trafficking in Persons Report 2015). A unique form of child slavery in some Mid- east countries involves buying little boys around the ages of 4 or 6 to race camels. Their screams of terror are thought to make the camels run faster. In Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which recently banned this practice, robots have begun to replace the children (Rasni 2013).

Caste The second system of social stratification is caste. In a caste system, birth determines status, which is lifelong. Someone who is born into a low-status group will always have low status, no matter how much that person may accomplish in life. In sociological terms, a caste system is built on ascribed status (discussed in Chapter 4). Achieved status cannot change an individual’s place in this system.

Societies with this form of stratification try to make certain that the boundaries between castes remain firm. They practice endogamy, marriage within their own group, prohibiting the marriage of members of different castes. Rules about ritual pollution also keep contact between castes to a minimum. Touching someone from an inferior caste, for example, makes a member of the superior caste unclean.

india’S religiouS CaSteS India provides the best example of a caste system. Based not on race but on religion, India’s caste system has existed for almost three thousand years (Chandra 1993; Hnatkovska et al. 2012). Look at Table 9.1, which lists India’s four main castes. These castes are subdivided into about three thou- sand subcastes, or jati. Each jati specializes in a particular occupation. For ex- ample, one subcaste washes clothes, another sharpens knives, and yet another repairs shoes.

The lowest group listed in Table 9.1, the Dalit, make up India’s “untouch- ables.” If a Dalit touches someone of a higher caste, that person becomes unclean. Even the shadow of an untouchable can contaminate. Early morning and late afternoons are especially risky, for the long shadows of these periods pose a danger to everyone higher up the caste system. Consequently, Dalits are not allowed in some villages during these times. Anyone who becomes contaminated must follow ablution, or washing rituals, to restore purity.

An untouchable summed up his situation this way:

At the tea stalls, we have separate cups to drink from, chipped and caked with dirt. We have to walk for 15 minutes to carry water to our homes, because we’re not allowed to use the taps in the village that the upper castes use. We’re not allowed into temples. When I attended school, my friends and I were forced to sit outside the classroom. The upper caste children would not allow us even to touch the football they played with. We played with stones instead. (Guru and Sidhva 2001)

From personal observations in India, I can add that in some villages, Dalit children are not allowed in the government schools. If they try to enroll, they are beaten.

The Indian government formally abolished the caste system in 1949. However, these centuries-old practices continue, and the caste system remains part of everyday life in India. The ceremonies people follow at births, marriages, and deaths are dictated by caste (Chandra 1993). Caste is so ingrained in the Indian mind that when couples visit a sperm bank, they insist on knowing the caste of the donor (Tewary 2012).

India’s caste system is changing, but only gradually. The federal government began an affirmative action plan that has increased education and jobs for the lower castes. Slowly, the caste system is giving way, being replaced by a social class system based on material wealth (Sankaran 2013).

ideology beliefs about the way things ought to be that justify social arrangements

caste system a form of social stratification in which people’s statuses are lifelong conditions determined by birth

endogamy the practice of marrying within one’s own group

Table 9.1 India’s Caste System Caste Occupation

Brahman Priests and teachers

Kshatriya Rulers and soldiers

Vaishya Merchants and traders

Shudra Peasants and laborers

Dalit (untouchables) The outcastes; degrading or polluting labor

SOurCe: By the author.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 233 11/19/15 8:23 AM

234 Chapter 9

South afriCa In South Africa, Europeans of Dutch descent, a numerical minority called Afrikaners, used to control the government, the police, and the military. They used these sources of power to enforce a system called apartheid (ah-PAR-tate), the separation of the races. Everyone was classified by law into one of four groups: Europeans (whites), Africans (blacks), Coloureds (mixed races), and Asians. These classifications determined where people could live, work, and go to school. It also established where they could swim or see movies; by law, whites and the others were not allowed to mix socially.

Listen to what an Anglican priest observed when he arrived in South Africa:

I went to the post office to send my mother a letter telling her that I had arrived safely. There were two entrances, one marked “Whites only” and the other, “Non-whites.” . . . Durban is a seaside city and so I went off to explore the beach. There I discovered that even the sea was divided by race. The most beautiful beaches were where white people could swim; there was another for people of Indian descent, still another for people of mixed race, and far, far away, one for Africans. (Lapsley 2012)

After years of trade sanctions and sports boycotts, in 1990 Afrikaners began to dis- mantle their caste system, and in 1994, Nelson Mandela, a black, was elected president. Black Africans no longer have to carry special passes, public facilities are integrated, and all racial–ethnic groups have the right to vote and to hold office. Although apartheid has been dismantled, its legacy haunts South Africa. Whites still dominate the country’s social institutions, and most blacks remain uneducated and poor. Many new rights— such as the rights to higher education, to eat in restaurants, even to see a doctor—are of little use to people who can’t afford them. Political violence has been replaced by old-fashioned crime. Even though the U.S. murder rate is so high it intimidates foreign- ers, South Africa’s murder rate is six times higher (South African Police Service 2013; Statistical Abstract 2014:Table 319). Apartheid’s legacy of prejudice, bitterness, and hatred appears destined to fuel racial tensions for generations to come.

apartheid the government-approved- and-enforced separation of racial–ethnic groups as was practiced in South Africa

In a caste system, status is determined by birth and is lifelong. At birth, these women received not only membership in a lower caste but also, because of their gender, a predetermined position in that caste. When I photographed these women, they were carrying sand to the second floor of a house being constructed in Andhra Pradesh, India.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 234 11/19/15 8:23 AM

Global Stratification 235

a u.S. raCial CaSte SyStem Before leaving the subject of caste, we should note that when slavery ended in the United States, it was replaced by a racial caste system. From the moment of birth, race marked everyone for life (Berger 1963/2016). All whites, even if they were poor and uneducated, considered themselves to have a higher status than all African Americans. As in India and South Africa, the upper caste, fearing pollu- tion from the lower caste, made intermarriage illegal. There were also separate schools, hotels, restaurants, and even toilets and drinking fountains for blacks and whites. In the South, when any white met any African American on a sidewalk, the African American had to move aside. The untouchables of India still must do this when they meet someone of a higher caste (Deliege 2001).

To see more parallels between the caste systems of the United States and India, see the Global Glimpse box below.

A Global Glimpse Rape: Blaming the Victim and Protecting the Caste System

Shana, just 16 years old, was raped by four men in Mississippi. She was walking alongside the road leading to her house when a car stopped. The men got out, shoved her into the car, and drove about a mile down the road. For several hours, they took turns raping the terrified young woman. When the rape (and the other abuse that I won’t describe) was over, they told Shana to keep her mouth shut. They would kill her if she told anyone.

Fearful of what her parents would say and how the neighbors would gossip, Shana told no one. She also knew that it would do no good to report the rape to the police, since they would do nothing. Shana carried the shame—and the anger—of her rape with her the rest of her life.

This is a composite story. Shana is a combined version of the many young black women who were raped by white men in the U.S. South years ago, at a time when rape brought shame to any woman, black or white, and the rape and the rapists were enshrouded in silence. For black women in the South at this time, it was useless to report a rape. The prosecutors, judges, and juries—all were white. And none was about to take a black woman’s word over that of white men.

This event just took place in India:

Shana, just 16 years old, was walking home when she was grabbed by several men and forced into a small stone shelter at the edge of a field. There, for three hours, eight men of the Jat subcaste raped her.

When they were finished, they told Shana to keep her mouth shut. They would kill her if she told anyone.

Shana told no one. The shame would bring severe dishonor to her family. Besides, what good would it do? Shana is a Dalit, formerly called an Untouchable. She is a poor member of a caste in poverty, one that is despised by the Jat subcaste that controls the society. (Yardley 2012)

I don’t need to point out the parallels to you.

Then something unusual happened. One of the rapists from the Jat caste had used his cell phone to take trophy videos of the rape. As the video circulated, one man who saw it showed it to Shana’s father. Dishonored by the rape of his daughter, he committed suicide.

His suicide and Shana’s rape enraged the Dalits in the community. They marched to the police and demanded justice.

What did they get? One official said that the sexual drive of girls is causing

rapes. He said that all girls should be married by the age of 16. Then there wouldn’t be any rapes. Another said that they never used to have any rapes, that it must be the new fast food the young people are eating. The fast food causes hormonal imbalance, creating sexual urges in young women.

..A.AU.S.AU.SU.S.A.A.A.

Students at Kolkata, India, protesting rape. Some people still blame the victim.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 235 11/19/15 8:23 AM

236 Chapter 9

Estate During the middle ages, Europe developed an estate stratification system. There were three groups, or estates. The first estate was made up of the nobility, the wealthy families who ruled the country. This group owned the land, which was the source of wealth at that time. The nobility did no farming themselves, or any “work,” for that matter. Work was considered beneath their dignity, something to be done by servants. The nobility’s responsibility was to administer their lands, to defend the king (and, in doing so, their own position), and to live “genteel” lives worthy of their high position.

The second estate consisted of the clergy. The Roman Catholic Church was a political power at this time. It also owned vast amounts of land and collected taxes from everyone who lived within the boundaries of a parish. The church’s power was so great that in order to be crowned, kings had to obtain the pope’s permission.

To prevent their vast land holdings from being carved into smaller chunks, members of the nobility practiced primogeniture, allowing only firstborn sons to inherit land. The other sons had to find some way to support themselves, and joining the clergy was a favorite way. (Other ways included becoming an officer in the military or practicing law.) The church was appealing because priests held lifetime positions and were guaranteed a comfortable living. At that time, the church sold offices, and, for example, a wealthy man could buy the position of bishop for his son, which guaranteed a high income.

The third estate consisted of the commoners. Known as serfs, they belonged to the land. If someone bought or inherited land, the serfs came with it. Serfs were born into the third estate, and they died within it, too. The rare person who made it out of the third estate was either a man who was knighted for extraordinary bravery in battle or some- one “called” into a religious vocation.

women in the eState SyStem Women belonged to the estate of their husbands. Women in the first estate had no occupation, since, as in the case of their husbands, phys- ical work was considered beneath their dignity. Their responsibility was to administer the household, overseeing the children and servants. The women in the second estate, nuns, were the exception to the rule that women belonged to the estate of their husbands, as the Roman Catholic clergy did not marry. Women of the third estate shared the hard life of their husbands, including physical labor and food shortages. In addition, they faced the peril of rape by men of the first estate. A few commoners who caught the eye of men of the first estate did marry and join them in the first estate. This was rare.

Class As we have seen, stratification systems based on slavery, caste, and estate are rigid. The lines drawn between people are firm, and there is little or no movement from one group

estate stratification system the stratification system of medieval Europe, consisting of three groups or estates: the nobility, clergy, and commoners

I know that these reactions to Shana’s rape sound incredible, but they happened.

When another Dalit woman reported her rape by an upper caste man, the police officer asked how many children she had. When she said “Four,” he asked how old the eldest was. When she said 14 or 15 (birthdays are not kept the same as in the West), the officer said, “Who would rape such an old woman?” and walked away (Pokharel and Lahiri 2013).

I want to add a personal note. Since I wrote this box, the daughter of a man I know in India was raped. After the rape, the rapists poured kerosene on the girl and set her afire. Her screams brought help, and the rapists fled. The young woman was taken to a hospital, where she

died. As I write this personal note, the monsters have not been caught.

For Your Consideration → Can you compare the racial caste system that used

to exist in the United States with the religious caste system that currently exists in India?

→ How does a caste system prevent people from receiving justice?

→ In what ways other than rape does a caste system tolerate and perhaps encourage exploitation?

→ Do you see how the ruling Jat subcaste “blamed the victim” instead of the rapists? How does this protect the caste system?

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 236 11/19/15 8:23 AM

Global Stratification 237

to another. A class system, in contrast, is much more open, because it is based primarily on money or mate- rial possessions, which can be acquired. This system, too, is in place at birth, when children are ascribed the status of their parents. Unlike the other systems, how- ever, individuals can change their social class by what they achieve (or fail to achieve) in life. In addition, no laws specify people’s occupations on the basis of birth or prohibit marriage between the classes.

A major characteristic of the class system, then, is its relatively fluid boundaries. A class system allows social mobility, movement up or down the class ladder. The potential for improving one’s life—or for falling down the class ladder—is a major force that drives people to go far in school and to work hard. In the extreme, the family background that a child inherits at birth may present such obstacles that he or she has little chance of climbing very far—or it may provide such privileges that it is almost impossible to fall down the class ladder. Because social class is so significant for our own lives, we will focus on class in the next chapter.

Global Stratification and the Status of Females In every society of the world, gender is a basis for social stratification. In no society is gender the sole basis for stratifying people, but gender cuts across all systems of social stratification—whether slavery, caste, estate, or class (Huber 1990). In all these systems, on the basis of their gender, people are sorted into categories and given different access to the good things available in their society.

Apparently, these distinctions always favor males. It is remarkable, for example, that in every society of the world, men’s earnings are higher than women’s. Men’s dominance is even more evident when we consider female circumcision (see the box on page 307). That most of the world’s illiterate are females also drives home women’s relative position. Of the several hundred million adults who cannot read, about two-thirds are women (UNESCO 2012). Because gender is such a significant factor in what happens to us in life, we shall focus on it more closely in Chapter 11.

The Global Superclass The growing interconnections among the world’s wealthi- est people have produced a global superclass, one in which wealth and power are more concentrated than ever before. There are only about 6,000 members of the global super- class. The richest 1,000 of this superclass have more wealth than the 2½ billion poorest people on this planet (Rothkopf 2008:37). Almost all are white, and, except as wives and daughters, few women are an active part of the global superclass. We will have more to say about the superclass in Chapter 14, but for now, let’s just stress their incredible wealth. There is nothing in history to compare with what you see in Figure 9.1.

class system a form of social stratification based primarily on income, education, and prestige of occupation

social mobility movement up or down the social class ladder

In early industrialization, children worked alongside adults. They worked twelve hours a day Monday to Friday and fifteen hours on Saturday, often in dangerous, filthy conditions. This photo was taken at a U.S. cotton mill in 1911.

Figure 9.1  The Distribution of the Earth’s Wealth

...owns 86 percent of the Earth's wealth

The wealthiest 10 percent of adults worldwide...

10%

90%90%

10%

14%

86%

...owns 46 percent of the Earth's wealth

The wealthiest 1 percent of adults worldwide...

46%

54%

1%

99%99%

1%

SOurCe: By the author. Based on Keating et al. 2013.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 237 11/19/15 8:23 AM

238 Chapter 9

What Determines Social Class? 9.2 Contrast the views of marx and weber on what determines social class.

In the early days of sociology, a disagreement arose about the meaning of social class. Let’s compare how Marx and Weber analyzed the issue.

Karl Marx: The Means of Production As we discussed in Chapter 1, as agricultural society gave way to an industrial one, masses of peasants were displaced from their traditional lands and occupations. Fleeing to cities, they competed for the few available jobs. Paid only a pittance for their labor, they wore rags, went hungry, and slept under bridges and in shacks. In contrast, the factory owners built mansions, hired servants, and lived in the lap of luxury. Seeing this great disparity between owners and workers, Karl Marx (1818–1883) concluded that social class depends on a single factor: people’s relationship to the means of production—the tools, factories, land, and investment capital used to produce wealth (Marx 1844/1964; Marx and Engels 1848/1967).

Marx argued that the distinctions people often make among themselves—such as their clothing, speech, education, and paycheck, or the neighborhood they live in and the car they drive—are superficial matters. These things camouflage the only dividing line that counts. There are just two classes of people, said Marx: the bourgeoisie (capitalists), those who own the means of production, and the proletariat (workers), those who work for the owners. In short, people’s relationship to the means of production determines their social class.

Marx did recognize other groups: farmers and peasants; a lumpenproletariat (people living on the margin of society, such as beggars, vagrants, and criminals); and a middle group of self-employed professionals. Marx did not consider these groups social classes, however, because they lacked class consciousness—a shared identity based on their rela- tionship to the means of production. In other words, they did not perceive themselves as exploited workers whose plight could be resolved by collective action. Marx thought of these groups as insignificant in the future he foresaw—a workers’ revolution that would overthrow capitalism.

means of production the tools, factories, land, and investment capital used to produce wealth

bourgeoisie Marx’s term for capitalists, those who own the means of production

proletariat Marx’s term for the exploited class, the mass of workers who do not own the means of production

class consciousness Marx’s term for awareness of a common identity based on one’s position in the means of production

false class consciousness Marx’s term to refer to workers identifying with the interests of capitalists

These photos illustrate the contrasting worlds of social classes produced by early capitalism. The photo on the left was taken in 1890. These homeless boys who spent their nights sleeping on the sidewalk did not go to school. They made their living by selling newspapers. The children on the right, Cornelius and Gladys Vanderbilt, are shown in front of their parents’ estate. They went to school and did not work. You can see how the social locations illustrated in these photos would have produced different orientations to life and, therefore, politics, ideas about marriage, values, and so on—the stuff of which life is made.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 238 11/19/15 8:24 AM

Global Stratification 239

The capitalists will grow even wealthier, Marx said, and hostilities will increase. When workers come to realize that capitalists are the source of their oppression, they will unite and throw off the chains of their oppressors. In a bloody revolution, they will seize the means of production and usher in a classless society—and no longer will the few grow rich at the expense of the many. What holds back the workers’ unity and their revolution is false class consciousness, workers mistakenly thinking of themselves as capitalists. For example, workers with a few dollars in the bank may forget that they are workers and instead see themselves as investors, or as capitalists who are about to launch a successful business.

The only distinction worth mentioning, then, is whether a person is an owner or a worker. This decides everything else, Marx stressed, because property determines people’s lifestyles, establishes their relationships with one another, and even shapes their ideas.

Max Weber: Property, Power, and Prestige Max Weber (1864–1920) was an outspoken critic of Marx. Weber argued that property is only part of the picture. Social class, he said, has three components: property, power, and prestige (Gerth and Mills 1958; Weber 1922/1978). Some call these the three P’s of social class. (Although Weber used the terms class, power, and status, some sociologists find property, power, and prestige to be clearer terms. To make them even clearer, you may wish to substitute wealth for property.)

Property (or wealth), said Weber, is certainly significant in determining a per- son’s standing in society. On this point he agreed with Marx. But, added Weber, ownership is not the only significant aspect of property. For example, some pow- erful people, such as managers of corporations, control the means of production even though they do not own them. If managers can control property for their own benefit—awarding themselves huge bonuses and magnificent perks—it makes no practical difference that they do not own the property that they use so generously for their own benefit.

Power, the second element of social class, is the ability to control others, even over their objections. Weber agreed with Marx that property is a major source of power, but he added that it is not the only source. For example, prestige can be turned into power. Two well-known examples are actors Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became governor of California, and Ronald Reagan, who was elected governor of California and presi- dent of the United States. Figure 9.2 shows how property, power, and prestige are inter- related.

Prestige, the third element in Weber’s analysis, is often derived from property and power, since people tend to admire the wealthy and powerful. Prestige, however, can be based on other factors. Olympic gold medalists, for example, might not own property or be powerful, yet they have high prestige. Some are even able to exchange their prestige for property—such as those who are paid a small fortune for endorsing a certain brand of sportswear or for claiming that they start their day with “the breakfast of champions.” In other words, property and prestige are not one-way streets: Although property can bring prestige, prestige can also bring property.

in Sum For Marx, the only distinction that counted was property, more specifically people’s relationship to the means of production. People are either owners or workers, which sets them on contrasting paths in life. Their path determines their lifestyle and shapes their orientations to life. Weber, in contrast, argued that social class has three com- ponents—a combination of property, power, and prestige.

Figure 9.2  Weber’s Three Components of Social Class

(Warren Buffet; the wealthy in general)

(Olympic gold medalists who

endorse products)

(Abe Lincoln; Barack Obama)

(the wealthy men who become

presidents)

Property

Power Prestige

(Ronald Reagan; Arnold

Schwarzenegger)

Prestige

Power Property

(crooked politicians)

Power

Property Prestige

Prestige can sometimes be converted into property. Shown here is supermodel Rosie Huntington-Whiteley doing this as she launches her new perfume.

SOurCe: By the author.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 239 11/19/15 8:24 AM

240 Chapter 9

Why Is Social Stratification Universal? 9.3 Contrast the functional and conflict views of why social stratification is

universal.

What is it about social life that makes all societies stratified? We will first consider the explanation proposed by functionalists, which has aroused much controversy in sociol- ogy, and then explanations proposed by conflict theorists.

The Functionalist View: Motivating Qualified People Functionalists take the position that the patterns of behavior that characterize a society exist because they are functional for that society. Because social inequality is universal, inequality must help societies survive. But how?

daviS and moore’S explanation Two functionalists, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945, 1953), wrestled with this question. They concluded that stratifica- tion of society is inevitable because:

1. For society to function, its positions must be filled.

2. Some positions are more important than others.

3. The more important positions must be filled by the more qualified people.

4. To motivate the more qualified people to fill these positions, they must offer greater rewards.

To flesh out this functionalist argument, consider college presidents and mili- tary generals. The position of college president is more important than that of student because the president’s decisions affect a large number of people, including many stu- dents. College presidents are also accountable for their performance to boards of trust- ees. It is the same with generals. Their decisions affect many people and sometimes even determine life and death. Generals are accountable to superior generals and to the coun- try’s leader.

Why do people accept demanding, high-pressure positions? Why don’t they just take easier jobs? The answer, said Davis and Moore, is that these positions offer greater rewards—more prestige, pay, and benefits. To get highly qualified people to compete with one another, some positions offer a salary of $5 million a year, country club mem- bership, a private jet and pilot, and a chauffeured limousine. For less demanding posi- tions, a $40,000 salary without fringe benefits is enough to get hundreds of people to compete. If a job requires rigorous training, it, too, must offer more salary and benefits. If you can get the same pay with a high school diploma, why suffer through the many tests and term papers that college requires?

tumin’S Critique of daviS and moore Davis and Moore did not attempt to justify social inequality. There were simply trying to explain why social stratification is universal. Nevertheless, their view makes many sociologists uncomfortable, because they see it as coming close to justifying the inequalities in society. Its bottom line seems to be: The people who contribute more to society are paid more, while those who contribute less are paid less.

Melvin Tumin (1953) was the first sociologist to point out what he saw as major flaws in the functionalist position. Here are three of his arguments.

First, how do we know that the positions that offer the higher rewards are more important? A heart surgeon, for example, saves lives and earns much more than a gar- bage collector, but this doesn’t mean that garbage collectors are less important to society. By helping to prevent contagious diseases, garbage collectors save more lives than heart surgeons do. We need independent methods of measuring importance, and we don’t have them.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 240 11/19/15 8:24 AM

Global Stratification 241

Second, if stratification worked as Davis and Moore described it, society would be a meritocracy; that is, positions would be awarded on the basis of merit. But is this what we have? The best predictor of who goes to col- lege, for example, is not ability but income: The more a family earns, the more likely their children are to go to college (Bailey and Dynarski 2011). Not merit, then, but money—another form of the inequality that is built into society. In short, people’s positions in society are based on many factors other than merit.

Third, if social stratification is so functional, it ought to benefit almost everyone. Yet social stratification is dysfunctional for many. Think of the people who could have made valuable contributions to society had they not been born in slums, dropped out of school, and taken menial jobs to help support their families. Then there are the many who, born female, are assigned “women’s work,” thus ensuring that they do not maximize their mental abilities.

in Sum Functionalists argue that some positions are more im- portant to society than others. Offering higher rewards for these po- sitions motivates more talented people to take them. For example, to get highly talented people to become surgeons—to undergo years of rigorous training and then cope with life-and-death situations, as well as malpractice suits—that position must provide a high payoff.

Next, let’s see how conflict theorists explain why social stratification is universal. Before we do, look at Table 9.2 which compares the functionalist and conflict views.

Table 9.2 Functionalist and Conflict Views of Stratification: The Distribution of Society’s Resources

Who receives the Most resources?

Who receives the Least resources?

The Functionalist View Those who perform the more important functions (the more capable and more industrious)

Those who perform the less important functions (the less capable and less industrious)

The Conflict View Those who occupy the more powerful positions

Those who occupy the less powerful positions

SOurCe: By the author.

To determine the social class of athletes as highly successful as the Williams sisters presents a sociological puzzle. With their high prestige and growing wealth, what do you think their social class is? Why?

The Conflict Perspective: Class Conflict and Scarce Resources Conflict theorists don’t just criticize details of the functionalist argument. Rather, they go for the throat and attack its basic premise. Conflict, not function, they stress, is the reason that we have social stratification. Let’s look at the major arguments.

moSCa’S argument Italian sociologist Gaetano Mosca argued that every society will be stratified by power. This is inevitable, he said in an 1896 book titled The Ruling Class, because:

1. No society can exist unless it is organized. This requires leadership to coordinate people’s actions.

2. Leadership requires inequalities of power. By definition, some people lead, while others follow.

3. Because human nature is self-centered, people in power will use their positions to seize greater rewards for themselves.

meritocracy a form of social stratification in which all positions are awarded on the basis of merit

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 241 11/19/15 8:24 AM

242 Chapter 9

There is no way around these facts of life, added Mosca. Social stratification is inevi- table, and every society will stratify itself along lines of power.

marx’S argument If he were alive to hear the functionalist argument, Karl Marx would be enraged. From his point of view, the people in power are not there because of superior traits, as the functionalists would have us believe. This view is an ideology that members of the elite use to justify their being at the top—and to seduce the oppressed into believing that their welfare depends on keeping quiet and following authorities. What is human history, Marx asked, except the chronicle of class struggle? All of human history is an account of small groups of people in power using society’s resources to ben- efit themselves and to oppress those beneath them—and of oppressed groups trying to overcome that domination.

Marx predicted that the workers will revolt. Capitalist ideology now blinds them, but one day, class consciousness will rip that blindfold off and expose the truth. When workers realize their common oppression, they will rebel. The struggle to control the means of production may be covert at first, taking such forms as work slowdowns and industrial sabotage. Ultimately, however, resistance will break out into the open. But the revolution will not be easy, since the bourgeoisie control the police, the military, and even the educational system, where they implant false class consciousness in the minds of the workers’ children.

Current appliCationS of ConfliCt theory Just as Marx focused on over- arching historical events—the accumulation of capital and power and the struggle between workers and capitalists—so do some of today’s conflict sociologists. In analyz- ing global stratification and global capitalism, they look at power relations among na- tions, how national elites control workers, and how power shifts as capital is shuffled among nations (Jessop 2010; Sprague 2012).

Other conflict sociologists, in contrast, examine conflict wherever it is found, not just as it relates to capitalists and workers. They examine how groups within the same class compete with one another for a larger slice of the pie (Collins 1999; King et al. 2010). Even within the same industry, for example, union will fight against union for higher salaries, shorter hours, and more power. Another focus of conflict theorists is conflict between racial–ethnic groups as they compete for education, housing, and even prestige—whatever rewards society has to offer. They also study the relations between women and men, which conflict theorists say are best understood as a conflict over power—over who controls society’s resources. Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists say that just beneath the surface of what may appear to be a tranquil society lies conflict that is barely held in check.

Lenski’s Synthesis As you can see, functionalist and conflict theorists disagree sharply. Is it possible to reconcile their views? Sociologist Gerhard Lenski (1966) thought so. He suggested that surplus is the key. He said that the functionalists are right when it comes to groups that don’t accumulate a surplus, such as hunting and gathering societies. These societies give a greater share of their resources to those who take on important tasks, such as warriors who risk their lives in battle. It is a different story, said Lenski, with societies that accumu- late surpluses. In them, groups fight over the surplus, and the group that wins becomes an elite. This dominant group rules from the top, controlling the groups below it. In the resulting system of social stratification, where you are born in that society, not personal merit, is what counts.

in Sum Conflict theorists stress that in every society, groups struggle with one another to gain a larger share of their society’s resources. Whenever a group gains power, it uses that power to extract what it can from the groups beneath it. This elite group also uses the social institutions to keep itself in power.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 242 11/19/15 8:24 AM

Global Stratification 243

How Do Elites Maintain Stratification? 9.4 discuss the ways that elites keep themselves in power.

Suppose that you are part of the ruling elite of your society. You want to make sure that you and your family and friends are going to be able to keep your privileged position for the next generation. How will you accomplish this?

You might think about passing laws and using the police and the military. After all, you are a member of the ruling elite, so you have this power. You could use force, but this can lead to resentment and rebellion. It is more effective to control people’s ideas, infor- mation, and technology—which is just what the elite try to do. Let’s look at some of their techniques.

Soft Control Versus Force Let’s start with medieval Europe, where we find an excellent example of “soft” con- trol. At that time, land was the primary source of wealth—and only the nobility and the church could own land. Almost everyone was a peasant (a serf) who worked for these powerful landowners. The peasants farmed the land, took care of the livestock, and built the roads and bridges. Each year, they had to turn over a designated portion of their crops to their feudal lord. Year after year, for centuries, they did so. Why?

Controlling people’S ideaS Why didn’t the peasants rebel and take over the land themselves? There were many reasons, not the least of which was that the nobility and church controlled the army. Coercion, however, goes only so far, because it breeds hostility and nourishes rebellion. How much more effective it is to get the masses to want to do what the ruling elite desires. This is where ideology (beliefs that justify the way things are) comes into play, and the nobility and clergy used it to great effect. They developed an ideology known as the divine right of kings—the idea that the king’s authority comes directly from God. The king dele- gates authority to nobles, who, as God’s representatives, must be obeyed. To disobey is to sin against God; to rebel is to merit physical punishment on earth and eternal suffering in hell.

Controlling people’s ideas can be remarkably more effective than using brute force. Although this particular ideology governs few minds today, the elite in every society uses ideology to justify its position at the top. For example, around the world, schools teach that their country’s form of government—no matter what form of government it has— is good. Religious leaders teach that we owe obedience to authority, that laws are to be obeyed. To the degree that their ideologies are accepted by the masses, the elite remains securely in power.

Ideology is so powerful that it even sets limits on the elite. Although leaders use ideas to control people, the people can also insist that their leaders conform to those same ideas. Pakistan is an outstanding exam- ple. If Pakistani leaders depart from funda- mentalist Islamic ideology, their position is in jeopardy. For example, regardless of their personal views, Pakistani leaders cannot support Western ideas of morality. If they were to allow women to wear short skirts in public, for example, not only would they lose their positions of leadership but perhaps also

divine right of kings the idea that the king’s authority comes from God; in an interesting gender bender, also applies to queens

Louis IV as he is crowned the Holy Roman Emperor in 1328 in Rome.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 243 11/19/15 8:24 AM

244 Chapter 9

their lives. To protect their position within a system of stratification, leaders, regardless of their personal opinions, must also conform at least outwardly to the controlling ideas.

Controlling information To maintain their power, elites try to control infor- mation. Chinese leaders have put tight controls on Internet cafes and search engines, and they block access to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (Makinen 2014). For watching a Jackie Chan movie, North Koreans can be sentenced to six months of backbreaking work in a labor camp (LaFraniere 2010). Lacking such power in democracies, the ruling elites rely on covert means. A favorite tactic of U.S. presidents is to withhold information “in the interest of national security,” a phrase that usually translates as “in the interest of protecting me.”

Stifling CritiCiSm Like the rest of us, the power elite doesn’t like to be criticized. But unlike the rest of us, they have the power to do something about it. Fear is a favorite tactic. In Thailand, you can be put in prison for criticizing the king or his family (Hook- way 2013). Poetry is dangerous, too. Judges in Qatar sentenced a poet to life in prison because one of his poems criticized “the ruling family” (Delmar-Morgan 2012). It can be worse. In Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the penalty for telling a joke about Hussein was having your tongue cut out (Nordland 2003).

In a democracy, the control of critics takes a milder form. When the U.S. Defense Department found out that an author had criticized its handling of 9/11, it bought and destroyed 9,500 copies of his book (Thompson 2010).

Big Brother teChnology The new technology allows the elite to monitor citizens without anyone knowing they are being watched. Drones silently patrol the skies. The Picosecond laser scanner, able to read molecules, can sense from 150 feet away if you have gunpowder residue on your body, as well as report your adrena- line level (Compton 2012). Software programs can read the entire contents of a com- puter in a second—and not leave a trace. Security cameras—“Tiny Brothers”—have sprouted almost everywhere. The FBI is digitizing faces so its face-recognition system can scan crowds and instantly match those faces with its files (Brandom 2014). Eventu- ally the facial image of every citizen will be in their files. Dictators have few checks on how they use this technology, but democracies do have some, such as requiring court orders for search and seizure. Such restraints on power frustrate officials, so they are delighted with our new Homeland Security laws that allow them to spy on citizens without their knowledge.

Just as with ideology, the new technology is a two-edged sword. It gives the elite powerful tools for monitoring citizens, but it also makes it difficult for the elite to con- trol information. With international borders meaning nothing to the Internet, it takes but seconds for e-mail, tweets, and photos to fly around the globe. Encryption also frus- trates governments and excites privacy advocates. Silent Circle shreds files into thou- sands of pieces as they are sent to the cloud. Only the recipient has the key, which is deleted automatically after a file is downloaded (Gallagher 2013). Governments have not been able to break Silent Circle, PGP (Pretty Good Privacy, a free code), or Signal, which scrambles messages until they reach the intended reader (Yadron 2015). The FBI became upset when Google and Apple added encryption to their mobile platforms (Nichols 2014). We will see how long these companies resist governmental pressure.

in Sum To maintain stratification, the elite tries to dominate its society’s institu- tions. In a dictatorship, the elite makes the laws. In a democracy, the elite influences the laws. In both, the elite controls the police and military and can give orders to crush a rebellion—or to run the post office or air traffic control if workers strike. With force hav- ing its limits, especially the potential of provoking resistance, most power elites prefer to keep themselves in power by peaceful means, especially by influencing the thinking of their people.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 244 11/19/15 8:24 AM

Global Stratification 245

Comparative Social Stratification 9.5 Contrast social stratification in great Britain and the former Soviet union.

Now that we have examined systems of social stratification, considered why stratifica- tion is universal, and looked at how elites keep themselves in power, let’s compare social stratification in Great Britain and in the former Soviet Union. In the next chapter, we’ll look at social stratification in the United States.

Social Stratification in Great Britain Great Britain is often called England by Americans, but England is only one of the countries that make up the island of Great Britain. The others are Scotland and Wales. In addition, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Like other industrialized countries, Great Britain has a class system that can be divided into lower, middle, and upper classes. Great Britain’s population is about evenly divided between the middle class and the lower (or working) class. A tiny upper class— wealthy, powerful, and highly educated—makes up perhaps 1 percent of the population.

Compared with Americans, the British are very class conscious (Lyall 2013). Like Americans, they recognize class distinctions on the basis of the type of car a person drives or the stores someone patronizes. But the most striking characteristics of the British class system are language and education. Because these often show up in distinctive speech, accent has a powerful impact on British life. Accent almost always betrays class. As soon as someone speaks, the listener is aware of that person’s social class—and treats him or her accordingly (Sullivan 1998).

Education is the primary way by which the British perpetuate their class system from one generation to the next (Lindley and Machin 2013). Almost all children go to neighborhood schools. Great Britain’s richest 5 percent, however—who own half the nation’s wealth—send their children to exclusive private boarding schools. There the children of the elite are trained in subjects that are considered “proper” for members of the ruling class. An astounding 50 percent of the students at Oxford and Cambridge, the country’s most elite universities, come from this 5 percent of the population. So do half of the prime minister’s cabinet (Neil 2011). To illustrate how powerfully stratified education affects the national life of Great Britain, sociologist Ian Robertson (1987) said,

Eighteen former pupils of the most exclusive of [England’s high schools], Eton, have become prime minister. Imagine the chances of a single American high school producing eighteen presidents!

Social Stratification in the Former Soviet Union Heeding Karl Marx’s call for a classless society, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870–1924) and Leon Trotsky (1879–1940) led a revolution in Russia in 1917. They, and the nations that followed their banner, never claimed to have achieved the ideal of communism, in which all contribute their labor to the common good and receive according to their needs. Instead, they used the term socialism to describe the intermediate step between capitalism and communism, in which social classes are abolished but some inequality remains.

To tweak the nose of Uncle Sam, the socialist countries would trumpet their equality and point a finger at glaring inequalities in the United States. These countries, however, also were marked by huge disparities in privilege. Their major basis of stratification was membership in the Communist party. Party members decided who would gain admission to the better schools or obtain the more desirable jobs and housing. The equally qualified son or daughter of parents who were not members of the Communist Party would be turned down, since such privileges came with demonstrated loyalty to the party.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 245 11/19/15 8:24 AM

246 Chapter 9

The Communist party, too, was highly stratified. Most members occupied a low level, where they fulfilled such tasks as spying on fellow workers. For this, they might get easier jobs in the factory or occasional access to special stores to purchase hard-to- find goods. The middle level consisted of bureaucrats who were given better than aver- age access to resources and privileges. At the top level was a small elite: party members who enjoyed not only power but also limousines, imported delicacies, vacation homes, and even servants and hunting lodges. As with other stratification systems around the world, women held lower positions in the party. This was evident at each year’s May Day, when the top members of the party reviewed the latest weapons paraded in Mos- cow’s Red Square. Photos of these events show only men.

The leaders of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) became frustrated as they saw the West thrive. They struggled with a bloated bureaucracy, the inefficiencies of central planning, workers who did the minimum because they could not be fired, and a military so costly that it spent one of every eight of the nation’s rubles (Statistical Abstract 1993:1432, table dropped in later editions). Socialist ideology did not call for their citizens to be deprived, and, in an attempt to turn things around, the Soviet leadership allowed elections to be held in which more than one candidate ran for an office. (Before this, vot- ers had a choice of only one candidate per office.) They also sold huge chunks of state- owned businesses to the public. Overnight, making investments to try to turn a profit changed from a crime into a respectable goal.

Russia’s transition to capitalism took a bizarre twist. As authority broke down, powerful mafias emerged (Ahmari 2014). These criminal groups are headed by gang- sters, crooked businessmen, and corrupt government officials (including members of the Russian secret police, the FSB). They assassinate business leaders, reporters, and politi- cians who refuse to cooperate. They launder money through banks they control and buy luxury properties in popular tourist areas in Europe and Asia. A favorite is Marbella, a watering and wintering spot on Spain’s Costa del Sol.

As Moscow reestablished its authority, its criminal ties brought wealth to some members of the government (Dawisha 2014). This group of organized criminals is taking its place as part of Russia’s new capitalist class.

Global Stratification: Three Worlds 9.6 Compare the three worlds of global stratification: the most industrialized

nations, the industrializing nations, and the least industrialized nations.

Let’s start this section a little differently. The Down-to-Earth Sociology box that follows should get you thinking.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Inequality? What Inequality? There is a lot of talk about social inequality. Like so many things, maybe it’s overblown.

There are differences among us, of course. Some people do have newer cars than others. Some do have bigger houses, better clothing, and more expensive foods and drinks. We all know this.

So there are a few differences among us. But why the concern? Is this perhaps just a little rabble-rousing by a few radical sociologists and some other troublemakers?

Well, let’s see. To be logical, perhaps even a bit scientific, we probably should start out by determining if

there really is inequality. How can we do this? With all the statistical techniques available to us, things quickly could become mind-boggling. There must be a simpler way of doing this.

And there is. It turns out that the 85 richest people in the world own as much of the world’s wealth as the bottom half of the entire world’s population (Hardoon 2015).

Let’s see. If eighty-five people have as much as three and a half billion people, then . . .

Hmm. Maybe there is inequality.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 246 11/19/15 8:24 AM

Global Stratification 247

the proBlem with termS As was noted at the beginning of this chapter, just as the people within a nation are stratified by property, power, and prestige, so are the world’s nations. Until recently, a simple model consisting of First, Second, and Third Worlds was used to depict global stratification. First World referred to the industrialized capitalist na- tions, Second World to the communist (or socialist) countries, and Third World to any na- tion that did not fit into the first two categories. The breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989 made these terms outdated. In addition, although first, second, and third did not mean “best,” “better,” and “worst,” they implied it. An alternative classification that some now use—developed, developing, and undeveloped nations—has the same drawback. By calling ourselves “developed,” it sounds as though we are mature and the “undevel- oped” nations are backward.

To resolve this problem, I use more neutral, descriptive terms: Most Industrialized, Industrializing, and Least Industrialized nations. We can measure industrialization with no judgment implied as to whether a nation’s industrialization represents “development,” ranks it “first,” or is even desirable at all. The intention is to depict on a global level the three primary dimensions of social stratification: property, power, and prestige. The Most Industrialized Nations have much greater property (wealth), power (they usually get their way in international relations), and prestige (they are looked up to as world leaders).

As you read this analysis, don’t forget the sociological significance of the stratifica- tion of nations, its far-reaching effects on people’s lives, as illustrated by the two families sketched in our opening vignette.

The Most Industrialized Nations The Most Industrialized Nations are the United States and Canada in North America; Great Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the other industrialized countries of western Europe; Japan in Asia; and Australia and New Zealand in the area of the world known as Oceania. Although there are variations in their economic systems, these coun- tries are capitalistic. As Table 9.3 shows, although these nations have only 16 percent of the world’s people, they possess 31 percent of the Earth’s land. Their wealth is so enor- mous that even their poor live better and longer lives than do the average citizens of the Least Industrialized Nations. The Social Map on the next two pages shows the tremen- dous disparities in income among the world’s nations.

Table 9.3 Distribution of the World’s Land and Population

Land Population

Most Industrialized Nations 31% 16%

Industrializing Nations 20% 16%

Least Industrialized Nations 49% 68%

SOurCeS: By the author. Computed from Kurian 1990, 1991, 1992.

Ah, maybe not. Perhaps this is just the normal state of affairs of the world, just another fact like there are more cats than dogs in the world, or more mice than elephants.

Or perhaps this indicates that something is out of kilter in the world, an imbalance that doesn’t seem quite right.

Hmm. Could be.

For Your Consideration → I don’t mean to skew this box too much in one direction. Or

maybe I just sort of can’t help it. This is perhaps one of the most mind-boggling statistics you will ever come across in your life, and I feel compelled to tell you about it. Anyway, what do you think?

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 247 11/19/15 8:24 AM

248 Chapter 9

Figure 9.3  Global Stratification: Income of the World’s Nations

The Most Industrialized Nations

Nation Income per

Person Luxembourg Singapore Norway Switzerland United States Hong Kong Netherlands Canada Australia Austria Sweden Iceland Taiwan Germany Greenland Belgium Denmark United Kingdom Japan Israel Finland France Korea, South New Zealand Italy Slovenia Czech Republic

$77,900 $62,400 $55,400 $54,800 $52,800 $52,700 $43,300 $43,100 $43,000 $42,600 $40,900 $40,700 $39,600 $39,500 $38,400 $37,800 $37,800 $37,300 $37,100 $36,200 $35,900 $35,700 $33,200 $30,400 $29,600 $27,400 $26,300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

8

36

15

39

41

12

46

5051

52

54

Ireland Spain Slovakia Greece Portugal Lithuania Estonia Poland Trinidad Hungary Gabon Chile Latvia Argentina Russia Croatia Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Turkey Bulgaria Romania Venezuela Costa Rica Brazil South Africa Cuba China

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

$41,300 $30,100 $24,700 $23,600 $22,900 $22,600 $22,400 $21,100 $20,300 $19,800 $19,200 $19,100 $19,100 $18,600 $18,100 $17,800 $17,500 $16,100 $15,600 $15,300 $14,400 $14,400 $13,600 $12,900 $12,100 $11,500 $10,200 $9,800

The Industrializing Nations

Nation Income per

Person

56

57 6263

64

5

71

73

68

74

75

79

82

The Least Industrialized Nations

Nation Income per

Person

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Uruguay Panama Botswana Belarus Lebanon Kazakhstan Suriname Colombia Peru Azerbaijan Macedonia Albania Ecuador Thailand Tunisia Dominican Republic

$16,600 $16,500 $16,400 $16,100 $15,800 $14,100 $12,900 $11,100 $11,100 $10,800 $10,800 $10,700 $10,600

$9,900 $9,900 $9,700

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Turkmenistan Jamaica Belize Guyana Bosnia Namibia Algeria El Salvador Ukraine Bhutan Paraguay Egypt Sri Lanka Angola Armenia Georgia Jordan

$9,700 $9,000 $8,800 $8,500 $8,300 $8,200 $7,500 $7,500 $7,400 $7,000 $6,800 $6,500 $6,500 $6,300 $6,300 $6,100 $6,100

Nation Income per

Person

93

91

96 98

136

SOurCe: By the author. Based on CIA World Factbook 2014.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 248 11/19/15 8:24 AM

Global Stratification 249

Figure 9.3  (Continued)

The Least Industrialized Nations

Nation Income per

Person Nation Income per

Person Nation Income per

Person Nation Income per

Person

89 Mongolia $5,900 90 Swaziland $5,700 91 Bolivia $5,500 92 Morocco $5,500 93 Guatemala $5,300 94 Syria $5,100 95 Congo $4,800 96 Honduras $4,800 97 Philippines $4,700 98 Nicaragua $4,500 99 India $4,000 100 Indonesia $4,000 101 Vietnam $4,000 102 Moldova $3,800 103 Uzbekistan $3,800 104 Ghana $3,500 105 Laos $3,100

138 Guinea-Bissau $1,200 139 Mozambique $1,200 140 Afghanistan $1,100 141 Guinea $1,100 142 Madagascar $1,100 143 Mali $1,100 144 Togo $1,000 145 Malawi $900 146 Niger $800 147 Central African $700 Republic 148 Burundi $600 149 Somalia $600 150 Zimbabwe $600 151 Congo, Dem. $400 Rep.

The Oil-Rich Nations

Nation Income per

Person

106 Pakistan $3,100 107 Papua-New $2,900 Guinea 108 Nigeria $2,800 109 Djibouti $2,700 110 Cambodia $2,600 111 Sudan $2,600 112 Chad $2,500 113 Kyrgyzstan $2,500 114 Western Sahara $2,500 115 Yemen $2,500 116 Cameroon $2,400 117 Tajikistan $2,300 118 Lesotho $2,200 119 Mauritania $2,200 120 Bangladesh $2,100 121 Senegal $2,100

122 Gambia $2,000 123 Cote d'Ivoire $1,800 124 Kenya $1,800 125 Korea, North $1,800 126 Zambia $1,800 127 Burma $1,700 (Myanmar) 128 Tanzania $1,700 129 Benin $1,600 130 Burkina Faso $1,500 131 Nepal $1,500 132 Rwanda $1,500 133 Uganda $1,500 134 Sierra Leone $1,400 135 Ethiopia $1,300 136 Haiti $1,300 137 Eritrea $1,200

152 Qatar $102,100 153 Kuwait $42,100 154 Saudi Arabia $31,300 155 United Arab $29,900 Emirates 156 Bahrain $29,800 157 Oman $29,800 158 Equatorial $25,700 Guinea 159 Iran $12,800 160 Iraq $7,100

1

4

3

16

17

10

728 14

21

22

11

18

25 2932 31

27 35

33

34

26

20

13 6

23

2

9

12

38

42

43

44

45

47

48

49

53

55

40

30

24

19

58

59

60

61

65 66

69

70

72

76

67

77

80

78 83 81

85

84

88

87 86

89

92

90

94

100 95

37

97

99

102

103

101

104

105

106

109 108

107

110

113

111

116

117

115

119

114

120

112

118

122 121

124

125

129 123

128

126

130

127

132

134

133

131

135

139

141 149138

143

144

140

142

145

146

147

137

148

150

151

152 155

153

157

156

154

158

159160

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 249 11/19/15 8:24 AM

250 Chapter 9

The Industrializing Nations The Industrializing Nations include most of the nations of the former Soviet Union and its former satellites in eastern Europe. As Table 9.3 on page 247 shows, these nations account for 20 percent of the Earth’s land and 16 percent of its people.

The dividing points between the three “worlds” are soft, making it difficult to know how to classify some nations. This is especially the case with the Industrializing Nations. Exactly how much industrialization must a nation have to be in this category? Although soft, these categories do pinpoint essential differences among nations. Most people who live in the Industrializing Nations have much lower incomes and standards of living than do those who live in the Most Industrialized Nations. The majority, however, are better off than those who live in the Least Industrialized Nations. For example, on such mea- sures as access to electricity, indoor plumbing, automobiles, telephones, and even food, most citizens of the Industrializing Nations rank lower than those in the Most Industrial- ized Nations but higher than those in the Least Industrialized Nations. As you saw in the opening vignette, stratification affects even life expectancy.

The benefits of industrialization are uneven. Large numbers of people in the Indus- trializing Nations remain illiterate and desperately poor. Conditions can be gruesome, as we explore in the following Thinking Critically section.

Thinking Critically Open Season: Children as Prey What is childhood like in the Industrializing Nations?

The answer depends on who your parents are. If you are the son or daughter of rich parents, childhood can be pleasant—a world filled with luxuries and servants. If you are born into poverty but live in a rural area where there is plenty to eat, life can still be good—although there may be no books, television, and little education. If you live in a slum, however, life can be horrible—worse even than in the slums of the Most Industrialized Nations (Lyons 2013). Let’s take a glance at a notorious slum in Brazil.

Not enough food—this you can take for granted—along with wife abuse, broken homes, alcoholism, drug abuse, and a lot of crime: From your knowledge of slums in the Most Industrialized Nations, you would expect these things. What you may not expect, however, are the brutal conditions in which Brazilian slum (favela) children live.

Sociologist Martha Huggins (Huggins et al. 2002) reports that poverty is so deep that children and adults swarm through garbage dumps to try to find enough decaying food to keep them alive. You might also be surprised to discover that the owners

of some of these dumps hire armed guards to keep the poor out—so that they can sell the garbage for pig food. And you might be shocked to learn that some shop owners hire hit men, auctioning designated victims to the lowest bidder!

Life is cheap in the poor nations—but death squads for children? To understand this, we must first note that Brazil has a long history of violence. Brazil also has a high rate of poverty, has only a tiny middle class, and is controlled by a small group of families who, under a veneer of democracy, make the country’s major decisions. Hordes of homeless children, with no schools or jobs, roam the streets. To survive, they wash windshields, shine shoes, beg, and steal (Rosenblatt 2012).

The “respectable” classes see these children as nothing but trouble. They hurt business: Customers feel intimidated when they see begging children— especially teenaged boys— clustered in front of stores. Some shoplift. Others break into stores. With no effective social institutions to care for these children, one solution is to kill them. As Huggins notes, murder sends a clear message—especially if it is accompanied by ritual torture: gouging out the Early morning in a favela in Sao Paolo, Brazil.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 250 11/19/15 8:24 AM

Global Stratification 251

The Least Industrialized Nations In the Least Industrialized Nations, most people live on small farms or in villages, have large families, and barely survive. These nations account for 68 percent of the world’s people but only 49 percent of the Earth’s land.

Poverty plagues these nations to such an extent that some families actually live in city dumps. This is hard to believe, but look at the photos on the next two pages, which I took in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia. Although wealthy nations have their pockets of poverty, most people in the Least Industrialized nations are poor. Most of them have no running water, indoor plumbing, or access to trained teachers or doctors. As we will review in Chapter 20, most of the world’s population growth occurs in these nations, placing even greater burdens on their limited resources and causing them to fall farther behind each year.

Modifying the Model To classify countries into Most Industrialized, Industrializing, and Least Industrialized is helpful in that it pinpoints significant similarities and differences among groups of nations. But then there are the oil-rich nations of the Middle East, those that provide much of the gasoline that fuels the machinery of the Most Industrialized Nations. Although these nations are not industrialized, some are immensely wealthy. To classify them simply as Least Industrialized would gloss over significant distinctions, such as their modern hospitals, extensive prenatal care, desalinization plants, abundant food and shelter, high literacy, and computerized banking. On the Social Map on page 249, I classify them separately. Table 9.4 also reflects this distinction.

eyes, ripping open the chest, cutting off the genitals, raping the girls, and burning the victim’s body.

Not all life is bad in the Industrializing Nations, but this is about as bad as it gets.

For Your Consideration → Do you think there is anything the Most Industrialized

Nations can do about this situation? Or is it, though

unfortunate, just an “internal” affair that is up to Brazil to handle as it wishes?

→ Directed by the police, death squads in Brazil also assassinate criminals, while in the Philippine slums they kill rapists and drug dealers (“You Can Die Anytime” 2009; Lyons 2014). What do you think about this?

Table 9.4 An Alternative Model of Global Stratification

Four Worlds of Stratification

Most Industrialized Nations

Industrializing Nations

Least Industrialized Nations

Oil-rich, nonindustrialized nations

SOurCe: By the author.

Kuwait is an outstanding example. Kuwait is so wealthy that almost none of its citizens work for a living. The government simply pays them an annual salary just for being citizens. Everyday life in Kuwait still has its share of onerous chores, of course, but migrant workers from the poor nations do most of this work. To run the specialized sys- tems that keep Kuwait’s economy going, Kuwait imports trained workers from the Most Industrialized Nations.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 251 11/19/15 8:24 AM

I did. And there I found

a highly developed soci al

organization—an intrica te

support system. Becau se words are

inadequate to depict th e abject poverty

of the Least Industrializ ed Nations, these

photos can provide more insight into these

people’s lives than anythi ng I could say.

The Dump People: Wor king and Living and Play

ing

in the City Dump of Ph nom Penh, Cambodia

I went to Cambodia to in spect orphan-

ages, to see how well the c hildren are being

cared for. While in Phnom Penh, Cambodia’s

capital, I was told about p eople who live in the

city dump. Live there? I co uld hardly believe

my ears. I knew that peopl e made their living

by picking scraps from the city dump, but I

didn’t know they actually l ived among the

garbage. This I had to see for myself.

This is a typical sight—family and friends working together. The trash, which is constantly burning, contains harmful chemicals. Why do people work under such conditions? Because they have few options. It is either this or starve.

After the garbage arrives by truck, people stream around it,

struggling to be the first to discover something o f value. To sift

through the trash, the workers use metal picks, like the one this

child is holding. Note that children work alongs ide the adults.

The children who live in the dump also play there. These children are riding bicycles on a “road,” a packed, leveled area of garbage that leads to their huts. The huge stacks in the background are piled trash. Note the ubiquitous Nike.

© James M. Henslin, all photos

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 252 11/19/15 8:24 AM

One of my many surprises was to find food stands in the dump. Although this one primarily offers drinks and snacks, others serve more substantial food. One even has broken chairs salvaged from the dump for its customers.

The people live at the edge of the dump, in homemade huts (visible in the background). This woman, who was on her way home after a day’s work, put down her sack of salvaged items to let me take her picture. She still has her pick in her hand.

At the day’s end, the workers wash at the community pump. This hand pump serves all their water needs—drinking, washing, and cooking. There is no indoor plumbing. The weeds in the background serve that purpose. Can you imagine drinking water that comes from below this garbage dump?

Not too many visitors to Phnom Penh tell a cab driver to take them to the city dump. The cabbie looked a bit perplexed, but he did as I asked. Two cabs are shown here because my friends insisted on accompanying me. I know my friends were curious themselves, but they had also discovered that the destinations I want to visit are usually not in the tourist guides, and they wanted to protect me.Note the smoke from the smoldering garbage.

I was surprised to learn th at ice

is delivered to the dump. This

woman is using a hand gr inder

to crush ice for drinks for her

customers. The customers , of

course, are other people w ho

also live in the dump.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 253 11/19/15 8:24 AM

254 Chapter 9

Homeless people sleeping on the streets is a common sight in India’s cities. I took this photo in Chennai (formerly Madras).

How Did the World’s Nations Become Stratified?

9.7 discuss how colonialism and world system theory explain how the world’s nations became stratified.

How did the globe become stratified into such distinct worlds? The commonsense answer is that the poorer nations have fewer resources

than the richer nations. As with many commonsense answers, this one falls short. Many of the Industrializing and Least Industrial- ized Nations are rich in natural resources, while one Most Indus- trialized Nation, Japan, has few. Three theories explain how global stratification came about.

Colonialism The first theory, colonialism, stresses that the countries that

industrialized first got a jump on the rest of the world. Beginning in Great Britain about 1750, industrializa- tion spread throughout western Europe. Plowing some of their profits into powerful armaments and fast ships, these countries invaded weaker nations, making colonies out of them (Harrison 1993; Saikal 2014). After subduing these weaker nations, the more powerful countries left behind a controlling force in order to exploit the nations’ labor and nat- ural resources. At one point, there was even a free- for-all among the industrialized European countries as they rushed to divide up an entire continent. As

they sliced Africa into pieces, even tiny Belgium got into the act and acquired the Congo, which was seventy-five times larger than itself.

The purpose of colonialism was to establish economic colonies—to exploit the nation’s peo- ple and resources for the benefit of the “mother”

country. The more powerful European countries would plant their national flags in a colony and send their representatives to run the government, but the United States usually chose to plant corporate flags in a colony and let these corporations dominate the territory’s government. Central and South America are prime examples. There were exceptions, such as the U.S. army’s conquest of the Philippines, which President McKinley said was motivated by the desire “to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them” (Krugman 2002).

Colonialism, then, shaped many of the Least Industrialized Nations. In some instances, the Most Industrialized Nations were so powerful that when dividing their spoils, they drew lines across a map, creating new states without regard for tribal or cultural considerations (Kifner 1999). Britain and France did just this as they divided up North Africa and parts of the Middle East—which is why the national boundaries of Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other countries are so straight. This legacy of European conquests is a background factor in much of today’s racial–ethnic and tribal violence: By the stroke of a pen, groups with no his- tory of national identity were incorporated within the same political boundaries.

World System Theory The second explanation of how global stratification came about was proposed by Immanuel Wallerstein (1979, 1990, 2011). According to world system theory,

colonialism the process by which one nation takes over another nation, usually for the purpose of exploiting its labor and natural resources

world system theory a theory of how economic and political connections developed and now tie the world’s countries together

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 254 11/19/15 8:24 AM

Global Stratification 255

industrialization led to four groups of nations. The first group consists of the core nations, the countries that industrialized first (Britain, France, Holland, and, later, Germany), which grew rich and powerful. The second group is the semiperiphery. The economies of these nations, located around the Mediterranean, stagnated because they grew dependent on trade with the core nations. The economies of the third group, the periphery, or fringe nations, developed even less. These are the eastern European countries, which sold cash crops to the core nations. The fourth group of nations includes most of Africa and Asia. Called the external area, these nations were left out of the development of capitalism altogether. The current expansion of capitalism has changed the relationships among these groups. Most notably, eastern Europe and Asia are no longer left out of capitalism.

The globalization of capitalism—the adoption of capitalism around the world—has created extensive ties among the world’s nations. Production and trade are now so inter- connected that events around the globe affect us all. Sometimes this is immediate, as hap- pens when a civil war disrupts the flow of oil, or—perish the thought—as would be the case if terrorists managed to get their hands on nuclear or biological weapons. At other times, the effects are like a slow ripple, as when a government adopts some policy that gradually impedes its ability to compete in world markets. All of today’s societies, then, no matter where they are located, are part of a world system.

The interconnections are most evident among nations that do extensive trading with one another. The following Thinking Critically section explores implications of Mexico’s maquiladoras.

globalization of capitalism capitalism (investing to make profits within a rational system) becoming the globe’s dominant economic system

Thinking Critically When Globalization Comes Home: Maquiladoras South of the Border Two hundred thousand Mexicans rush to Juarez each year, fleeing the hopelessness of the rural areas in pursuit of a better life. They have no running water or plumbing, but they didn’t have any in the country either, and here they have the possibility of a job, a weekly check to buy food for the kids.

The pay is $100 for a 48-hour work week, about $2 an hour (Harris 2008).

This may not sound like much, but it is more than twice the minimum daily wage in Mexico.

Assembly-for-export plants, known as maquiladoras, dot the Mexican border (Archibald 2011). The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) allows U.S. companies to import materials to Mexico without paying tax and then to export the finished products into the United States, again without tax. It’s a sweet deal: few taxes and $8 to $16 a day for workers starved for jobs.

That these workers live in shacks, with no running water or sewage disposal, is not the employers’ concern.

Nor is the pollution. The stinking air doesn’t stay on the Mexican side of the border. Neither does the garbage. Heavy rains wash torrents of untreated sewage and industrial wastes into the Rio Grande (Casey and Watkins 2014).

There is also the loss of jobs for U.S. workers. Six of the fifteen poorest cities in the United States are located along the sewage-infested Rio Grande. NAFTA didn’t bring

poverty to these cities. They were poor before this treaty, but residents resent the transfer of jobs across the border (Thompson 2001).

What if the maquilas (maquiladora workers) organize and demand better pay? Farther south, even cheaper labor beckons. Workers in Guatemala and Honduras, even more desperate than those in Mexico, will gladly take these jobs (Brown 2008). China, too, is competing for them (Utar and Ruiz 2010). And Vietnam and Cambodia are competing for China’s jobs.

Many Mexican politicians would say that this presentation is one-sided. “Sure there are problems,” they would say, “but this is how it always is when a country industrializes. Don’t you realize that the maquiladoras bring jobs to people who have no work? They also bring roads, telephone lines, and electricity to undeveloped areas.” “In fact,” said Vicente Fox, when he was the president of Mexico, “workers at the maquiladoras make more than the average salary in Mexico—and that’s what we call fair wages” (Fraser 2001).

For Your Consideration Let’s apply our three theoretical perspectives. → Some conflict theorists analyze how capitalists try to

weaken the bargaining power of workers by exploiting divisions among them. In what is known as the split labor market, capitalists pit one group of workers against another

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 255 11/19/15 8:24 AM

256 Chapter 9

Culture of Poverty The third explanation of global stratification is quite unlike colonialism and world sys- tem theory. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1979) claimed that the cultures of the Least Industrialized Nations hold them back. Building on the ideas of anthropologist Oscar Lewis (1966a, 1966b), Galbraith argued that some nations are crippled by a culture of poverty, a way of life that perpetuates poverty from one generation to the next. He explained it this way: Most of the world’s poor people are farmers who live on little plots of land. They barely produce enough food to survive. Living on the edge of starvation, they have little room for risk—so they stick to tried-and-true, traditional ways. To experi- ment with new farming techniques is to court disaster, since failure would lead to hunger and death.

Their religion also encourages them to accept their situation. It teaches fatalism, the belief that an individual’s position in life is God’s will. For example, in India, the Dal- its are taught that they must have done very bad things in a previous life to suffer so. They are supposed to submit to their situation, which they deserve—and in the next life, maybe they’ll come back in a more desirable state.

Evaluating the Theories Most sociologists prefer colonialism and world system theory. To them, an explanation based on a culture of poverty places blame on the victim—the poor nations themselves. It points to characteristics of the poor nations, rather than to international political arrangements that benefit the Most Industrialized Nations at the expense of the poor nations. But even taken together, these theories yield only part of the picture. None of these theories, for example, would have led anyone to expect that after World War II, Japan would become an economic powerhouse: Japan had a religion that stressed fatalism, two of its major cities had been destroyed by atomic bombs, and it had been stripped of its colonies.

Each theory, then, yields but a partial explanation, and the grand theorist who will put the many pieces of this puzzle together has yet to appear.

culture of poverty the assumption that the values and behaviors of the poor make them fundamentally different from other people, that these factors are largely responsible for their poverty, and that parents perpetuate poverty across generations by passing these characteristics to their children

to lower the cost of labor. How do you think maquiladoras fit this conflict perspective?

→ When functionalists analyze a situation, they identify its functions and dysfunctions. What functions and dysfunctions of maquiladoras do you see?

→ Symbolic interactionists analyze how people’s experiences shape their views of the world. How would people’s experiences in contrasting social locations lead to different answers to “Do maquiladoras represent exploitation or opportunity?” What multiple realities do you see here?

A maquiladora worker in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. One of 3,000 employees at this cross-border plant.

Inside the home of a maquiladora worker in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 256 11/19/15 8:24 AM

Global Stratification 257

Maintaining Global Stratification 9.8 explain how neocolonialism, multinational corporations, and technology help

to maintain global stratification.

Regardless of how the world’s nations became stratified, why do countries remain rich— or poor—year after year? Let’s look at three explanations of how global stratification is maintained.

Neocolonialism Sociologist Michael Harrington (1977) argued that when colonialism fell out of style, it was replaced by neocolonialism. When World War II changed public sentiment about sending soldiers to conquer weaker countries and colonists to exploit them, the Most Industrialized Nations turned to the international markets as a way of controlling the Least Industrialized Nations. By selling them goods on credit—especially weapons that the local elites desire so they can keep themselves in power—the Most Industrialized Nations entrap the poor nations within a circle of debt.

As many of us learn the hard way, owing a large debt puts us at the mercy of our creditors. So it is with neocolonialism. The policy of selling weapons and other manu- factured goods to the Least Industrialized Nations on credit turns those countries into eternal debtors. The capital they need to develop their own industries goes instead as payments toward the debt, which becomes bloated with mounting interest. Keeping these nations in debt forces them to submit to trading terms dictated by the neocolonial- ists (Carrington 1993; Smith 2001).

relevanCe today Neocolonialism might seem remote from your life, but its heri- tage affects you directly. Consider the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries, our wars in the Persian Gulf, and the terrorism that emanates from this region (Strategic Energy Policy 2001; Mouawad 2007). Although this is an area of ancient civilizations, the countries themselves are recent. Great Britain created Saudi Arabia, drawing its boundaries and even naming the country after the man (Ibn Saud) whom British officials picked to lead it. This created a debt for the Saudi family. For decades, this family repaid its debt by pro- viding low-cost oil, which the Most Industrialized Nations need to maintain their way of life. When other nations pumped less oil—no matter the cause, whether revolution or an attempt to raise prices—the Saudis helped keep prices low by making up the shortfall. In return, the United States (and other nations) overlooked the human rights violations of the Saudi royal family, keeping them in power by selling them the latest weapons. This mutually sycophantic arrangement continues.

Multinational Corporations multinational corporations, companies that operate across many national boundar- ies, also help to maintain the global dominance of the Most Industrialized Nations. In some cases, multinational corporations exploit the Least Industrialized Nations directly. A prime example is the United Fruit Company, a U.S. corporation that used to run Central American nations as its own fiefdoms. The CIA would plot and over- throw elected, but uncooperative, governments (CIA 2003), and an occasional inva- sion by Marines would remind area politicians of the military power that backed U.S. corporations.

Most commonly, however, it is simply by doing business that multinational cor- porations help to maintain international stratification. A single multinational corpo- ration may manage mining operations in several countries, manufacture goods in

neocolonialism the economic and political dominance of the Least Industrialized Nations by the Most Industrialized Nations

multinational corporations companies that operate across national boundaries; also called transnational corporations

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 257 11/19/15 8:24 AM

258 Chapter 9

others, and market its products around the globe. No matter where the profits are made, or where they are reinvested, the primary beneficiaries are the Most Industrial- ized Nations, especially the one in which the multinational corporation has its world headquarters.

Buying politiCal StaBility In their pursuit of profits, the multinational cor- porations need cooperative power elites in the Least Industrialized Nations (Pariza 2011; Sprague 2012). In return for funneling money to the elites and selling them mod- ern weapons, the corporations get a “favorable business climate”—that is, low taxes and cheap labor. The corporations politely call the money they pay to the elites “sub- sidies” and “offsets”—which ring prettier on the ear than “bribes.” Able to siphon money from their country’s tax collections and government budgets, these elites live a sophisticated upper-class life in the major cities of their home country. Although most of the citizens of these countries live a hard-scrabble life, the elites are able to send their children to prestigious Western universities, such as Oxford, the Sorbonne, and Harvard.

You can see how this cozy arrangement helps to maintain global stratification. The significance of these payoffs is not so much the genteel lifestyles that they allow the elites to maintain but the translation of the payoffs into power. They allow the elites to pur- chase high-tech weapons with which they preserve their positions of privilege, even though they must oppress their people to do so. The result is a political stability that keeps alive this diabolical partnership between the multinational corporations and the national elites.

unantiCipated ConSequenCeS This, however, is not the full story. An uninten- tional by-product of the multinationals’ global search for cheap resources and labor is to modify global stratification. When corporations move manufacturing from the Most Industrialized Nations to the Least Industrialized Nations, they not only exploit cheap labor, but they also bring jobs and money to these nations. Although workers in the Least Industrialized Nations are paid a pittance, it is more than they can earn elsewhere. With new factories come opportunities to develop skills, acquire technology, and accumulate a capital base from which local elites can launch their own factories.

The Pacific Rim nations provide a remarkable example. In return for providing the “favorable business climate” just mentioned, multinational corporations invested bil- lions of dollars in the “Asian tigers” (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan). These nations have developed such a strong capital base that, along with China, they have begun to rival the older capitalist countries. This has also made them subject to capitalism’s “boom and bust” cycles. When capitalism suffers a downturn, workers and investors in these nations, including those in the maquiladoras that you just read about, have their dreams smashed.

Technology and Global Domination The race between the Most and Least Industrialized Nations to develop and apply the new technologies might seem like a race between a marathon runner and someone with a broken leg. Can the outcome be in doubt? As the multinational corporations amass profits, they are able to invest huge sums in the latest technology while the Least Indus- trialized Nations are struggling to put scraps on the table.

So it would appear, but the race is not this simple. Although the Most Industrial- ized Nations have a seemingly insurmountable head start, some of the other nations are shortening the distance between themselves and the front-runners. With cheap labor making their manufactured goods inexpensive, China and India are exporting goods on a massive scale. They are using the capital from these exports to buy high technology so they can modernize their infrastructure (transportation, communication, electrical, and

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 258 11/19/15 8:24 AM

Global Stratification 259

banking systems). Although global domination remains in the hands of the West, it could be on the verge of a major shift from West to East.

Strains in the Global System 9.9 identify strains in today’s system of global stratification.

It is never easy to maintain global stratification. At the very least, a continuous stream of unanticipated events forces the elite to stay on their toes, and at times, huge currents of history threaten to sweep them aside. No matter how secure a stratification system may seem, it always contains unresolved matters. These contradictions can be covered up for a while, but inevitably the discontent multiplies and the demand for change grows louder. Some are just little dogs nipping at the heels of the world’s elites, bringing issues that can be resolved with a drone or a few tanks or bombs—or, better, with a scowl and the threat to bomb an opponent. Other issues are of a broader nature, part of huge histor- ical shifts. Baring their teeth, both emerging and old unresolved contradictions snarlingly demand change, even the rearrangement of global power.

Historical shifts bring cataclysmic disruptions. We are now living through such a time. The far-reaching economic–political changes in Russia and China have been accom- panied by huge cracks in a creaking global banking system. In desperation, the global powers have pumped trillions of dollars into their economic–political systems. As curi- ous as we are about the outcome and as much as our welfare is at stake, we don’t know the end point of this current strain in the global system and the power elites’ attempts to patch up the most glaring inconsistencies in their global domination. As this process of realignment continues, however, it is likely to sweep all of us into its unwelcome net.

Systems of Social Stratification 9.1 Compare and contrast slavery (including bonded

labor), caste, estate, and class systems of social stratification.

What is Social Stratification? Social stratification refers to a hierarchy of privilege based on property, power, and prestige. Every society stratifies its members, and in every society, men-as-a-group dominate women-as-a-group.

what are four major systems of social stratification?

Four major stratification systems are slavery, caste, estate, and class. The essential characteristic of slavery is that some people own other people. Initially, slavery was based not on race but on debt, punishment for crime, or defeat in battle. Slavery could be temporary or permanent and was not necessarily passed on to the children. North American slavery was gradually buttressed by a racist ideology. In a caste system, people’s status, which is lifelong, is deter- mined by their caste’s relation to other castes. The estate system of feudal Europe consisted of three estates: the

nobility, clergy, and peasants (serfs). A class system is much more open than these other systems, since it is based pri- marily on money or material possessions. Industrialization encourages the formation of class systems. Gender cuts across all forms of social stratification.

What Determines Social Class? 9.2 Contrast the views of marx and weber on what

determines social class.

Karl Marx argued that a single factor determines social class: If you own the means of production, you belong to the bourgeoisie; if you do not, you are one of the proletariat. Max Weber argued that three elements determine social class: property, power, and prestige.

Why Is Social Stratification Universal? 9.3 Contrast the functional and conflict views of why

social stratification is universal.

To explain why stratification is universal, functionalists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore argued that to attract the most capable people to fill its important positions, society must offer them greater rewards. Melvin Tumin said that

Summary and Review

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 259 11/19/15 8:24 AM

260 Chapter 9

if this view were correct, society would be a meritocracy, with positions awarded on the basis of merit. Gaetano Mosca argued that stratification is inevitable because every society must have leadership, which, by definition, means inequality. Conflict theorists argue that stratification is the outcome of an elite emerging as groups struggle for limited resources. Gerhard Lenski suggested a synthesis between the functionalist and conflict perspectives.

How Do Elites Maintain Stratification? 9.4 discuss the ways that elites keep themselves

in power.

To maintain social stratification within a nation, the ruling class adopts an ideology that justifies its current arrange- ments. It also controls information and uses technology. When all else fails, it turns to brute force.

Comparative Social Stratification 9.5 Contrast social stratification in great Britain and

the former Soviet union.

what are key characteristics of stratification systems in other nations?

The most striking features of the British class system are speech and education. In Britain, accent reveals social class, and almost all of the elite attend private schools. In the for- mer Soviet Union, communism was supposed to abolish class distinctions. Instead, it ushered in a different set of classes.

Global Stratification: Three Worlds 9.6 Compare the three worlds of global stratification:

the most industrialized nations, the industrializing nations, and the least industrialized nations.

how are the world’s nations stratified?

The model presented here divides the world’s nations into three groups: the Most Industrialized, the Industrializing,

and the Least Industrialized. This layering represents relative property, power, and prestige. The oil-rich nations are an exception.

How Did the World’s Nations Become Stratified? 9.7 discuss how colonialism and world system

theory explain how the world’s nations became stratified.

The main theories that seek to account for global stratifica- tion are colonialism, world system theory, and the culture of poverty.

Maintaining Global Stratification 9.8 explain how neocolonialism, multinational

corporations, and technology help to maintain global stratification.

how do elites maintain global stratification?

There are two basic explanations for why the world’s coun- tries remain stratified. neocolonialism is the ongoing dominance of the Least Industrialized Nations by the Most Industrialized Nations. The second explanation points to the influence of multinational corporations. The new tech- nology gives further advantage to the Most Industrialized Nations.

Strains in the Global System 9.9 identify strains in today’s system of global

stratification.

what strains are showing up in global stratification?

All stratification systems have contradictions that threaten to erupt, forcing the system to change. Currently, capitalism is in crisis, and we seem to be experiencing a global shift in economic (and, ultimately, political) power from the West to the East.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 9 1. How do slavery, caste, estate, and class systems of

social stratification differ?

2. Why is social stratification universal?

3. How do elites maintain stratification (keep themselves in power)?

4. What shifts in global stratification seem to be taking place? Why?

M09_HENS5571_13_SE_C09.indd 260 11/19/15 8:24 AM

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 261 11/19/15 8:37 AM

262

Learning Objectives

10.1 Explain the three components of social class—property, power, and prestige; distinguish between wealth and income; explain how property and income are distributed; and describe the democratic façade, the power elite, and status inconsistency. (p. 263)

10.2 Contrast Marx’s and Weber’s models of social class. (p. 270)

10.3 Summarize the consequences of social class for physical and mental health, family life, education, religion, politics, and the criminal justice system. (p. 275)

10.4 Contrast the three types of social mobility, review gender issues in research on social mobility, and explain why social mobility brings pain. (p. 279)

10.5 Explain the problems in drawing the poverty line and how poverty is related to geography, race–ethnicity, education, feminization, and age. (p. 283)

10.6 Contrast the dynamics of poverty with the culture of poverty, explain why people are poor and how deferred gratification is related to poverty, and comment on the Horatio Alger myth. (p. 287)

10.7 Discuss the possibility that we are developing a three-tier society. (p. 291)

Chapter 10

Social Class in the United States

“My mind refused to stop juxtaposing these images of extravagance with the suffering I had just seen.”

Ah, New Orleans, that fabled city on the Mississippi Delta. Images from its rich past floated through my head—pirates, treasure, intrigue. Memories from a pleasant vacation stirred my thoughts—the exotic French Quarter with its enticing aroma of Creole food and sounds of earthy jazz drifting through the air.

The shelter for the homeless forced me back to an unwelcome reality. The shelter was like those I had visited in the North, West, and East—only dirtier. The dirt, in fact, was the worst that I had encountered during my research. On top of that, this was the only shelter to insist on payment in exchange for sleeping in one of its filthy beds.

The men here looked the same as the homeless anywhere in the country—disheveled and haggard, wearing that unmistakable expression of sorrow and despair. Except for the accent, you wouldn’t know what region you were in. Poverty wears the same tired face wherever you are, I realized. The accent may differ, but the look remains the same.

I had grown used to the sights and smells of abject poverty. Those no longer surprised me. But after my fitful sleep with the homeless that night, I saw something that did. Just a block or so from the shelter, I was startled by a sight so out of step with the misery and despair I had just experienced that I stopped and stared.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 262 11/19/15 8:37 AM

Social Class in the United States 263

I felt indignation swelling within me. Confronting me were life-sized, full-color photos mounted on the transparent Plexiglas shelter of a bus stop. Staring back at me were images of finely dressed men and women, proudly strutting about as they modeled elegant suits, dresses, diamonds, and furs.

A wave of disgust swept over me. “Something is cockeyed in this society,” I thought, as my mind refused to stop juxtaposing these images of extravagance with the suffering I had just seen.

The disjunction—the mental distress—that I felt in New Orleans was triggered by the ads, but it was not the first time I had experienced this sensation. Whenever my research abruptly transported me from the world of the homeless to one of another social class, I experienced a sense of disjointed unreality. Each social class has its own way of think- ing and behaving, and because these fundamental orientations to the world contrast so sharply, the classes do not mix well.

What Is Social Class? 10.1 Explain the three components of social class—property, power, and prestige;

distinguish between wealth and income; explain how property and income are distributed; and describe the democratic façade, the power elite, and status inconsistency.

If you ask most Americans about their country’s social class system, you are likely to get a blank look. If you press the matter, you are likely to get an answer like this: “There are the poor and the rich—and then there’s us, neither poor nor rich.” This is just about as far as most Americans’ consciousness of social class goes. Let’s try to flesh out this idea.

Our task is made somewhat difficult because sociologists have no clear-cut, agreed-on definition of social class (Sosnaud et al. 2013). As was noted in the last chapter, conflict sociologists (of the Marxist orientation) see only two social classes: those who own the means of production and those who do not. The problem with this view, say most sociol- ogists, is that it lumps too many people together. Teenage “order takers” at McDonald’s who work for $15,000 a year are lumped together with that company’s executives who make $500,000 a year—because they both are workers at McDonald’s, not owners.

Most sociologists agree with Weber that there is more to social class than just a per- son’s relationship to the means of production. Consequently, most sociologists use the components Weber identified and define social class as a large group of people who rank closely to one another in property, power, and prestige. These three elements give people different chances in life, separate them into different lifestyles, and provide them with distinctive ways of looking at the self and the world.

Let’s look at how sociologists measure these three components of social class.

Property Property comes in many forms, such as buildings, land, animals, machinery, cars, stocks, bonds, businesses, furniture, jewelry, and bank accounts. When you add up the value of someone’s property and subtract that person’s debts, you have what sociologists call wealth. This term can be misleading, as some of us have little wealth—especially most college students. Nevertheless, if your net total comes to $10, then that is your wealth. (Obviously, wealth as a sociological term does not mean wealthy.)

Distinguishing BEtwEEn wEalth anD incomE Wealth and income are some- times confused, but they are not the same. Where wealth is a person’s net worth, income is a flow of money. Income has many sources: The most common is wages or a business, but other sources are rent, interest, and royalties. Even alimony, an allowance, and gam- bling winnings are part of income.

A mere one-half percent of Americans owns over a quarter of the entire nation’s wealth. Very few minorities are numbered among this 0.5 percent. An exception is Oprah Winfrey, who has had an ultra-successful career in entertainment and investing. Worth $3.0 billion, she is the 215th richest person in the United States. Winfrey has given millions of dollars to help minority children.

social class according to Weber, a large group of people who rank close to one another in property, power, and prestige; according to Marx, one of two groups: capitalists who own the means of production or workers who sell their labor

property material possessions: includes animals, bank accounts, bonds, buildings, businesses, cars, cash, commodities, copyrights, furniture, jewelry, land, and stocks

wealth the total value of everything someone owns, minus the debts

income money received, usually from a job, business, or assets

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 263 11/19/15 8:37 AM

264 Chapter 10

Wealth and income usually go together, but not always. Some people have much wealth and little income. For example, a farmer may own a lot of land (a form of wealth), but bad weather can cause the income to dry up.

Then there are those who have a large income and no wealth. Here is a real-life example of someone who makes $375,000 a year and is dead broke:

Gregory Owens is a New York City lawyer who makes $375,000 a year. Yet he is broke. In his bankruptcy petition, Owens revealed that taxes, alimony, required retirement con- tributions, rent, food, and transportation eat up all his income. He spends $52 more a month than he earns. (Stewart 2014)

DistriBution of ProPErty If we add up the value of the property in the United States—all the houses, apartments, cars and trucks, farms, businesses, and bank accounts—the total comes to about $51 trillion (Statistical Abstract 2014:Table 751). This certainly is a hefty sum. And who owns this vast property? One answer, of course, is “everyone,” as this $51 trillion is the total of what all Americans own. What this state- ment overlooks, though, is how the nation’s property is divided among “everyone.”

You might be surprised at how concentrated U.S. wealth is. Look at Figure 10.1. Just 1 percent of Americans owns more than one-third of all real estate, stocks, bonds, and business assets in the entire country. As you can also see from this figure, 10 percent of Americans own 77 percent of the nation’s wealth.

Figure 10.1 Distribution of the Wealth of Americans

...owns 77 percent of the nation's wealth

The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans...

10%

90%90%

10%

23%

77%

1%

...owns 35 percent of the nation's wealth

The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans...

99%

35%

65%

99%

1%

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Wolff 2013.

DistriBution of incomE How is income distributed in the United States? Econ- omist Paul Samuelson (Samuelson and Nordhaus 2005) put it this way: “If we made an income pyramid out of a child’s blocks, with each layer portraying $500 of income, the peak would be far higher than Mount Everest, but most people would be within a few feet of the ground.”

To better grasp this layering, look at Figure 10.2 on the next page. You can see that if each block were 1½ inches tall, the typical American would be just 11 feet off the ground. This portrays the average income in the United States of about $43,000 per year. (This is per capita income, which includes every American, even children.) The typical family

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 264 11/19/15 8:37 AM

Social Class in the United States 265

climbs a little higher, since most families have more than one worker; together, they aver- age about $61,000 a year (Statistical Abstract 2014:Tables 709, 726). Compared with the few families who are on the mountain’s peak, the average U.S. family would still find itself only 15 feet off the ground.

The fact that some Americans enjoy the peaks of Mount Everest while most—despite their efforts—make it only 11 to 15 feet up the slope presents a striking image of income inequality in the United States. Another picture emerges if we divide the U.S. population into five equal groups and rank them from highest to lowest income. As Figure 10.3 on the next page shows, the top 20 percent of the population receive half (51.0 percent) of all income in the United States. In contrast, the bottom 20 percent of Americans receive only 3.2 percent of the nation’s income.

Two features of Figure 10.3, on the next page, stand out. First, look at how income inequality decreased from 1935 to 1970. Then notice how inequality has increased since 1970. Since 1970, the richest 20 percent of U.S. families have grown richer, while the poorest 20 percent have grown poorer. Despite numerous government antipoverty programs, the poorest 20 percent of Americans receive less of the nation’s income today than they did decades ago. The richest 20 percent, in contrast, are receiving more, as much as they did in 1935.

The chief executive officers (CEOs) of the nation’s largest corporations are especially affluent. The Wall Street Journal surveyed the 300 largest U.S. companies to find out what they paid their CEOs. Their median compensation (including salaries, bonuses, and stock options) came to $11,000,000 a year. (Median means that half received more than this amount, and half less.) On Table 10.1, you can see the pay of the five highest paid CEOs.

Figure 10.2 How the Income of Americans Is Distributed

Some U.S. families have incomes that exceed the height of Mt. Everest, 29,028 feet

Average U.S. individual income $43,000 or 11 feet

Average U.S. family income $61,000 or 15 feet

If a 1½-inch child’s block equals $500 of income, the average individual’s annual income of $43,000 would represent a height of 11 feet, and the average family’s annual income of $61,000 would represent a height of 15 feet. The income of some families, in contrast, would represent a height greater than that of Mt. Everest.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2014:Tables 709, 726.

Table 10.1 The Five Highest-Paid CEOs CEO Company Compensation

Michael Fries Liberty Global $112 Million

Satya Nadella Microsoft $84 Million

Lawrence Ellison Oracle $67 Million

Steven Mollenkopf Qualcomm $61 Million

Leslie Moonves CBS $57 Million

NOtE: Compensation is for 2014. It includes salary, bonuses, and stock options.

SOURCE: Canipe and Slobin 2015.

The average income of these highest-paid CEOs is 1,800 times higher than the aver- age pay of U.S. workers (Statistical Abstract 2014:Table 709). This does not include these CEOs’ income from interest, dividends, or rents. Nor does it include the value of their company-paid limousines and chauffeurs, airplanes and pilots, and their private boxes at the symphony and sporting events. To really see the disparity, consider this:

Let’s suppose that you started working the year Jesus was born and that you worked full time starting then. Let’s also assume that each year you earned today’s average per capita income of $42,693. As of this year, you would still have to work 600 more years to earn what the highest-paid executive listed in Table 10.1 earned in just one year.

Imagine how you could live with an income like Michael Fries’. And this is precisely the point. Beyond these cold numbers lies a dynamic reality that profoundly affects peo- ple’s lives. The difference in wealth between those at the top and those at the bottom of the U.S. class structure means that people experience vastly different lives. For example,

a colleague of mine who was teaching at an exclusive Eastern university piqued his students’ curiosity when he lectured on poverty in Latin America. That weekend, one of the students borrowed his parents’ corporate jet and pilot, and in class on Monday, he and his friends related their personal observations on poverty in Latin America.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 265 11/19/15 8:37 AM

266 Chapter 10

Few of us could ever say, “Mom and Dad, I’ve got to do a report for my soc class, so I need to borrow the jet—and the pilot—to run down to South America for the weekend.” What a lifestyle! Contrast this with Americans at the low end of the income ladder who lack the funds to travel even to a neighboring town for the weekend. For parents in pov- erty, choices may revolve around whether to spend the little they have at the laundromat or on milk for the baby. The elderly poor might have to choose between purchasing the medicines they need or buying food. In short, divisions of wealth represent not “empty” numbers but choices that make vital differences in people’s lives. Let’s explore this topic in the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

Power Let’s look at the second component of social class: power.

thE DEmocratic facaDE Like many people, you may have said to yourself, “The big decisions are always made despite what I think. Certainly I don’t make the decision to send soldiers to Afghanistan or Iraq. I don’t order drones to launch missiles. I don’t decide to raise taxes, lower interest rates, or spend billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street fools and felons.”

And then another part of you may say, “But I do participate in these decisions through my representatives in Congress and by voting for president.” True enough—as far as it goes. The trouble is, it doesn’t go far enough. Such views of being a participant in the nation’s “big” decisions are a playback of the ideology we learn at an early age—an ideology that is promoted by the elites to legitimate and perpetuate their power. Some sociologists call this the “democratic facade” that conceals the real source of power in the United States.

Following this conflict perspective, let’s try to get a picture of where that power is located.

thE PowEr ElitE In Chapter 1, I mentioned that in the 1950s, sociologist C. Wright Mills pointed out that power—the ability to get your way despite resistance—was concentrated in the hands of a few. Mills met heavy criticism, because his analysis contradicted the dom- inant view that “the people” make the country’s decisions. This ideology is still dominant, and Mills’ analysis continues to ruffle feathers. Some still choke on the term power elite, which Mills coined to refer to those who make the big decisions in U.S. society.

P er

ce nt

ag e

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

1935 1941 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013

The top 5th The bottom 5th The second 5th

The fourth 5th The third 5th

Figure 10.3 The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Dividing the Nation’s Income

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 1960:Table 417; 1970:Table 489; U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013. Historical Tables, Income, Households, Table H-2. 2014.

1Earliest year available. 2No data for 1940.

power the ability to carry out your will, even over the resistance of others

power elite C. Wright Mills’ term for the top people in U.S. corporations, military, and politics who make the nation’s major decisions

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 266 11/19/15 8:37 AM

Social Class in the United States 267

Down-to-Earth Sociology How the Super-Rich Live Larry Ellison, the top man on Table 10.1, loves basketball. And he’s quite good at it, too. He loves this sport so much that he has his own basketball court on his yacht. When he misses the basket, a ball sometimes ends up in the ocean. Not to worry. Ellison has hired a man whose sole job is to drive a 44-foot powerboat behind the yacht to retrieve the errant balls.

And when Ellison gets bored with playing on his yacht’s basketball court? He climbs in his personal helicopter flown by his personal pilot. Flying above the yacht, he shoots hoops to his heart’s content. His personal basketball retriever faithfully trails the yacht, scooping up those errant balls. (Gay 2014)

As F. Scott Fitzgerald said in The Great Gatsby, “The rich are different than you and me.” And how!

Let’s take a glimpse at the lifestyle of another very rich man, John Castle (his real name). John has made more than $100 million in banking and securities (Lublin 1999). But the super-rich yearn for more than just money. Displayed in the right way, vast wealth can bring distinction and envy.

Wanting to be connected to someone famous, John bought President John F. Kennedy’s “Winter White House,” an oceanfront estate in Palm Beach, Florida. John spent $11 million to remodel the 13,000-square-foot house so that it would be more to his liking. Among those changes: adding bathrooms numbers 14 and 15. He likes to show off John F. Kennedy’s bed and also the dresser that has the drawer labeled “black underwear,” carefully hand-lettered by Rose Kennedy (Bloomfield 2012).

John has a yacht, too, a source of pleasure and pride. How much did his custom-built Hinckley yacht cost? John can’t tell you. As he says, “I don’t want to know what anything costs. When you’ve got enough money, price doesn’t make a difference. That’s part of the freedom of being rich.”

Right. And for John, being rich also means paying $1,000,000 to charter a private jet to fly Spot, his Appaloosa horse, back and forth to the vet. John didn’t want Spot to have

to endure a long trailer ride. Oh, and of course, there was the cost of Spot’s medical treatment, another $500,000.

Other wealthy people besides Ellison and Castle spend extravagantly, too. Lee Tachman threw a four-day party for three friends. They had massages; ate well; took rides in a helicopter, a fighter jet, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis; and did a little paintballing—all for the bargain price of $50,000. At the 1Oak Lounge in New York City, some customers pay $35,000 for a bottle of champagne (Haughney and Konigsberg 2008). Of course, it is a large bottle.

Parties are fun, but what if you want privacy? You can buy that, too. Wayne Huizenga, the founder of Blockbuster, who

sold a half ownership in the Miami Dolphins for $550 million (“Builder Stephen . . .” 2008), bought a 2,000-acre country club, complete with an 18-hole golf course, a 55,000-square-foot-clubhouse, and 68 slips for visiting vessels. The club is so exclusive that its only members are Wayne and his wife (Fabrikant 2005).

Withdrawing behind gated estates is one way to gain privacy, but Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has found another way. On his 414-foot yacht, the Octopus, are two helicopters, a swimming pool, and a submarine (Freeland 2011).

While the length of Allen’s yacht creates envy among the plutocracy that would make Freud break into a sweat, some might say that Charles Simonyi has even outdone this. He bought a $25 million ticket for a rocket ride to the

International Space Station. Simonyi liked the experience so much that he bought a second ticket (Leo 2008). No frequent flyer miles included. But at the pace that prices are increasing, $50 million isn’t worth what it used to be anyway.

For Your Consideration → What effects has social class had on your life? (Go

beyond possessions to values and how you view life.)

→ How do you think you would see the world differently if you were Larry Ellison, John Castle, Lee Tachman, Paul Allen, Charles Simonyi, or Mrs. Wayne Huizenga?

Billionaire software designer Charles Simonyi after his second $25 million ride in space.

Mills and others have stressed how wealth and power coalesce in a group of people who look at the world in the same way—and view themselves as a special elite. They belong to the same private clubs, vacation at the same exclusive resorts, and even hire the same bands for their daughters’ debutante balls (Domhoff 2006, 2014). This elite wields extraordinary power in U.S. society, so much so that many U.S. presidents have been mil- lionaire white men from families with “old money.”

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 267 11/19/15 8:37 AM

268 Chapter 10

Continuing in the tradition of Mills, sociologist William Domhoff (2006, 2014) argues that the power elite is so powerful that the U.S. government makes no major decision without its approval. He analyzed how this group works behind the scenes with elected offi- cials to determine both foreign and domestic policy— from setting Social Security taxes to imposing tariffs on imported goods. Although Domhoff’s conclusions are controversial—and alarming—they certainly follow logically from the principle that wealth brings power and extreme wealth brings extreme power.

Prestige Let’s look at the third component of social class, occupa- tional prestige.

occuPations anD PrEstigE What are you think- ing about doing after college? Chances are, you don’t have the option of lying in a hammock under palm trees in some South Pacific paradise. Almost all of us have to choose an occupation and go to work. Look at Table 10.2 to see how the career you are considering stacks up in terms of prestige (the respect or regard people give it). Because we are moving toward a global soci- ety, this table also shows how the rankings given by Americans compare with those of the residents of sixty other countries.

Why do people give more prestige to some jobs than to others? Look again at Table 10.2. The jobs at the top share four features:

1. They pay more.

2. They require more education.

3. They involve more abstract thought.

4. They offer greater autonomy (independence, or self-direction).

Now look at the bottom of the list. You can see that people give less prestige to jobs with the opposite char- acteristics: These jobs pay little, require less education, involve more physical labor, and are closely supervised. In short, the professions and the white-collar jobs are at the top of the list, the blue-collar jobs at the bottom.

One of the more interesting aspects of these rankings is how consistent they are across countries and over time. For example, people in every country rank college profes- sors higher than nurses, nurses higher than social work- ers, and social workers higher than janitors. Similarly, the occupations that were ranked high twenty-five years ago still rank high today—and likely will rank high in the years to come.

DisPlaying PrEstigE People want others to acknowl- edge their prestige. In times past, in some countries,

Table 10.2 Occupational Prestige: How the United States Compares with Sixty Countries

Occupation United States Average of Sixty Countries Physician 86 78 Supreme Court judge 85 82 College president 81 86 Astronaut 80 80 Lawyer 75 73 College professor 74 78 Airline pilot 73 66 Architect 73 72 Biologist 73 69 Dentist 72 70 Civil engineer 69 70 Clergy 69 60 Psychologist 69 66 Pharmacist 68 64 High school teacher 66 64 Registered nurse 66 54 Professional athlete 65 48 Electrical engineer 64 65 Author 63 62 Banker 63 67 Veterinarian 62 61 Police officer 61 40

Sociologist 61 67 Journalist 60 55 Classical musician 59 56 Actor or actress 58 52 Chiropractor 57 62 Athletic coach 53 50 Social worker 52 56 Electrician 51 44 Undertaker 49 34 Jazz musician 48 38 Real estate agent 48 49 Mail carrier 47 33 Secretary 46 53 Plumber 45 34 Carpenter 43 37 Farmer 40 47 Barber 36 30 Store sales clerk 36 34 Truck driver 30 33 Cab driver 28 28 Garbage collector 28 13 Waiter or waitress 28 23 Bartender 25 23 Lives on public aid 25 16 Bill collector 24 27 Factory worker 24 29 Janitor 22 21 Shoe shiner 17 12 Street sweeper 11 13 Janitor 22 21 Shoe shiner 17 12 Street sweeper 11 13

NOtE: The rankings are based on 1 to 100, from lowest to highest. For five occupations not located in the 1994 source, the 1991 ratings were used: Supreme Court judge, astronaut, athletic coach, lives on public aid, and street sweeper.

SOURCES: Treiman 1977: Appendices A and D; Nakao and Treas 1990, 1994: Appendix D.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 268 11/19/15 8:37 AM

Social Class in the United States 269

only the emperor and his family could wear purple—it was the royal color. In France, only the nobility could wear lace. In England, no one could sit while the king was on his throne. Some kings and queens required that subjects walk backward as they left the room—so that they would not “turn their back” on the “royal presence.”

Concern with displaying prestige has not let up. Military manuals specify who must salute whom. The U.S. president enters a room only after everyone else attending the function is present (to show that the president isn’t waiting for others). Everyone must also be standing when the president enters. In the courtroom, bailiffs, some with a gun at the hip, make certain that everyone stands when the judge enters.

Status symbols vary with social class. People who are striving to be upwardly mobile flaunt labels on their clothing or carry shopping bags from prestigious stores to show that they have “arrived.” The wealthy regard the status symbols of the “com- mon” classes as cheap and tawdry. They, too, flaunt status symbols, but theirs are things like $100,000 Rolex watches and $50,000 diamond earrings. Like the other classes, the wealthy also try to outdo one another. They casually mention the length of their yacht or that a helicopter flew them to their golf game (Fabrikant 2005). Or they offhandedly bring up the $40,000-a-night penthouse suite at the Four Seasons in New York City, ask- ing, “Have you tried it yet? It’s ‘rather nice’” (Clemence 2013). Some show off by buying their child an alligator backpack sold by Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen: just $39,000 (R. Smith 2014).

How about yourself? How do you try to display prestige? Think about your cloth- ing. How much more are you willing to pay for clothing that bears some hot “designer” label? Purses, shoes, jeans, and shirts—many of us pay more if they have some little sym- bol than if they don’t. As we wear them proudly, aren’t we actually proclaiming, “See, I had the money (and the in-vogue taste, of course) to buy this particular item!”? For many, prestige is a primary factor in deciding which college to attend. Everyone knows how the prestige of a generic sheepskin from Regional State College compares with a degree from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or Stanford.

Status Inconsistency Ordinarily, we have a similar rank on all three dimensions of social class—property, power, and prestige. The homeless men in the opening vignette are an example of these three dimensions lined up. Such people are status consistent. Some people, however, have a mixture of high and low ranks. This condition, called status inconsistency, leads to some interesting situations.

Sociologist Gerhard Lenski (1954, 1966) analyzed how people try to maximize their status, their position in a social group. Individuals who rank high on one dimension of social class but lower on others want people to judge them on the basis of their highest status. Others, however, are also trying to maximize their own positions, so they may respond according to these people’s lowest rankings.

A classic study of status inconsistency was done by sociologist Ray Gold (1952). After apartment-house janitors unionized in Chicago, they made more money than some of the tenants whose garbage they carried out. Residents became upset when they saw janitors driving more expensive cars than they did. Some attempted to “put the janitor in his place” by making “snotty” remarks to him. For their part, the janitors took delight in finding “dirty” secrets about the tenants in their garbage.

People who are status inconsistent, then, are likely to confront one frustrating situ- ation after another (Dogan 2011). They claim the higher status but are handed the lower one. This is so frustrating that the resulting tension can affect people’s health. Researchers who studied the health of thousands of Europeans over a decade found that men who were status inconsistent were twice as likely to have heart attacks as men who were sta- tus consistent. For reasons that no one knows, status inconsistent women do not have a higher risk of heath attacks (Braig et al. 2011).

prestige respect or regard

status consistency ranking high or low on all three dimensions of social class

status inconsistency ranking high on some dimensions of social class and low on others; also called status discrepancy

status the position that someone occupies in a social group (also called social status)

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 269 11/19/15 8:37 AM

270 Chapter 10

How do you set yourself apart in a country so rich that of its 4.6 million people 79,000 are millionaires? Saeed Khouri (on the right), at an auction in Abu Dhabi, paid $14 million for the license plate “1.” His cousin was not as fortunate. His $9 million was enough to buy only “5.”

Figure 10.4 Marx’s Model of the Social Classes

Capitalists (Bourgeoisie, those who own

the means of production)

Workers (Proletariat, those who work for the capitalists)

Inconsequential Others (beggars, etc.)

SOURCE: By the author.

There are other consequences as well. Lenski (1954) found that people who are status inconsistent tend to be more

politically radical. An example is college professors. Their prestige is very high, as you saw in Table 10.2 on

page 268, but their incomes are relatively low. Hardly anyone in U.S. society is more educated, and yet

college professors don’t even come close to the top of the income pyramid. In line with Lenski’s prediction, the politics of most college profes- sors are left of center. This hypothesis may also hold true among academic departments; that is, the higher a department’s average pay, the more conservative are the members’ politics. Teachers in departments of business and med- icine, for example, are among the most highly paid in the university—and they also are the most politically conservative.

Ins tant weal th , the topic o f the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page, provides an interesting case of status inconsistency.

Sociological Models of Social Class 10.2 contrast marx’s and weber’s models of social class.

The question of how many social classes there are is a matter of debate. Sociologists have proposed several models, but no single one has gained universal support. There are two main models: One builds on Marx, the other on Weber.

Updating Marx As Figure 10.4 illustrates, Marx argued that there are just two classes—capitalists and workers—with membership based solely on a person’s relationship to the means of pro- duction. Sociologists have criticized this view, saying that these categories are too broad. For example, because executives, managers, and supervisors don’t own the means of production, they would be classified as workers. But what do these people have in com- mon with assembly-line workers? The category of “capitalist” is also too broad. Some people, for example, employ a thousand workers, and their decisions directly affect a thousand families. Others, in contrast, have very small businesses.

Consider a man I know in Godfrey, Illinois, who used to fix cars in his backyard. As Frank gained a following, he quit his regular job, and, in a few years, he put up a building with five bays and an office. Frank is now a capitalist: He employs five or six mechanics and owns the tools and the building (the “means of production”).

But what does this man have in common with a factory owner who controls the lives of one thousand workers? Not only is Frank’s work different, so are his lifestyle and the way he looks at the world.

To resolve this problem, sociologist Erik Wright (1985) suggests that some people are members of more than one class at the same time. They occupy what he calls contradictory class locations. By this, Wright means that a per- son’s position in the  class structure can generate contradictory interests.

anomie Durkheim’s term for a condition of society in which people become detached from the usual norms that guide their behavior

contradictory class locations Erik Wright’s term for a position in the class structure that generates contradictory interests

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 270 11/19/15 8:37 AM

Social Class in the United States 271

Down-to-Earth Sociology The Big Win: Life after the Lottery “If I just win the lottery, life will be good. These problems I’ve got, they’ll be gone. I can just see myself now.”

So goes the dream. And many people shell out megabucks every week, with the glimmering hope that “Maybe this week, I’ll hit it big.”

Most are lucky to get $20 or maybe just another scratch- off ticket.

But some do hit it big. What happens to these winners? Are their lives all wine, roses, and chocolate afterward?

We don’t have any systematic studies of the big winners, so I can’t tell you what life is like for the average winner. But several themes are apparent from reporters’ interviews.

The most common consequence of hitting it big is that life becomes topsy-turvy (Susman 2012; Evans 2013). All of us are rooted somewhere. We have connections with others that provide the basis for our orientations to life and how we feel about the world. Sudden wealth can rip these moorings apart, and the resulting status inconsistency can lead to a condition sociologists call anomie (an`-uh-me).

First comes the shock. As Mary Sanderson, a telephone operator in Dover, New Hampshire, who won $66 million, said, “I was afraid to believe it was real and afraid to believe it wasn’t.” Mary says that she never slept worse than her first night as a multimillionaire. “I spent the whole time crying—and throwing up” (Tresniowski 1999).

Reporters and TV crews appear on your doorstep. “What are you going to do with all that money?” they demand. You haven’t the slightest idea, but in a daze you mumble something.

Then come the calls. Some are welcome. Your Mom and Dad call to congratulate you. But long-forgotten friends and distant relatives suddenly remember how close they are to you—and strangely enough, they all have emergencies that your money can solve. You even get calls from strangers who have ailing mothers, terminally ill kids, sick dogs . . .

You have to turn off your phone and change your number.

You might be flooded with marriage proposals. You certainly didn’t become more attractive or sexy overnight—or did you? Maybe money makes people sexy.

You can no longer trust people. You don’t know what their real motives are. Before, no one could be after your money because you didn’t have any. You may even fear kidnappers. Before, this wasn’t a problem—unless some kidnapper wanted the ransom of a seven-year-old car.

The normal becomes abnormal. Even picking out a wedding gift becomes a problem. If you give the usual juicer, everyone will think you’re stingy. But should you write a check for $25,000? If you do, you’ll be invited to every wedding in town—and everyone will expect the same.

Here is what happened to some lottery winners:

Mack Metcalf, a forklift operator in Corbin, Kentucky, hit the jackpot for $34 million. To fulfill a dream, he built and moved into a replica of George

Washington’s Mount Vernon home. Then his life fell apart—his former wife sued him, his current wife divorced him, and his new girlfriend got $500,000 while he was drunk. Within three years of his “good” fortune, Metcalf had drunk himself to death. (Dao 2005).

When Abraham Shakespeare, a dead-broke truck driver’s assistant, won $31 million in the Florida lottery, he bought a million dollar home in a gated community. He lent money to friends to start businesses, even paid for funerals (McShane 2010). This evidently wasn’t enough. His body was found buried in the yard of a “friend,” who was convicted of his murder. (Allen 2012).

Callie Rogers was just 16 years old when she won $3 million in the lottery. She proudly declared that she wouldn’t change, that she’d drive a regular car, and so on. Then came the drugs ($380,000 on cocaine), the booze, the two boob jobs, and the four suicide attempts. Now broke, a mother, and married

to a firefighter, she says, “I’m the happiest I’ve ever been in my life.” (Evans 2013).

Winners who avoid anomie seem to be people who don’t make sudden changes in their lifestyle or their behavior. They hold onto their old friends and routines—the anchors in life that give them identity and a sense of belonging. Some even keep their old jobs—not for the money, of course, but because the job anchors them to an identity with which they are familiar and comfortable.

Sudden wealth, in other words, poses a threat that has to be guarded against.

And I can just hear you say, “I’ll take the risk!”

For Your Consideration → How do you think your life would change if you won a

lottery jackpot of $10 million?

Dung Trans, a U.S. immigrant from Vietnam, as he accepts his Powerball Jackpot check for $22 million. Dung worked at a meat plant in Lincoln, Nebraska. How do you think his life has changed?

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 271 11/19/15 8:37 AM

272 Chapter 10

For example, the automobile- mechanic-turned-business-owner may want his mechanics to have higher wages because he, too, has experienced their working con- ditions. At the same time, his current interests— making profits and remaining com- petitive with other repair shops—lead him to resist pressures to raise their wages.

Because of such contradictory class locations, Wright modified Marx’s model. As summarized in Figure 10.5, Wright identifies four classes: (1) capitalists, business owners who employ many workers; (2) petty bourgeoisie, small business owners; (3) managers, who sell their own labor but also exercise authority over other employees; and (4) workers, who simply sell their labor to others. As you can see, this model allows finer divisions than the one Marx proposed, yet it maintains the primary distinction between employer and employee.

Problems persist, however. For example, in which category would we place college professors? And as you know, there are huge differences in the power of managers. An executive at Toyota, for example, may manage a thousand workers, while a shift manager at McDonald’s may be responsible for only a handful. They, too, have little in common.

Updating Weber Sociologists Joseph Kahl and Dennis Gilbert (Gilbert and Kahl 1998; Gilbert 2014) devel- oped a six-tier model to portray the class structure of the United States and other capitalist countries. Think of this model, illustrated in Figure 10.6, as a ladder. Our  discussion starts

Figure 10.6 The U.S. Social Class Ladder

Capitalist

Upper Middle

Lower Middle

Working

Working Poor

Underclass

Social Class Education Income Percentage of

Population

Prestigious university

College or university, often with postgraduate study

High school or college; often apprenticeship

High school

High school or just some high school

Some high school

Occupation

Investors and heirs, a few top executives

Professionals and upper managers

Semiprofessionals and lower managers, craftspeople, foremen

Factory workers, clerical workers, low-paid retail sales, and craftspeople

Laborers, service workers, low-paid salespeople

Unemployed and part-time, on welfare

$1,000,000+

$125,000+

About $60,000

About $36,000

About $19,000

Under $12,000

1%

15%

34%

30%

15%

5%

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Gilbert and Kahl 1998 and Gilbert 2014; income estimates are inflation-adjusted and modified from Duff 1995.

Figure 10.5 Wright’s Modification of Marx’s Model of the Social Class

SOURCE: By the author.

1. Capitalists

2. Petty bourgeoisie

3. Managers

4. Workers

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 272 11/19/15 8:37 AM

Social Class in the United States 273

with the highest rung and moves downward. In line with Weber, on each lower rung, you find less property (wealth), less power, and less prestige. Note that in this model, education is also a primary measure of class.

thE caPitalist class Sitting on the top rung of the class ladder is a powerful elite that consists of just 1 percent of the U.S. population. As you saw in Figure 10.1 on page 264, this capitalist class is so wealthy that it owns one-third of the entire nation’s wealth. This tiny 1 percent is worth more than the entire bottom 90 percent of the country (Beeghley 2008). One family, the Waltons of Wal-Mart fame, is worth more than the bottom 40 percent of all Americans (Magdoff and Bellamy 2014).

Power and influence cling to this small elite. Its members have access to top poli- ticians, and their decisions open or close job opportunities for millions of people. They even help to shape the consciousness of the nation: They own our major media and entertainment outlets—newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, and sports franchises. They also control the boards of directors of our most influential colleges and universities. The super-rich perpetuate themselves in privilege by passing on their assets and social networks to their children.

The capitalist class can be divided into “old” and “new” money. The longer that wealth has been in a family, the more it adds to the family’s prestige. The children of “old” money seldom mingle with “common” folk. Instead, they attend exclusive private schools where they learn views of life that support their privileged position. They don’t work for wages; instead, many study business or become lawyers so that they can man- age the family fortune. These old-money capitalists (also called “blue bloods”) wield vast power as they use their extensive political connections to protect their economic empires (Khan 2012; Domhoff 1990, 2006, 2014).

At the lower end of the capitalist class are the nouveau riche, those who have “new money.” Although they have made fortunes in business, the stock market, inventions, entertainment, or sports, they are outsiders to the upper class (Peretz 2013). They have not attended the “right” schools, and they don’t share the social networks that come with old money. Not blue bloods, they aren’t trusted to have the right orientations to life. Even their “taste” in clothing and status symbols is suspect (Fabrikant 2005). Donald Trump, whose money is “new,” is not listed in the Social Register, the “White Pages” of the blue bloods that lists the most prestigious and wealthy one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. pop- ulation. Trump says he “doesn’t care,” but he reveals his true feelings by adding that his heirs will be in it (Kaufman 1996). He is probably right, since the children of new money can ascend into the top part of the capitalist class—if they go to the right schools and marry old money.

Many in the capitalist class are philanthropic. They establish foundations and give huge sums to “causes.” Their motives vary. Some feel guilty because they have so much while others have so little. Others seek prestige, acclaim, or fame. Still others feel a responsibility—even a sense of fate or destiny—to use their money for doing good. Bill Gates, who has given more money to the poor and to medical research than anyone else in history, seems to fall into this latter category.

thE uPPEr-miDDlE class Of all the classes, the upper-middle class is the one most shaped by education. Almost all members of this class have at least a bachelor’s degree, and many have postgraduate degrees in business, management, law, or medicine. These people manage the corporations owned by the capitalist class, operate their own busi- nesses, or pursue professional careers. As Gilbert and Kahl (1998) say,

[These positions] may not grant prestige equivalent to a title of nobility in the Germany of Max Weber, but they certainly represent the sign of having “made it” in contemporary America . . . . Their income is sufficient to purchase houses and cars and travel that become public symbols for all to see and for advertisers to portray with words and pictures that connote success, glamour, and high style.

The wealthiest person on the planet: Bill Gates, the cofounder of Microsoft, is worth $80 billion. He has also given away $30 billion, more than anyone in history.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 273 11/19/15 8:37 AM

274 Chapter 10

Consequently, parents and teachers push children to prepare for upper-middle-class jobs. Around 15 percent of the population belong to this class.

thE lowEr-miDDlE class About 34 percent of the U.S. population are in the lower-middle class. Their jobs require that they follow orders given by members of the upper-middle class. With their technical and lower-level management positions, they can afford a mainstream lifestyle, although they struggle to maintain it. Many anticipate being able to move up the social class ladder. Feelings of insecurity are common, how- ever, with the threat of inflation, recession, and job insecurity bringing a nagging sense that they might fall down the class ladder.

The distinctions between the lower-middle class and the working class on the next rung below are more blurred than those between other classes. In general, however, members of the lower-middle class work at jobs that have slightly more prestige, and their incomes are generally higher.

thE working class About 30 percent of the U.S. population belong to this class of relatively unskilled blue-collar and white-collar workers. Compared with the lower- middle class, they have less education and lower incomes. Their jobs are also less secure, more routine, and more closely supervised. One of their greatest fears is that of being laid off during a recession. With only a high school diploma or a fleeting attempt at col- lege, the average member of the working class has little hope of climbing up the class ladder. Job changes usually bring “more of the same,” so most concentrate on getting ahead by achieving seniority on the job rather than by changing their type of work. They tend to think of themselves as having “real jobs” and regard the “suits” above them as paper pushers who have no practical experience and don’t do “real work” (Morris and Grimes 2005).

thE working Poor Members of this class, about 15 percent of the population, work at unskilled, low-paying, temporary and seasonal jobs, such as sharecropping, migrant farm work, housecleaning, and day labor. Most are high school dropouts. Many are func- tionally illiterate, finding it difficult to read even the want ads. Believing that their situa- tion won’t change no matter what party is elected to office, they are less likely than other groups to vote (U.S. Census Bureau 2013c).

Although they work full time, millions of the working poor depend on food stamps (cards from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) and local food banks to survive on their meager incomes (O’Hare 1996b; Bello 2011). It is easy to see how you can work full time and still be poor. Suppose that you are married and have a baby 3 months old and another child 3 years old. Your spouse stays home to care for them, so earning the income is up to you. But as a high-school dropout, all you can get is a minimum wage job.

Sociologists use income, education, and occupational prestige to measure social class. For most people, this works well, but not for everyone, especially entertainers. To what social class do DiCaprio, Smith, Swift, and Vergara belong? Leonardo DiCaprio makes about $37 million a year, Will Smith $32 million, Taylor Swift $80 million and Sofia Vergara $37 million.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 274 11/19/15 8:37 AM

Social Class in the United States 275

At $7.25 an hour, you earn $290 for 40 hours. In a year, this comes to $15,080—before deductions. Your nagging fear—and recurring nightmare—is of ending up “on the streets.”

thE unDErclass On the lowest rung, and with next to no chance of climbing anywhere, is the underclass. Concentrated in the inner city, this group has little or no connection with the job market. Those who are employed—and some are—do menial, low-paying, temporary work. Welfare, if it is available, along with food stamps and food pantries, is their main support. Most members of other classes consider these people the “ne’er-do-wells” of society. Life is the toughest in this class, and it is filled with despair. About 5 per- cent of the population fall into this class.

The homeless men described in the opening vignette of this chapter, and the women and children like them, are part of the under- class. These are the people whom most Americans wish would just go away. Their presence on our city streets bothers passersby from the more privileged social classes—which includes just about every- one. “What are those obnoxious, dirty, foul-smelling people doing here, cluttering up my city?” appears to be a common response. Some people react with sympathy and a desire to do something. But what? Almost all of us just shrug our shoulders and look the other way, despairing of a solution and somewhat intimidated, perhaps irritated, by their presence. If only they would disappear.

The homeless are the “fallout” of our postindustrial economy. In another era, they would have had plenty of work. They would have tended horses, worked on farms, dug ditches, shoveled coal, and run the factory looms. Some would have explored and settled the West. The prospect of gold would have lured others to California, Alaska, and Australia. Today, however, with no frontiers to settle, factory jobs scarce, and farms that are becoming technological marvels, we have little need for unskilled labor.

Consequences of Social Class 10.3 summarize the consequences of social class for physical and mental health,

family life, education, religion, politics, and the criminal justice system.

The man was a C student in school. As a businessman, he ran an oil company (Arbusto) into the ground. A self-confessed alcoholic until age forty, he was arrested for drunk driving. With this background, how did he become president of the United States?

Accompanying these personal factors was the power of social class. George W. Bush was born the grandson of a wealthy senator and the son of a businessman who, after serving as a member of the House of Representatives and director of the CIA, was elected president of the United States. For high school, he went to an elite private prep school, Andover; for his bachelor’s degree to Yale; and for his MBA to Harvard. He was given $1 million to start his own business. When that business (Arbusto) failed, Bush fell softly, landing on the boards of several corporations. Taken care of even further, he was made the managing director of the Texas Rangers baseball team and allowed to buy a share of the team for $600,000, which he sold for $15 million.

When it was time for him to get into politics, Bush’s connections financed his run for governor of Texas and then for the presidency.

Does social class matter? And how! Think of each social class as a broad subculture with distinct approaches to life, so significant that it affects our health, family life, education, religion, politics, and even our experiences with crime and the criminal justice system. Let’s look at some of the ways that social class affects our lives.

A primary sociological principle is that people’s views are shaped by their social location. Many people from the middle and upper classes cannot understand how anyone can work and still be poor.

underclass a group of people for whom poverty persists year after year and across generations

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 275 11/19/15 8:38 AM

276 Chapter 10

Physical Health If you want to get a sense of how social class affects health, take a ride on Washington’s Metro system. Start in the blighted Southeast section of downtown D.C. For every mile you travel to where the wealthy live in Montgomery County in Maryland, life expectancy rises about a year and a half. By the time you get off, you will find a twenty-year gap between the poor blacks where you started your trip and the rich whites where you ended it. (Cohen 2004)

The principle is simple: As you go up the social-class ladder, health improves. As you go down the ladder, health worsens (Masters et al. 2012). Age makes no difference. Infants born to the poor are more likely to die before their first birthday, and a larger percentage of poor people in their old age—whether 75 or 95—die each year than do the elderly who are wealthy.

How can social class have such dramatic effects? While there are many reasons, here are three. First, social class opens and closes doors to medical care. People with good incomes or with good medical insurance are able to choose their doctors and pay for whatever treatment and medications are prescribed. The poor, in contrast, don’t have the money or insurance to afford this type of medical care. How much difference the new health reform will make is yet to be seen.

A second reason is lifestyle, which is shaped by social class. People in the lower classes are more likely to smoke, eat a lot of fats, be overweight, abuse drugs and alcohol, get little exercise, and practice unsafe sex (Chin et al. 2000; Dolnick 2010). This, to under- state the matter, does not improve people’s health.

There is a third reason, too. Life is hard on the poor. The persistent stresses they face weaken their immune systems, causing their bodies to wear out faster (Geronimus et al. 2010; John-Henderson et al. 2012; Magdoff and Foster 2014). For the rich, life is so much better. They have fewer problems and vastly more resources to deal with the ones they have. This gives them a sense of control over their lives, a source of both physical and mental health.

Mental Health Sociological research from as far back as the 1930s has found that the mental health of the lower classes is worse than that of the higher classes (Faris and Dunham 1939; Srole and Fisher 1978; Funk et al. 2012). Greater mental problems are part of the higher stress that accompanies poverty. Compared with middle- and upper-class Americans, the poor have less job security and lower wages. They are more likely to divorce, to be the victims of crime, and to have more physical illnesses. Couple these conditions with bill collectors and the threat of eviction and you can see how they deal severe blows to people’s emotional well-being.

People higher up the social class ladder experience stress in daily life, of course, but their stress is generally less, and their coping resources are greater. Not only can they afford vacations, psychiatrists, and counselors, but their class position also gives them greater control over their lives, a key to good mental health.

Family Life Social class also makes a significant difference in our choice of spouse, our chances of getting divorced, and how we rear our children.

With tough economic times, a lot of people have lost their jobs—and their homes. If this happens, how can you survive? Maybe a smile and a sense of humor to tap the kindness of strangers. I took this photo outside Boston’s Fenway Park.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 276 11/19/15 8:38 AM

Social Class in the United States 277

choicE of husBanD or wifE Members of the capitalist class place strong emphasis on family tradition. They stress the family’s his- tory, even a sense of purpose or destiny in life (Baltzell 1979; Aldrich 1989). Children of this class learn that their choice of husband or wife affects not just them but the entire family, that it will have an impact on the “family line.” These background expectations shrink the field of “eligible” marriage partners, making it narrower than it is for the children of any other social class. As a result, parents in this class play a strong role in their children’s mate selection.

DivorcE The more difficult life of the lower social classes, especially the many tensions that come from insecure jobs and inadequate incomes, leads to higher marital friction and a greater likelihood of divorce. Consequently, children of the poor are more likely to grow up in broken homes.

chilD rEaring Lower-class parents focus more on getting their chil- dren to follow rules and obey authority, while middle-class parents focus more on developing their children’s creative and leadership skills (Lareau 2011). Sociologists have traced this difference to the parents’ occupations (Kohn 1977; Stephens et al. 2014). Lower-class parents are closely super- vised at work, and they anticipate that their children will have similar jobs. Consequently, they try to teach their children to defer to authority. Middle-class parents, in contrast, enjoy greater independence at work. Anticipating sim- ilar jobs for their children, they encourage them to be more creative. Out of these con- trasting orientations arise different ways of disciplining children: Lower-class parents are more likely to use physical punishment, while the middle classes rely more on verbal persuasion.

Education In Figure 10.6, you saw how education increases as one goes up the social class lad- der. It is not just the amount of education that changes but also the type of education. Children of the capitalist class bypass public schools. They attend exclusive private schools where they are trained to take a commanding role in society. These schools teach upper-class values and prepare their students for prestigious universities (Stevens 2009; Khan 2011).

Keenly aware that private schools can be a key to upward social mobility, some upper-middle-class parents do their best to get their children into the prestigious pre- schools that feed into these exclusive prep schools. Although some preschools cost $37,000 a year, they have a waiting list (Anderson 2011). Figuring that waiting until birth to enroll a child is too late, some parents-to-be enroll their child as soon as the wife knows she is pregnant (Ensign 2012). Other parents hire tutors to train their 4-year-olds in test-taking skills so they can get into public kindergartens for gifted students. Experts teach these preschoolers to look adults in the eye while they are being interviewed for these limited positions (Banjo 2010). You can see how such parental involvement and resources make it more likely that children from the more privileged classes go to college—and graduate.

Religion One area of social life that we might think would not be affected by social class is reli- gion. (“People are just religious, or they are not. What does social class have to do with it?”) As we shall see in Chapter 18, however, the classes tend to cluster in different

Proudly posing in her exclusive Oleg Cassini Ballgown, this debutante’s photo is being taken at her Manhattan home prior to her appearance at The International Debutante Ball in New York City. Her appearance there announces her eligibility to be courted for marriage. Like you, from her parents, peers, and education she has learned a view of where she belongs in life. How do you think her view differs from yours?

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 277 11/19/15 8:38 AM

278 Chapter 10

denominations. Episcopalians, for example, are more likely to attract the middle and upper classes, while Baptists draw heavily from the lower classes. Patterns of worship also follow class lines: The lower classes are attracted to more expressive worship ser- vices and louder music, while the middle and upper classes prefer more “subdued” worship.

Politics As I have stressed throughout this text, people perceive events from their own corner in life. Political views are no exception to this symbolic interactionist principle, and the rich and the poor walk different political paths. The higher that people are on the social class ladder, the more likely they are to vote for Republicans (Gelman 2014). In contrast, most members of the working class believe that the government should intervene in the econ- omy to provide jobs and to make citizens financially secure. They are more likely to vote for Democrats. Although the working class is more liberal on economic issues (policies that increase government spending), it is more conservative on social issues (such as opposing abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment) (Houtman 1995; Hout 2008). People toward the bottom of the class structure are also less likely to be politically active—to campaign for candidates or even to vote (Gilbert 2014).

Crime and Criminal Justice If justice is supposed to be blind, it certainly is not when it comes to one’s chances of being arrested (Henslin 2015). In Chapter 8, we discussed how the social classes commit different types of crime. The white-collar crimes of the more privileged classes are more likely to be dealt with outside the criminal justice system, while the police and courts deal with the street crimes of the lower classes. One consequence of this class standard is that members of the lower classes are more likely to be in prison, on probation, or on parole. In addition, since those who commit street crimes tend to do so in or near their own neighborhoods, the lower classes are more likely to be robbed, burglarized, or murdered.

On the left is a window seat in the Beverly Hills home of the comedian Joan Rivers (1933–2014). To the right is a couple who live in an old motor home parked in Santa Barbara, one of the wealthiest communities in California.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 278 11/19/15 8:38 AM

Social Class in the United States 279

Social Mobility 10.4 contrast the three types of social mobility, review gender issues in research

on social mobility, and explain why social mobility brings pain.

No aspect of life, then—from work and family life to politics—goes untouched by social class. Because life is so much more satisfying in the more privileged classes, people strive to climb the social class ladder. What affects their chances?

Three Types of Social Mobility Janice’s mom, a single mother, sold used cars at a Toyota dealership. Janice worked summers and part-time during the school year, earned her BA, and then her MBA. After college, she worked at IBM, but she missed her home town. When her mom’s boss retired, Janice grabbed the chance to put a down payment on the Toyota dealership. She has since paid the business off and has opened another at a second location.

When grown-up children like Janice end up on a different rung of the social class ladder from the one occupied by their parents, it is called intergenerational mobility. You can go up or down, of course. Janice experienced upward social mobility. If her mother had owned the dealership and Janice had dropped out of college and ended up selling cars, she would have experienced downward social mobility.

We like to think that individual efforts are the reason people move up the class ladder—and their faults the reason they move down. In this example, we can identify intelligence, hard work, and ambition. Although individual factors, such as these, do underlie social mobility, we must place Janice in the context of structural mobility. This second basic type of mobility refers to changes in society that allow large numbers of people to move up or down the class ladder.

Janice grew up during a boom time of easy credit and business expansion. Opportunities were abundant, and colleges were looking for women from working-class backgrounds. It is far different for people who grow up during an economic bust when opportunities are shrinking. As sociologists point out, in analyzing social mobility,

The term structural mobility refers to changes in society that push large numbers of people either up or down the social class ladder. A remarkable example was the stock market crash of 1929 when thousands of people suddenly lost their wealth. People who once “had it made” found themselves standing on street corners selling apples or, as depicted here, selling their possessions at fire-sale prices. The crash of 2008 brought similar problems to untold numbers of people.

intergenerational mobility the change that family members make in social class from one generation to the next

upward social mobility movement up the social class ladder

downward social mobility movement down the social class ladder

structural mobility movement up or down the social class ladder that is due more to changes in the structure of society than to the actions of individuals

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 279 11/19/15 8:38 AM

280 Chapter 10

we must always look at structural mobility, how changes in society (its structure) make opportunities plentiful or scarce.

The third type of social mobility is exchange mobility. This occurs when large num- bers of people move up and down the social class ladder, but, on balance, the proportions of the social classes remain about the same. Suppose that a million or so working-class people are trained in some new technology, and they move up the class ladder. Suppose also that because of a surge in imports, about a million skilled workers have to take lower-status jobs. Although millions of people change their social class, there is, in effect, an exchange among them. The net result more or less balances out, and the class system remains basically untouched.

How much social mobility is there? The Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page should be quite encouraging to students who are striving for success.

Women in Studies of Social Mobility About half of sons pass their fathers on the social class ladder, about one-third stay at the same level, and about one-sixth fall down the ladder. (Blau and Duncan 1967; Featherman 1979)

“Only sons!” protested feminists in response to these classic studies on social mobility. “Do you think it is good science to ignore daughters? And why do you assign women the class of their husbands? Do you think that wives have no social class position of their own?” (Davis and Robinson 1988; Western et al. 2012). The male sociologists brushed off these objections, replying that there were too few women in the labor force to make a difference.

Obviously, the times have changed. Almost half of U.S. workers are now women, and sociologists include women in their research. However, sociologists sometimes still single out sons in their research (Lopoo and DeLeire 2012).

In recent decades, millions of white-collar jobs and the professions have opened up to women. Even with this vast structural change, there is a gender gap in social mobility: As adults, women are less likely than men to live in families with higher income than the one in which they grew up (Reeves and Venator 2013). Researchers have also found that behind upwardly mobile women are parents who encouraged their daughters to postpone marriage and get an education (Higginbotham and Weber 1992). For upwardly mobile African American women, strong mothers are especially significant (Robinson and Nelson 2010).

With research on the social class of women in its infancy, the social mobility of women is going to be a fruitful area of research in coming years.

The Pain of Social Mobility If you were to be knocked down the social class ladder, you know it would be painful. But are you aware that it also hurts to climb this ladder?

Sociologist Steph Lawler (1999) found that British women who had moved from the working class to the middle class were caught between two worlds—their working-class origin and their cur- rent middle-class life. Their mothers, still in the working class, were uncomfortable with their daughters’ “uppity” new life. They felt that their daughters thought they were better than they were. The tension was high, and they criticized their daughters’ preferences in furniture and food, their speech, even the way they reared their children. As you can expect, this strained the mother–daughter relationship.

Sociologists Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb (1972/1988) found something similar among working-class parents in Boston. So their children could go to college, the fathers had worked two jobs and even postponed

Both downward and upward social mobility bring challenges that require life adjustments. An extreme instance is the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the richest man in Russia, who made the mistake of challenging Vladimir Putin. He is shown here at his trial for tax evasion. After serving several years in prison, he was pardoned. He then fled Russia.

exchange mobility a large number of people moving up the social class ladder, while a large number move down; it is as though they have exchanged places, and despite much social mobility the social class system shows little change

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 280 11/19/15 8:38 AM

Social Class in the United States 281

Down-to-Earth Sociology “The American Dream”: Social Mobility Today What is “The American Dream”? For most people, this term means achieving a better life. The sociological definition of the American Dream is similar, but it is more specific: It refers to children being able to pass their parents as they climb the social class ladder. So how much upward mobility is there?

Vast Changes Contrary to the many dismal reports of social life today, the American Dream remains vibrant. Let’s look at national research that compares today’s adult children with their parents. From Figure 10.7, you can see that whether children start life at the top of the nation’s income or at the bottom, about the same percentage move from their starting point. Of those who start life at the bottom, 43 percent are still there when they grow up, but most, 57 percent, have moved up. Four percent even make it to the top fifth of the nation’s income. Now look at those who start life at the top. When they grow up, 40 percent are still there, but most, 60 percent, have dropped down. Eight percent have dropped all the way to the bottom. Overall, thirty-five percent of adult children move up at least one rung past their parents on the social class ladder (Lopoo and DeLeire 2012).

Incomes If we look at incomes, even though the income was not enough to move the adult child into a different quintile, we find something impressive: 84 percent of today’s adults have family incomes higher than their parents had at the same age. (The incomes of the parents and their adult child were adjusted for inflation, so the dollars have the same base.) One of the surprises is that the children most likely to surpass their parents were reared at the bottom of the nation’s income ladder. Of the adult children who started life there,

93 percent have incomes higher than their parents did at the same age.

With incomes stagnating today, many fear that the “American Dream” has been shattered. Although poverty has increased, the Great Recession did not crush the dream, just deflated it (Chetty et al. 2014).

What Do these Findings Mean? People have a lot of things they want to prove, and they like to use statistics to make their point. These data allow you to go either way. You can stress that 43 percent of the very poorest kids never get out of the bottom—or you can point to the 57 percent who do. It is the same with the richest kids: You can stress the 40 percent who stay at the top of the nation’s income or the 60 percent who drop down. No matter what your opinion, any way you look at it this is a lot of social mobility.

You could get lost in the details, but don’t lose sight of the broader principle: Children of high-income parents enjoy benefits that tend to keep them afloat, while children of low-income parents confront obstacles that tend to weigh them down. Yet, as you can see, the benefits don’t keep most of the children up nor do the obstacles keep most of the children down.

For Your Consideration → How can you apply these findings to yourself?

→ In ten years, do you think your social class will be higher, lower, or the same as that of your parents? Why?The main avenue to upward social mobility is education.

Figure 10.7 Income of Adult Children Compared with that of their Parents Chances of moving up or down the family income ladder, by parents’ income

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

P er

ce nt

o f

ad ul

t ch

ild re

n in

e ac

h fa

m ily

in co

m e

q ui

nt ile

Bottom quintile

Second quintile

Third quintile

Fourth quintile

Top quintile

Percent of adult children whose income is in the:

Top quintile

Fourth quintile

Third quintile

Second quintile

Bottom quintile

43%

27%

17%

9%

4%

25%

24%

18%

20%

14%

14%

20%

23%

24%

19%

9%

20%

23%

24%

24%

8%

10%

19%

23%

40%

When the children were growing up, their parents’ family income

SOURCE: Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations, p. 6. © July, 2013 the Pew Charitable Trusts.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 281 11/19/15 8:38 AM

282 Chapter 10

Cultural Diversity in the United States Social Class and the Upward Social Mobility of African Americans The overview of social class presented in this chapter doesn’t apply equally to all the groups that make up U.S. society. Consider geography: What constitutes the upper class of a town of 5,000 people will differ from that of a city of a million. In small towns, which have fewer extremes of wealth and occupation, family background and local reputation are more significant.

So it is with racial–ethnic groups. All racial–ethnic groups are marked by social class, but what constitutes a particular social class can differ from one group to another—as well as from one historical period to another. Consider social class among African Americans (Landry and Marsh 2011).

The earliest class divisions can be traced to slavery—to slaves who worked in the fields and those who worked in the “big house.” Those who worked in the plantation home were exposed more to the customs, manners, and forms of speech of wealthy whites. Their more privileged position—which brought with it better food and clothing, as well as lighter work—was often based on skin color. Mulattos, lighter-skinned slaves, were often chosen for this more desirable work. One result was the development of a “mulatto elite,” a segment of the slave population that, proud of its distinctiveness, distanced itself from other slaves. At this time, there also were free blacks. Not only were they able to own property but some even owned black slaves.

After the War between the States (as the Civil War is known in the South), these two groups, the mulatto elite and the free blacks, formed an upper class that distanced itself from other blacks. By the 1870s, just ten or fifteen years after this war, some African Americans had become millionaires (Graham 1999). After World War II, the black middle class expanded as African Americans entered a wider range of occupations. Today, more than half of all African American adults work at white-collar jobs, about 22 percent at the professional or managerial level (Beeghley 2008).

An unwelcome cost greets many African Americans who move up the social class ladder: an uncomfortable distancing

from their roots, a separation from significant others—parents, siblings, and childhood friends (Lacy 2007; Khare et al. 2014). The upwardly mobile enter a world unknown to those left

behind, one that demands not only different appearance and speech, but also different values, aspirations, and ways of viewing the world. These are severe challenges to the self and often rupture relationships with those left behind.

An additional cost is a subtle racism that lurks beneath the surface of some work settings, poisoning what could be easy, mutually respectful interaction. To be aware that white co-workers perceive you as different—as a stranger, an intruder, or “the other”—engenders frustration, dissatisfaction,

and cynicism (Carbado and Gulati 2014). To cope, many nourish their racial identity and stress the “high value of black culture and being black” (Lacy and Harris 2008). Some move to neighborhoods of upper-middle-class African Americans, where they can live among like-minded people who have similar experiences (Wiggins et al. 2011).

For Your Consideration → In the box on upward social mobility on page 86, we

discussed how Latinos face a similar situation. Why do you think this is?

→ What connections do you see among upward mobility, frustration, and racial–ethnic identity?

→ How do you think that the costs of upward mobility of whites differ from those of Latinos and African Americans? Why?

medical care. They expected their children to appreciate their sacrifice. But again, the result was two distinct worlds of experience. The children’s educated world was so unlike that of their parents that it became awkward for them to even talk to one another. Not surprisingly, the parents felt betrayed and bitter. Their sacrifices had ripped their children from them.

Torn from their roots, some of those who make the jump from the working to the middle class never become comfortable with their new social class ( Morris and Grimes 2005; Heller 2011). The Cultural Diversity box below discusses other costs that come with the climb up the social class ladder.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 282 11/19/15 8:38 AM

Social Class in the United States 283

Poverty 10.5 Explain the problems in drawing the poverty line, how poverty is related to

geography, race–ethnicity, education, feminization, and age.

Many Americans find that the “limitless possibilities” of the American dream are quite elusive. As illustrated in Figure 10.6 on page 272, the working poor and underclass together form about one-fifth of the U.S. population. This translates into a huge number, over 60 million people. Who are these people?

Drawing the Poverty Line To determine who is poor, the U.S. government draws a poverty line. This measure was set in the 1960s, when poor people were thought to spend about one-third of their incomes on food. On the basis of this assumption, each year, the government computes a low-cost food budget and multiplies it by 3. Families whose incomes are less than this amount are classified as poor; those whose incomes are higher—even by a dollar—are considered “not poor.”

High rates of rural poverty have been a part of the United States from its origin to the present. This 1937 photo shows a 32-year-old woman who had seven children and no food. She was part of a huge migration of people from the Dust Bowl of Oklahoma in search of a new life in California.

poverty line the official measure of poverty; calculated to include incomes that are less than three times a low-cost food budget

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 283 11/19/15 8:38 AM

284 Chapter 10

This official measure of poverty is grossly inadequate. Poor people actually spend only about one-fifth of their income on food, so to determine a poverty line, we ought to multiply their food budget by 5 instead of 3 (Chandy and Smith 2014). Another problem is that mothers who work outside the home and have to pay for child care are treated the same as mothers who don’t have this expense. The poverty line is also the same for everyone across the nation, even though the cost of living is much higher in New York than in Alabama. On the other hand, much of the income of the poor is not counted: food stamps, rent assistance, subsidized child care, and the earned income tax credit (Short 2012). In the face of these criticisms, the Census Bureau has developed alterna- tive ways to measure poverty. These show higher poverty, but the official measure has not changed.

That a change in the poverty line can instantly make millions of people poor—or take away their poverty—would be laughable, if it weren’t so serious. Although this line is arbitrary, because it is the official measure of poverty, we’ll use it to see who in the United States is poor. Before we do this, though, how do you think that your ideas of the poor match up with sociological findings? To find out, go to the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.

Who Are the Poor? thE gEograPhy of PovErty The Social Map on page 286 illustrates how pov- erty varies by region. The striking clustering of poverty in the South has prevailed for more than 150 years.

A second aspect of geography is rural poverty. At 16 percent, rural poverty is higher than the national average of 15 percent. Helping to maintain this higher rate are the lower education of the rural poor and the scarcity of rural jobs (Latimer and Woldoff 2010).

A third aspect of geography is the suburbanization of poverty. With the extensive migration from cities to suburbs, more of the nation’s poor now live in the suburbs than in the cities (Kneebone and Berube 2013). This major change is not likely to be temporary.

Geography, however, is not the main factor in poverty. The greatest predictors of poverty are race–ethnicity, education, and the sex of the person who heads the family. Let’s look at these factors.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 284 11/19/15 8:38 AM

Social Class in the United States 285

Down-to-Earth Sociology What Do You Know about Poverty? A Reality Check Can you tell which of these statements are true?

1. Poverty is unusual. False. Over a three-year period, one-third of all Americans experience poverty for at least two months (DeNavas-Walt, et al. 2013). About half of the entire U.S. population will experience poverty before they reach age 65 (Cellini et al. 2008).

2. People with less education are more likely to be poor. True. Most definitely. See Figure 10.10 on page 287.

3. Most poor people are poor because they do not want to work. False. About 40 percent of the poor are under age 18 and another 10 percent are age 65 or older. Most of the rest work at jobs that are seasonal, undependable, or pay poverty wages (O’Hare 1996a, 1996b; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014).

4. Most of the poor are trapped in a cycle of poverty. We have to go true and false on this one. Most poverty lasts less than a year (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2013), but just over half of those who escape poverty will return to poverty within five years (Ratcliffe and McKernan 2010).

5. the percentage of children who are poor is higher than that of adults in poverty. True. Look at Figure 10.10.

6. Most children who are born in poverty are poor as adults. False. See Figure 10.7 on page 281.

7. there is more poverty in urban than in rural areas. False. We’ll review this in the following section.

8. Most African Americans are poor. False. This one was easy. We just reviewed some statistics in the box on upward mobility—plus you have Figure 10.8 below.

9. Most of the poor are African Americans. False. There are many more poor whites than any other group. Look at Part 2 of Figure 10.8.

10. Most of the poor live in the inner city. False. Most of the poor live in the suburbs (Kneebone and Berube 2013).

11. Most of the poor are single mothers and their children. False. About 38 percent of the poor match this stereotype, but 34 percent of the poor live in married-couple families, 22 percent live alone or with nonrelatives, and 6 percent live in other settings (O’Hare 1996a, 1996b; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014).

12. Most of the poor live on welfare. False. Most of the incomes of people in poverty come from wages, pensions, and Social Security. Somewhere between 11 percent and 25 percent come from welfare (O’Hare 1996a, 1996b; Lang 2012).

For Your Consideration → What stereotypes of the poor do you (or people you

know) hold?

→ How would you test these stereotypes?

Figure 10.8 Race–Ethnicity and U.S. Poverty

1The source does not break this total down by age. NOtE: Only these groups are listed in the source. The poverty line is $22,314 for a family of four.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

15

8

28 311

13 12 12

45

28

22

2 4

9

17

22

18

27

19

34

39

Part 2 Of all the U.S. poor, what percentages are from these groups?

Part 1 Of these groups, what percentage is poor?

P er

ce nt

ag e

Overall The elderly age 65 and over

Children under age 18

All racial– ethnic groups

White Americans

Asian Americans

Latinos

African Americans

Native Americans

14

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2014:Tables 6, 37, 38, 738, 739, and 741.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 285 11/19/15 8:38 AM

286 Chapter 10

racE–Ethnicity One of the strongest factors in poverty is race–ethnicity. As you can see from Figure 10.8 on page 285, 12 percent of Asian Americans are poor, followed closely by whites at 13 percent. From there, the poverty rate jumps. Twenty-seven to 28 percent of Latino and African Americans and 31 percent of Native Americans live in poverty. Because whites are, by far, the largest group in the United States, their lower rate of poverty translates into larger numbers. As a result, there are many more poor whites than poor people of any other racial–ethnic group. As Part 2 of Figure 10.8 shows, 45 percent of all poor people are whites.

EDucation You are aware that education is a vital factor in poverty, but you may not know just how powerful it is. Look at Figure 10.10 on the next page. One of every 4 people

who drop out of high school is poor, but only 5 of 100 people who finish college end up in pov- erty. As you can see, the chances that someone will be poor become less with each higher level of education. Although this principle applies regardless of race–ethnicity, you can also see how race–ethnicity makes an impact at every level of education.

thE fEminization of PovErty One of the best indicators of whether or not a family is poor is family structure. Families headed by both a mother and father are the least likely to be poor, while those headed by only a mother are the most likely to be poor (Sta- tistical Abstract 2014:Table 744). The reason for this can be summed up in one statistic: Women average only 72 percent of what men earn. (If you want to jump ahead, go to Figure 11.8. on page 318.) With our high rate of divorce

States with the least poverty: 8.8% to 13.1%

States with average poverty: 13.5% to 16.6%

States with the most poverty: 17.0% to 22.6%

Percentage of the population in poverty

VA 11.5

WY 11.3

ND 12.2

NE 13.1

MN 11.9

IA 12.8

WI 13.1

NH 8.8 MA 11.6

CT 10.9 NJ 10.4

DE 11.9

MD 10.1

Highest Poverty

1. Mississippi (22.6%) 2. New Mexico (21.5%) 3. Louisiana (20.4%)

Lowest Poverty

1. New Hampshire (8.8%)

2. Maryland (10.1%)

3. New Jersey (10.4%)

VT 11.5

AK 10.5

HI 12.0

UT 13.5

WA 13.9

NV 15.9

MT 14.8

CO 13.5

SD 13.9

KS 13.8

MO 15.8

IN 16.0

PA 13.8

ME 14.1

RI 14.7

IL 15.0

NY 16.0

OH 16.4

ID 16.5

CA 16.6

FL 17.0

OK 17.2

MI 17.5

OR 17.5

NC 17.9TN 18.3

TX 18.5

WV 18.6

DC 18.7

SC 18.9

AL 19.0

AZ 19.0

GA 19.1

KY 19.1

AR 19.5

LA 20.4

NM 21.5

MS 22.6

Figure 10.9 Patterns of Poverty

Poverty comes in many forms. Families who go into debt to buy possessions squeak by month after month until a crisis turns their lives upside down. I took this photo of a family in Georgia, parked alongside a highway selling their possessions to survive our economic downturn.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2014:Table 737.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 286 11/19/15 8:38 AM

Social Class in the United States 287

combined with the large number of births to single women, mother-headed families have become more common. Sociologists call this association of poverty with women the feminization of poverty.

olD agE As Figure 10.8 on page 285 shows, the elderly are less likely than the general pop- ulation to be poor. This is quite a change. It used to be that growing old increased people’s chances of being poor, but government policies to redistribute income—Social Security and subsidized housing, food stamps, and medical care—slashed the rate of poverty among the elderly. Figure 10.8 also shows how the prevailing racial–ethnic patterns carry over into old age. You can see how much more likely elderly minorities are to be poor than elderly whites.

Children of Poverty Children are more likely to live in poverty than are adults or the elderly. This holds true regardless of race–ethnicity, but from Figure 10.8, you can see how much greater poverty is among Latino and African American children. That millions of U.S. children are reared in poverty is shocking when one considers the wealth of this country and our supposed concern for the well-being of children. This tragic aspect of poverty is the topic of the following Thinking Critically section on the next page.

10.6 contrast the dynamics of poverty with the culture of poverty, explain why people are poor and how deferred gratification is related to poverty, and comment on the horatio alger myth.

The Dynamics of Poverty versus the Culture of Poverty Some have suggested that the poor get trapped in a culture of poverty (Lewis 1966a; Cohen 2010). They assume that the values and behaviors of the poor “make them fun- damentally different from other Americans and that these factors are largely responsible for their continued long-term poverty” (Ruggles 1989:7). Lurking behind this concept is the idea that the poor are lazy people who bring poverty on themselves. Certainly, some individuals and families do match this stereotype—many of us have known them. But is a self-perpetuating culture—one that poor people transmit across generations and that locks them in poverty—the basic reason for U.S. poverty?

0

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40% P

er ce

nt ag

e in

P o

ve rt

y

All Racial–Ethnic Groups

White Americans

Asian Americans

Latinos African Americans

College graduate College dropout High school graduate High school dropout

12

15

24

5

10 11

17

5

11 13

17

8

14

19

29

8

19

28

38

8

Figure 10.10 Who Ends Up Poor? Poverty by Education and Race–Ethnicity

SOURCE: By the author. Based on U.S. Census Bureau 2014:Table POV29.

feminization of poverty a condition of U.S. poverty in which most poor families are headed by women

culture of poverty the assumption that the values and behaviors of the poor make them fundamentally different from other people, that these factors are largely responsible for their poverty, and that parents perpetuate poverty across generations by passing these characteristics to their children

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 287 11/19/15 8:38 AM

288 Chapter 10

Thinking Critically The Nation’s Shame: Children in Poverty One of the most startling statistics in sociology is shown in

Figure 10.8 on page 285. Look at the rate of childhood poverty:

For Asian Americans, one of seven children is poor; for whites,

one of five; for Latinos, an astounding one of three; and for

African Americans, an even higher total, with two of every five

children living in poverty. These percentages translate into

incredible numbers—approximately 16 million children. Why do so many U.S. children live in poverty? A major

reason is the large number of births to women who are not married, about 1.7 million a year. This number has increased sharply, going from one of twenty in 1960 to eight of twenty today. With the total jumping eight times, single women now account for 41 percent of all U.S. births (Statistical Abstract 2014:Table 92).

But do births to single women actually cause poverty? Consider the obvious: Children born to wealthy single women don’t live in poverty. Then consider this: In some countries, such as Sweden, single women are more likely to give birth than are single women in the United States, yet their rate of child poverty is lower than ours (Garfinkel et al. 2010). The reason for this is because their governments provide

extensive support for rearing these children—from providing day care to health checkups. Why, then, can’t we point to the lack of government support for children as the cause of the poverty of children born to single women?

Now look at Figure 10.11 below. You can see that the less education that single women have, the more likely they are to bear children. From Figure 10.12, you can also see that the single women who can least afford children are those most likely to give birth. Their children face severe obstacles to building a satisfying life. They are more likely to go hungry, to be malnourished, to have health problems, even to die in infancy. They also are more likely to drop out of school, to become involved in crime, and to have children while still in their teens—perpetuating a cycle of poverty.

For Your Consideration On Figures 10.11 and 10.12, you can see how births to single women drop as education and income increase. In answering these two questions be specific and practical.

→ What programs would you suggest to help women attain more education?

→ What other ways would you suggest to reduce child poverty?

Figure 10.11 How Does Education Influence Births to Single Women

Unmarried Married

0% 100%80%60%40%20%

Graduate or professional degree

Bachelor’s degree

Associate’s degree

Some college, no degree

High school graduate

High school dropout

Of women with this education who give birth, what percentages are single or married?

SOURCE: Shuttuck and Kreider 2013:Table 2.

Figure 10.12 How Does Income Influence Births to Single Women

SOURCE: Shuttuck and Kreider 2013:Table 2.

Contrary to the stereotype of lazy people who contentedly sit back sucking wel- fare, poverty is dynamic. First, we should note that many people live on the edge of poverty. They manage to keep their heads above poverty, although barely, but then comes some dramatic life change, such as a divorce, an accident, an illness, or the loss of a job. The  poverty trigger propels them over the edge they were holding onto, and they find themselves in the poverty they fiercely had been trying to avoid (Western et al. 2012).

Single Married

0% 100%80%60%40%20%

$200,000 and higher

$75,000 to $100,000

$50,000 to $75,000

$150,000 to $200,000

$100,000 to $150,000

$25,000 to $50,000

$10,000 to $25,000

Less than $10,000

Of women with this income who give birth, what percentages are single or married?

H o

us eh

o ld

In co

m e

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 288 11/19/15 8:38 AM

Social Class in the United States 289

Second, most poverty is short-lived, lasting less than a year. As Figure 10.13 shows, only 12 percent of poverty lasts five years or longer. Yet from one year to the next, the number of poor people remains about the same. This means that the people who move out of poverty are replaced by people who move into poverty. Most of these newly poor will also move out of poverty within a year. Some people even bounce back and forth, never quite making it securely out of poverty.

Few poor people enjoy poverty—and they do what they can to avoid being poor. In the end, though, poverty touches a lot more people than the official totals indicate. Although 15 percent of Americans may be poor at any one time, for those under age 30, 40 percent will be poor in the next ten years (Western et al. 2012). Before they turn 65, about half of the U.S. population will experience poverty (Cellini et al. 2008).

Why Are People Poor? Two explanations for poverty compete for our attention. The first, which sociologists pre- fer, focuses on social structure. Sociologists stress that features of society deny some peo- ple access to education or training in job skills. They emphasize racial–ethnic, age, and gender discrimination, as well as changes in the job market—fewer unskilled jobs, busi- nesses closing, and manufacturing jobs moving overseas. In short, some people find their escape route from poverty blocked.

A competing explanation focuses on the characteristics of individuals. Sociologists reject explanations, such as laziness and lack of intelligence, viewing these as worth- less stereotypes. Individualistic explanations that sociologists reluctantly acknowledge include dropping out of school and bearing children in the teen years. Most sociologists are reluctant to speak of such factors in this context, since they appear to blame the vic- tim, something that sociologists bend over backward not to do.

A third explanation is the poverty triggers that were just mentioned, the unexpected events in life that push people into poverty.

Deferred Gratification One consequence of a life of deprivation punctuated by emergencies—and of viewing the future as promising more of the same—is a lack of deferred gratification, giving up things in the present for the sake of greater gains in the future. It is difficult to practice this middle-class virtue of deferring gratification if you do not have a middle-class surplus— or middle-class hope.

In a classic 1967 study of black street-corner men, sociologist Elliot Liebow noted that the men did not defer gratification. Their jobs were low-paying and insecure, their lives pitted with emergencies. With the future looking exactly like the present and any savings they did manage gobbled up by emergencies, it seemed pointless to save for the future. The only thing that made sense from their perspective was to enjoy what they could at the moment. Immediate gratification, then, was not the cause of their poverty but, rather, its consequence. Cause and consequence loop together, however: Their immediate gratification helped perpetuate their poverty. For another look at this “looping,” see the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page, in which I share my personal experience with poverty.

If both structural and personal causes are at work, why do sociologists empha- size the structural explanation? Reverse the situation for a moment. Suppose that members of the middle class drove old cars that broke down, faced threats from the utility company to shut off the electricity and heat, and had to make a choice between paying the rent or buying medicine and food and diapers. How long would they practice deferred gratification? Their orientations to life would likely make a sharp U-turn.

Figure 10.13 How Long Does Poverty Last?

17%

8%

59%

12%

One year or less

2 years

Up to 3 years

Five years or more

Up to 4 years

5%

SOURCE: Gottschalk et al. 1994:89.

deferred gratification going without something in the present in the hope of achieving greater gains in the future

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 289 11/19/15 8:38 AM

290 Chapter 10

Sociologists, then, do not view the behaviors of the poor as the cause of their poverty but, rather, as the result of their poverty. Poor people would welcome the middle-class opportunities that would allow them the chance to practice the middle-class virtue of deferred gratification. Without those opportunities, though, they just can’t afford it.

Where Is Horatio Alger? The Social Functions of a Myth In the late 1800s, Horatio Alger was one of the country’s most popular authors. The rags-to-riches exploits of his fictional boy heroes and their amazing successes in over- coming severe odds motivated thousands of boys of that period. Although Alger’s char- acters have disappeared from U.S. literature, they remain alive and well in the psyche of Americans. From real-life examples of people of humble origin who climbed the social class ladder, Americans know that anyone who really tries can get ahead. In fact, they believe that most Americans, including minorities and the working poor, have an average or better-than-average chance of getting ahead—obviously a statistical impossi- bility ( Kluegel and Smith 1986).

Down-to-Earth Sociology Poverty: A Personal Journey I was born in poverty. My parents, who could not afford to rent either a house or an apartment, rented the tiny office in their minister’s house. That is where I was born.

My father, who had only a seventh grade education, began to slowly climb the social class ladder. His fitful odyssey took him from laborer to truck driver to the owner of a series of small businesses (tire repair shop, bar, hotel), and from there to vacuum cleaner salesman, and back to bar owner. He converted a garage into a house. Although it had no indoor plumbing, it was a start. Later, he bought a house, and then he built a new home. After that we moved into a trailer, and then back to a house. Although he never became wealthy, poverty eventually became a distant memory for him.

My social class took a leap—from working class to upper- middle class—when, after attending college and graduate school, I became a university professor. I entered a world that was unknown to my parents, one much more pampered and privileged. I had opportunities to do research, to publish, and to travel to exotic places. My reading centered on sociological research, and I read books in Spanish as well as in English. My father, in contrast, never read a book in his life, and my mother read only detective stories and romance paperbacks. One set of experiences isn’t “better” than the other, just significantly different in determining what windows of perception it opens onto the world.

My interest in poverty, rooted in my own childhood experiences, stayed with me. I traveled to a dozen or so skid rows across the United States and Canada, talking to

homeless people and staying in their shelters. In my own town, I spent considerable time with people on welfare, observing how they lived. I constantly marveled at the connections between structural causes of poverty (low education, low skills, low pay, the irregularity of unskilled jobs, undependable transportation) and personal causes (the culture of poverty—alcohol and drug abuse, multiple out-of-wedlock births, frivolous spending, all-night partying, domestic violence, criminal involvement, and a seeming incapacity to keep appointments—except to pick up the welfare check).

Sociologists haven’t unraveled this connection, and as much as we might like for only structural causes to apply, both are at work (Duneier 1999:122; Gorski 2013). The situation can be illustrated by looking at the perennial health problems I observed among the poor—the constant colds, runny noses, backaches, and injuries. The health problems stem from the social structure (less access to medical care, less capable physicians, drafty houses, little knowledge about nutrition, and more dangerous jobs). At the same time, personal characteristics—hygiene, eating habits, drug and alcohol abuse—cause health problems. Which is the cause and which the effect? Both, of course: One loops into the other. The medical problems (which are based on both personal and structural causes) feed into the poverty these people experience, making them less able to perform their jobs successfully—or even to show up at work regularly. What an intricate puzzle for sociologists!

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 290 11/19/15 8:38 AM

Social Class in the United States 291

A society’s dominant ideologies are reinforced throughout the society, including its literature. Horatio Alger provided inspirational heroes for thousands of boys. The central theme of these many novels, immensely popular in their time, was rags to riches. Through rugged determination and self-sacrifice, a boy could overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles to reach the pinnacle of success. (Girls did not strive for financial success, but were dependent on fathers and husbands.)

Horatio Alger myth the belief that due to limitless possibilities anyone can get ahead if he or she tries hard enough

The accuracy of the horatio alger myth is less important than the belief that sur- rounds it—that limitless possibilities exist for everyone. Functionalists would stress that this belief is functional for society. On the one hand, it encourages people to compete for higher positions, or, as the song says, “to reach for the highest star.” On the other hand, it places blame for failure squarely on the individual. If you don’t make it—in the face of ample opportunities to get ahead—the fault must be your own. The Horatio Alger myth helps to stabilize society: Since the fault is viewed as the individual’s, not society’s, current social arrangements can be regarded as satisfactory. This reduces pressures to change the system.

As Marx and Weber pointed out, social class penetrates our consciousness, shap- ing our ideas of life and our “proper” place in society. When the rich look at the world around them, they sense superiority and anticipate control over their own destiny. When the poor look around them, they are more likely to sense defeat and to anticipate that unpredictable forces will batter their lives. Both rich and poor know the dominant ideology: The reasons for success—or failure—lie solely with the self. Like fish that don’t notice the water, people tend not to perceive the effects of social class on their own lives.

Peering into the Future: Will We Live in a Three-Tier Society? 10.7 Discuss the possibility that we are developing a three-tier society.

Now that we have looked at social class in the United States, you should be much more aware not only of how social class influences your life but also of American social struc- ture, how the social classes fit together to form the whole that we call American society.

Let’s go beyond this and in the following Thinking Critically section try to peer into the future. We will consider the disturbing possibility that society is being restratified— and that the picture coming into focus is not pleasant. Unfortunately, this will give us a much darker ending to this chapter than I prefer. But let’s go on.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 291 11/19/15 8:38 AM

292 Chapter 10

Summary and Review What Determines Social Class? 10.1 Explain the three components of social class—

property, power, and prestige; distinguish between wealth and income; explain how property and income are distributed; and describe the democratic façade, the power elite, and status inconsistency.

what is meant by the term social class?

Most sociologists have adopted Weber ’s definition of social class: a large group of people who rank closely to one another in terms of property (wealth), power, and prestige. wealth—consisting of the value of property and income—is concentrated in the upper classes. From the 1930s to the 1970s, the trend in the distribution of wealth in the United States was toward greater equality. Since that time, it has been toward greater inequality. Power is the ability to get your way even though others resist.

C. Wright Mills coined the term power elite to refer to the small group that holds the reins of power in business, government, and the military. Prestige is linked to occu- pational status.

how does occupational prestige differ around the world?

From country to country, people rank occupational prestige similarly. Globally, the occupations that bring greater pres- tige are those that pay more, require more education and abstract thought, and offer greater independence.

what is meant by the term status inconsistency?

status is social position. Most people are status consistent; that is, they rank high or low on all three dimensions of social class. People who rank higher on some dimensions than on others are status inconsistent. The frustrations of status inconsistency tend to produce political radicalism.

Thinking Critically The Coming Three-Tier Society and the Militarization of the Police A three-tier society seems to be looming over us. On the top

tier will be the wealthy, who will live in luxury behind gated

fortresses, protected from the prying eyes of the unwashed

masses. On the middle tier will be the technically trained, an

army of servants who will run the essential affairs of society.

They will maintain the computers that control the financial

system, the infrastructure of utilities, and the government

surveillance. There will also be the teachers, the elite ones for

the children of the elite and the regular ones whose task is to

indoctrinate and control the children of the poor. These technical

servants of society’s controllers will be backed up by a police

force that has come to look more like the military than the police. And the third tier? This one will consist of the jobless

poor. The need for unskilled work is drying up. We still need some fruit pickers and some house cleaners, and an occasional someone to hold up flags when a road is being constructed. But there is little of this kind of work. And most of what there is pays little. Enter one of today’s new factories, and you will be struck by the absence of people. You will see untiring robots that never complain, don’t take coffee breaks, and need neither vacations nor retirement pay. With each passing year, we need fewer human workers.

Widespread joblessness will trigger hopelessness and deep despair in some, resentment and hostility in others. To keep the lid on violence as long as possible, two solutions will be followed. The first will be to pacify the jobless through food

stamps, subsidized housing, entertainment, and drugs. Videos and television will divert most of the “dangerous poor” from seeking political solutions. Drugs will be tolerated because the poor who flee into them to escape their misery do not threaten the top tier by agitating for political change. Not all will be hopeless: Powerball will remain.

The second solution, coexisting with the first, is the militarization of the police. That the police are beginning to look like the military is not incidental. This is preparation for the armed force that will be necessary to control the impoverished masses. The media have been willing handmaidens of the elite, preparing the public for the militarization of the police by stoking constant fears of “terrorists.” This comes not without a plan from the controllers. The hostile elements of society—the masses left behind with little future, the resentful ones who do not choose to escape into drugs or television—pose a threat to the first tier. For most of the jobless poor, welfare food, televised sports, and the stream of “latest revelations” about vaunted celebrities provide escape adequate to keep them in line. But if what the Romans called food and circus fail to keep minds numb and wills weak, the militarized police with their powerful new weapons, armored vehicles, and trained snipers stand ready to take care of the rest.

For Your Consideration This is not a pleasant picture of the future, but your author sees it as a looming possibility.

→ Do you think the three-tier society is our likely destiny? Why or why not?

→ What do you think we can do to produce a better future than the three-tier society?

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 292 11/19/15 8:38 AM

Social Class in the United States 293

Thinking Critically about Chapter 10 1. The belief that the United States is the land of opportu-

nity draws millions of legal and illegal immigrants to the United States. How do the materials in this chapter support or undermine this belief?

2. In what three ways is social class having an ongoing impact on your life?

3. What social mobility has your own family experi- enced? In what ways has this affected your life?

4. What indications do you see that we are or are not developing a three-tier society?

Sociological Models of Social Class 10.2 contrast marx’s and weber’s models of social

class.

what models are used to portray the social classes?

Erik Wright developed a four-class model based on Marx: (1) capitalists (owners of large businesses), (2)  petty bourgeoisie (small business owners), (3) managers, and (4)  workers. Kahl and Gilbert developed a six-class model based on Weber. At the top is the capitalist class. In descending order are the upper-middle class, the low- er-middle class, the working class, the working poor, and the underclass.

Consequences of Social Class 10.3 summarize the consequences of social class

for physical and mental health, family life, education, religion, politics, and the criminal justice system.

how does social class affect people’s lives?

Social class leaves no aspect of life untouched. It affects our chances of dying early, becoming ill, receiving good health care, and getting divorced. Social class member- ship also affects child rearing, educational attainment, religious affiliation, political participation, the crimes people commit, and their contact with the criminal justice system.

Social Mobility 10.4 contrast the three types of social mobility, review

gender issues in research on social mobility, and explain why social mobility brings pain.

what are three types of social mobility?

The term intergenerational mobility refers to changes in social class from one generation to the next. structural mobility refers to changes in society that lead large numbers of people to change their social class. Exchange mobility is the movement of large numbers of people from one social class to another, with the net result that the rel- ative proportions of the population in the classes remain about the same.

Poverty 10.5 Explain the problems in drawing the poverty line,

how poverty is related to geography, race–ethnicity, education, feminization, and age.

who are the poor?

The poverty line, although it has serious consequences, is arbitrary. Poverty is unequally distributed in the United States. Racial–ethnic minorities (except Asian Americans), children, households headed by women, and rural Amer- icans are more likely than others to be poor. The poverty rate of the elderly is much less than that of the general population.

10.6 contrast the dynamics of poverty with the culture of poverty, explain why people are poor and how deferred gratification is related to poverty, and comment on the horatio alger myth.

why are people poor?

They dynamics of poverty (huge numbers moving into and out of poverty) indicate that the culture of poverty is not generally true. Rather than looking at the characteristics of individuals as the cause of poverty, sociologists stress the structural features of society, such as employment opportu- nities. There also are poverty triggers. Sociologists generally conclude that life orientations are a consequence, not the cause, of people’s position in the social class structure.

how is the horatio alger myth functional for society?

The horatio alger myth—the belief that anyone can get ahead if only he or she tries hard enough—encourages people to strive to get ahead. It also stabilizes society by deflecting blame for failure from society to the individual.

10.7 Discuss the possibility that we are developing a three-tier society.

what is meant by a three-tier society?

Trends indicate an alarming future. In the top tier of a three- tier society will live a wealthy ruling elite. In the middle tier will be well-compensated people who serve this elite. At the bottom tier will be a large underclass considered dangerous to society. It will be kept under control by wel- fare, entertainment, drugs, and a militarized police force.

M10_HENS5571_13_SE_C10.indd 293 11/19/15 8:38 AM

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 294 11/19/15 8:52 AM

295

Learning Objectives

11.1 Distinguish between sex and gender; use research on Vietnam veterans and testosterone to explain why the door to biology is opening in sociology. (p. 296)

11.2 Discuss the origin of gender discrimination, sex typing of work, gender and the prestige of work, and global aspects of pay, violence, and education. (p. 300)

11.3 Review the rise of feminism and summarize gender inequality in everyday life, health care, and education. (p. 308)

11.4 Explain reasons for the pay gap; discuss the glass ceiling and sexual harassment. (p. 316)

11.5 Summarize violence against women: rape, murder, and violence in the home. (p. 321)

11.6 Discuss changes in gender and politics. (p. 323)

11.7 Explain why the future looks hopeful. (p. 324)

In Tunis, the capital of Tunisia on Africa’s northern coast, I met some U.S. college students and spent a couple of days with them. They wanted to see the city’s red light district, but I wondered whether it would be worth the trip. I already had seen other red light districts, including the unusual one in Amsterdam where a bronze statue of a female prostitute lets you know you’ve entered the area; the state licenses the women and men, requiring that they have medical checkups (certificates must be posted); and the prostitutes add sales tax to the receipts they give customers. The prostitutes sit behind lighted picture windows while customers stroll along the narrow canal-side streets and “window shop” from the outside. Tucked among the brothels are day care centers, bakeries, and clothing stores. Amsterdam itself is an unusual place—in cafes, you can smoke marijuana but not tobacco.

I decided to go with the students. We ended up on a wharf that extended into the Mediterranean. Each side was lined with a row of one-room wooden shacks, one crowding against the next. In front of each open door stood a young woman. Peering from outside into the dark interiors, I could see that each door led to a tiny room with an old, well-worn bed.

The wharf was crowded with men who were eyeing the women and negotiating prices. Many of the men wore sailor uniforms from countries that I couldn’t identify.

As I looked more closely, I could see that some of the women had runny sores on their legs. Incredibly, with such visible evidence of their disease, men still sought them out.

With a sick feeling in my stomach and the desire to vomit, I kept a good distance between the beckoning women and myself. One tour of the two-block area was more than sufficient.

Somewhere nearby, out of sight, I knew that there were men whose wealth derived from exploiting these women who were condemned to short lives punctuated by fear and misery.

Chapter 11

Sex and Gender

The prostitutes sit behind lighted picture windows while customers stroll along the narrow canal- side streets and “window shop” from the outside.

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 295 11/19/15 8:52 AM

296 Chapter 11

In this chapter, we examine gender stratification—males’ and females’ unequal access to property, power, and prestige. Gender is especially significant because it is a master status; that is, it cuts across all aspects of social life. No matter what we attain in life, we carry the label male or female. These labels are powerful. Not only do they convey images and expectations about how we should act, but they also serve as a basis for distributing property, power, and prestige.

In this chapter’s fascinating journey, we will look at inequality between the sexes both around the world and in the United States. We explore whether it is biology or culture that makes us the way we are and review sexual harassment, unequal pay, and violence against women. This excursion will provide a good context for understanding the power differences between men and women that lead to situations such as the one described in our opening vignette. It should also give you insight into your own experi- ences with gender.

Let’s begin by considering the distinctions between sex and gender.

Issues of Sex and Gender 11.1 Distinguish between sex and gender; use research on Vietnam veterans and

testosterone to explain why the door to biology is opening in sociology.

When we consider how females and males differ, the first thing that usually comes to mind is sex, the biological characteristics that distinguish males and females. Primary sex characteristics consist of a vagina or a penis and other organs related to reproduction. Secondary sex characteristics are the physical distinctions between males and females that are not directly connected with reproduction. These characteristics become clearly evident at puberty when males develop larger muscles, lower voices, more body hair, and greater height, while females develop breasts and form more fatty tissue and broader hips.

Gender, in contrast, is a social, not a biological characteristic. Gender consists of whatever behaviors and attitudes a group considers proper for its males and females. Sex refers to male or female, and gender refers to masculinity or femininity. In short, you inherit your sex, but you learn your gender as you learn the behaviors and attitudes your culture asserts are appropriate for your sex.

As the photo montage on the next page illustrates, the expectations associated with gender differ around the world. They vary so greatly that sociologists often replace the terms masculinity and femininity with masculinities and femininities.

The SocioloGical SiGnificance of GenDer The sociological significance of gender is that gender is a device by which society controls its members. Gender sorts us, on the basis of sex, into different life experiences. It opens and closes doors to property, power,

and prestige. Like social class, gender is a structural feature of society.

Before examining inequalities of gender, let’s consider why the behaviors of men and women differ.

Gender Differences in Behavior: Biology or Culture? Why are most males more aggressive than most females? Why do women enter “ nurturing” occupations, such as teaching young children and nursing, in far greater numbers than men? To answer such questions, many people respond with some variation of “They’re born that way.”

Is this the correct answer? Certainly biology plays a sig- nificant role in our lives. Each of us begins as a fertilized egg.

Differences in how we display gender often lie below our awareness. How males and females use social space is an example. In this unposed photo from Grand Central Station in New York City, you can see how males tend to sprawl out, females to enclose themselves. Why do you think this difference exists? Biology? Socialization? Both?

gender stratification males’ and females’ unequal access to property, power, and prestige

sex biological characteristics that distinguish females and males, consisting of primary and secondary sex characteristics

gender the behaviors and attitudes that a society considers proper for its males and females; masculinity or femininity

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 296 11/19/15 8:52 AM

Standards of Gender

Each human group determines its ideas of “maleness” and “femaleness.” As you can see from these photos of four women and four men, standards of gender are arbitrary and vary from one culture to another. Yet, in its ethno centrism, each group thinks that its preferences reflect what gender “really” is. As indicated here, around the world men and women try to make them selves appealing by aspiring to their group’s standards of gender. Jordan

Kenya

China

Ethiopia

India

Mexico

Brazil

Papua New Guinea

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 297 11/19/15 8:53 AM

298 Chapter 11

The egg, or ovum, is contributed by our mother, the sperm that fertilizes the egg by our father. At the very instant the egg is fertilized, our sex is determined. Each of us receives twenty-three chromosomes from the ovum and twenty-three from the sperm. The egg has an X chromosome. If the sperm that fertilizes the egg also has an X chromosome, the result is a girl (XX). If the sperm has a Y chromosome, the result is a boy (XY).

The Dominant Position in Sociology That’s the biology. Now, the sociological question is, Does this biological difference control our behavior? Does it, for example, make females more nurturing and submissive and males more aggressive and domineering? Here is the quick sociological answer: The dominant sociological position is that social factors, not biology, are the reasons people do what they do.

Let’s apply this position to gender. If biology were the principal factor in human behavior, all around the world we would find women behaving in one way and men in another. Men and women would be just like male spiders and female spiders, whose genes tell them what to do. In fact, however, ideas of gender vary greatly from one culture to another—and, as a result, so do male–female behaviors.

Despite this, to see why the door to biology is opening just slightly in sociology, let’s consider a medical accident and a study of Vietnam veterans.

Opening the Door to Biology a MeDical acciDenT

In 1963, 7-month-old identical twin boys were taken to a doctor for a routine circumci- sion. The physician, not the most capable person in the world, was using a heated needle. He turned the electric current too high and accidentally burned off the penis of one of the boys.

You can imagine the parents’ disbelief—and then their horror—as the truth sank in. What could they do? After months of soul-searching and tearful consultations with experts, the parents decided that their son should have a sex-change operation (Money and Ehrhardt 1972). When he was 22 months old, surgeons castrated the boy, using the skin to con- struct a vagina. The parents then gave the child a new name, Brenda, dressed him in frilly clothing, let his hair grow long, and began to treat him as a girl. Later, physicians gave Brenda female steroids to promote female puberty (Colapinto 2001).

At first, the results were promising. When the twins were 4 years old, the mother said (remember that the children are biologically identical):

One thing that really amazes me is that she is so feminine. I’ve never seen a little girl so neat and tidy. . . . She likes for me to wipe her face. She doesn’t like to be dirty, and yet my son is quite different. I can’t wash his face for anything. . . . She is very proud of herself, when she puts on a new dress, or I set her hair. . . . She seems to be daintier. (Money and Ehrhardt 1972)

If the matter were this clear-cut, we could use this case to conclude that gender is determined entirely by nurture. Seldom are things in life so simple, however, and a twist occurs in this story.

Despite this promising start and her parents’ coaching, Brenda did not adapt well to femininity. She preferred to mimic her father shaving, rather than her mother putting on makeup. She rejected dolls, favoring guns and her brother’s toys. She liked rough- and-tumble games and insisted on urinating standing up. Classmates teased her and called her a “cavewoman” because she walked like a boy. At age 14, she was expelled from school for beating up a girl who teased her. Despite estrogen treatment, she was not attracted to boys. At age 14, when despair over her inner turmoil brought her to the brink of suicide, her father, in tears, told Brenda about the accident and her sex change.

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 298 11/19/15 8:53 AM

Sex and Gender 299

“All of a sudden everything clicked. For the first time, things made sense, and I under- stood who and what I was,” the twin said of this revelation. David (his new name) was given testosterone shots and, later, had surgery to partially reconstruct a penis. At age 25, David married a woman and adopted her children (Diamond and Sigmundson 1997; Colapinto 2001). There is an unfortunate end to this story, however. In 2004, David committed suicide.

The VieTnaM VeTeranS STuDy Time after time, researchers have found that boys and men who have higher levels of testosterone tend to be more dominant and aggres- sive than boys and men with lower levels of testosterone (Turan et al. 2014). In one study, researchers compared the testosterone levels of college men in a “rowdy” fraternity with those of men in a fraternity that had a reputation for academic achievement. Men in the “rowdy” fraternity had higher levels of testosterone (Dabbs et al. 1996). In one fasci- nating study, researchers found that prisoners who had committed sex crimes and other crimes of violence had higher levels of testosterone than those who had committed prop- erty crimes (Dabbs et al. 1995). The samples were small, however, leaving the nagging uncertainty that these findings might be due to chance.

Then in 1985, the U.S. government began a health study of Vietnam veterans. To be cer- tain that the study was representative, the researchers chose a random sample of 4,462 men. Among the data they collected was a measurement of testosterone. This sample supported the earlier studies. When the veterans with higher testosterone levels were boys, they were more likely to get in trouble with parents and teachers and to become delinquents. As adults, they were more likely to use hard drugs, to get into fights, to end up in lower-status jobs, and to have more sexual partners. Those who married were more likely to have affairs, to hit their wives, and, it follows, to get divorced (Dabbs and Morris 1990; Mazur and Booth 2014).

This makes it sound like biology is the basis for behavior. Fortunately for us sociol- ogists, there is another side to this research, and here is where social class, the topic of our previous chapter, comes into play. The researchers compared high-testosterone men from higher and lower social classes. The men from lower social classes were more likely to get in trouble with the law, do poorly in school, and mistreat their wives (Dabbs and Morris 1990). You can see, then, that social factors such as socialization, subcultures, life goals, and self-definitions were significant in these men’s behaviors.

More reSearch on huManS Research on the effects of testosterone in humans con- tinues. The results are intriguing. Not only do higher levels of testosterone lead to higher dominance but the reverse is also true: Dominance behavior, such as winning a game, also produces higher levels of testosterone. So does holding a real gun ( Klinesmith et al. 2006). This has made it difficult to determine which causes which.

Controlled studies in which cause can be determined help. When researchers administer single doses of testosterone, domi- nance behavior increases. This is true of both males and females, who then seek higher status and show less concern for the feel- ings of others (Eisenegger et al. 2011). Researchers are investi- gating how the testosterone changes people’s behaviors, which they think might be by triggering other hormones.

in SuM Sociologists acknowledge that biological factors are involved in some human behavior other than reproduction and childbearing (Freese 2008; Horowitz et al. 2014). Years back, one of the first sociologists to open this issue was Alice Rossi, a feminist sociologist and former president of the American Sociological Association. Perhaps Rossi (1977, 1984) expressed it best when she said that the issue is not either biology or society. Instead, whatever biological predispositions nature provides are overlaid with culture. A task of sociologists, then, is to discover how social factors modify biology, especially, as

David Reimer, whose story is recounted here.

This 1966 photo shows a U.S. soldier taking care of a wounded buddy

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 299 11/19/15 8:53 AM

300 Chapter 11

sociologist Janet Chafetz (1990:30) said, to determine how “different” becomes translated into “unequal.”

The sociological perspective—that of social factors in human behavior—dominates this book, and in the Thinking Critically section that follows, we will explore how gender is changing.

Maria, a member of the male-dominated Chicanos por Vida in Yakima, Washington. A “tough femininity” that incorporates masculine violence is emerging among female juvenile delinquents.

Thinking Critically New Masculinities and Femininities Are on Their Way

Facebook has changed its classifications from male/ female to, well, here is part of the list: agender, androgyne, gender fluid, gender queer, gender variant, intersex, neutrois, non-binary, and trans man. Facebook offers another 40 categories of gender.

Social change is so fast-paced and extensive that it is hard

to count on anything from one year to the next. From the new

Facebook classifications, you can see that even gender, what

we consider masculine or feminine, is changing. This helps let

us know that sexual identity is complicated: There are many

ways of identifying with being male or female—and in some

instances of not quite identifying with either. Powerfully entrenched in our culture, the traditional

models of the aggressive-dominant male and the compassionate-submissive female will not disappear. For most males, life will remain cast as a form of struggle, of adversaries pitted against one another. These males will try to live up to the expectations of strength and stamina, victory in competition, and achievement despite obstacles. They will continue to mask compassion and avoid even the appearance of weakness, fear, and vulnerability. For most women, the dominant model will also hold, and they will show—and probably feel—more emotions than men. They will express greater compassion and more fears and weaknesses.

As new models of gender take their place alongside the traditional ones, it is likely that a softer masculinity will become common. Men will feel freer to ask for help, to form emotional bonds with other men, even to tenderly touch both women and men—and still be masculine. Women will have more options to fight hard in the rough and tumble competitive world of business and the professions—and still be feminine.

As the developing masculinities incorporate behaviors previously considered inappropriate, off limits, or even taboo, we can expect a decrease of homophobia (dislike and fear of homosexuals). Homophobia seems to be based on a need to mark a sharp distance between the self and anyone who threatens the dominant model of masculinity or femininity. As cultural attitudes shift, fewer will feel an urgent need to maintain gender boundaries, to demonstrate to the self and others that “I’m not gay.”

For Your Consideration → What have you experienced to indicate that the dominant

forms of masculinity and femininity are changing?

→ Do you think we are developing femininities and masculinities?

→ Do you agree with the author, that homophobia will decrease?

Gender Inequality in Global Perspective 11.2 Discuss the origin of gender discrimination, sex typing of work, gender and the

prestige of work, and global aspects of pay, violence, and education.

Around the world, gender is the primary division between people. Every society sorts men and women into separate groups and gives them different access to property, power, and prestige. These divisions always favor men-as-a-group. After reviewing the histor- ical record, historian and feminist Gerda Lerner (1986) concluded that “there is not a single society known where women-as-a-group have decision-making power over men

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 300 11/19/15 8:53 AM

Sex and Gender 301

(as a group).” Consequently, sociologists classify females as a minority group. Because females outnumber males, you may find this strange. This term applies, however, because minority group refers to people who are discriminated against on the basis of physical or cultural characteristics, regardless of their numbers (Hacker 1951).

Around the world, women struggle against gender discrimination. For an extreme case, see the Mass Media in Social Life box on the next page.

How Did Females Become a Minority Group? Have females always been a minority group? Some analysts speculate that in hunting and gathering societies, women and men were social equals and that horticultural soci- eties also had less gender discrimination than is common today (Wilson 2013). In these societies, women may have contributed about 60 percent of the group’s total food. Yet, around the world, gender is the basis for discrimination.

How, then, did it happen that women became a minority group? Several theories have been proposed to explain the origin of patriarchy—men dominating society ( Baumeister 2013). Let’s consider two of them.

huMan reproDucTion The first theory—the major one—points to human repro- duction (Lerner 1986; Friedl 1990). In early human history, life was short. Because people died young, if the group were to survive, women had to give birth to many children. This brought severe consequences for women. To survive, an infant needed a nursing mother. If there were no woman to nurse the child, it died. With a child at her breast or in her uterus or one carried on her hip or on her back, women were not able to stay away from camp for as long as the men could. They also had to move slower. Around the world, then, women assumed the tasks that were associated with the home and child care, while men hunted the large animals and did other tasks that required greater speed and longer absences from the base camp.

This led to men becoming dominant. When the men left the camp to hunt animals, they made contact with other groups. They traded with them, gaining new possessions—and they

Men’s work? Women’s work? Customs in other societies can blow away stereotypes. As is common throughout India, these women are working on road construction.

patriarchy men-as-a-group dominating women-as-a-group; authority is vested in males

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 301 11/19/15 8:53 AM

302 Chapter 11

Mass Media in Social Life Women in Iran: The Times Are Changing, Ever So Slowly

A woman’s testimony in court is worth half that of a man’s testimony.

A woman may inherit from her parents only half what her brother inherits.

A woman who has sex with a man who is not her husband can be stoned to death.

A woman who refuses to cover her hair in public can receive eighty lashes with a whip.

Not exactly equality. As you would expect, Iranian

women don’t like it. Until now, though, there was little they could do. Controlled by their fathers until they married and afterward by their husbands, women for the most part didn’t know that life could be different.

The mass media and the new literacy are spearheading change in gender relations. Iranian women are logging onto the Internet, and they are reading books. Those who watch satellite television, which is illegal, are seeing pictures of other ways of life, an unfamiliar equality and mutual respect between women and men. Their eyes are being opened to the fact that not all the women in the world live under the thumbs of men. From this awareness is coming the realization that they don’t have to live like this either, that there is potential for change.

This awareness and the glimmer of hope that another way of life can be theirs have stimulated an incipient women’s movement. The movement is small—and protest remains dangerous. Women are arrested for being “feminists.” Punishment is fines and prison. Security forces sometimes rape these offenders. Other protestors

find brutality at home, from their husbands, fathers, or brothers.

Despite the danger, women are continuing to protest. They are even pressing for new rights in the Iranian courts. They are demanding divorce from abusive husbands. Some are getting it. Not many, but some.

Not much has changed yet. Men can still divorce their wives whenever they want, while a woman must go through a lengthy procedure and cannot be sure that she will be granted a divorce. A husband also gets automatic custody of any children over the age of 7.

The women are continuing their struggle. One small glimmer of hope: Embarrassed by the international outcry, Iranian politicians are allowing fewer women to be stoned to death. It is only a glimmer—women are still buried up to their necks in the ground and then stoned.

That there are fewer stonings, though, is, at least a beginning. Perhaps the rest will follow.

Or perhaps not. Since I wrote this, an Iranian court sentenced a woman to a year in jail for trying to watch a men’s soccer game.

SourceS: Based on Fathi 2009; Semple 2009. U.S. Department of State 2011; Erdbrink 2014.

For Your Consideration → What do you think gender relations will be like in Iran ten

years from now? Why?

→ If the women’s movement in Iran continues, do you think that relationships between men and women will eventually be about the same as those in the United States? Why or why not?

A sign of change. The struggle between Islamic fundamentalism and modernism is being played out in the Middle East. In the midst of it, Iran fields women soccer teams.

also quarreled and waged war with them. It was also the men who made and controlled the instruments of power and death, the weapons that were used for hunting and war- fare. The men heaped prestige upon themselves as they returned triumphantly to the camp, leading captured prisoners and displaying their new possessions or the large ani- mals they had killed to feed themselves and the women and children.

Contrast this with the women. Their activities were routine, dull, and taken for granted. The women kept the fire going, took care of the children, and did the cooking. There was nothing triumphant about what they did—and they were not perceived as risking their lives for the group. The women were “simply there,” awaiting the return of their men, ready to acclaim their accomplishments.

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 302 11/19/15 8:53 AM

Sex and Gender 303

Men, then, took control of society. Their sources of power were their weapons, items of trade, and the knowledge they gained from their contact with other groups. Women did not have access to these sources of power, which the men enshrouded in secrecy. The women became second-class citizens, subject to what- ever the men decided.

hanD-To-hanD coMbaT The second theory is short and simple, built around warfare and body strength. Anthropologist Marvin Harris (1977) pointed out that tribal groups did a lot of fighting with one another. Their warfare was personal and bloody. Unlike today, their battles were hand to hand, with groups fighting fiercely, trying to kill one another with clubs, stones, spears, and arrows. And when these weapons failed, they hit and strangled one another.

It is obvious, said Harris, that women were at a dis- advantage in hand-to-hand combat. Because most men are stronger than most women, men became the war- riors. And the women? The men needed strong motiva- tion to risk their lives in combat, rather than just running into the bush when an enemy attacked. The women became the reward that enticed men to risk their lives in battle. The bravest men were allowed more wives—from the women at home and the women they captured. The women were valued for sex, labor, and reproduction.

Which one? Is either theory correct—the one built around human reproduction or the one built around warfare? With the answer buried in human history, there is no way to test these theories. Male dominance could even be the result of some entirely different cause. Gerda Lerner (1986) suggests that patriarchy could have had different origins in different places.

conTinuinG DoMinance We don’t know the origins of patriarchy, then, but whatever its origins, a circular system of thinking evolved. Men came to think of themselves as inherently superior. And the evidence for their superiority? Their dom- ination of society. (You can see how circular this reasoning is: Men dominate society because they are superior, and they know they are superior because they dominate society.) The men enshrouded many of their activities with secrecy and constructed rules and rituals to avoid “contamination” by females, whom they came to view as inferior. Even today, patriarchy is always accompanied by cultural supports designed to justify male dominance. A common support is to designate certain activities as “not appropriate” for women, such as playing football, driving race cars, mining coal, or being a soldier.

Tribal societies eventually developed into larger groups, and the hunting and hand- to-hand combat ceased to be routine. Did the men then celebrate the end of their risky hunting and fighting and welcome the women as equals? You know the answer. Men enjoyed their power and privileges, and they didn’t want to give them up. Male domi- nance in contemporary societies, then, is a continuation of a millennia-old pattern whose origin is lost in history.

Sex Typing of Work Anthropologist George Murdock (1937) analyzed data that researchers had reported on 324 societies around the world. He found that all of them have sex typed work. In other words, every society associates certain work with one sex or the other. He also found that

It is the job of these women in Kenya to get the water for their families. They carry not only the water, but also their young children.

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 303 11/19/15 8:53 AM

activities considered “female” in one society may be consid- ered “male” in another. In some groups, for example, taking care of cattle is women’s work, while other groups assign this task to men.

There was one exception, metalworking, which was considered men’s work in all of the societies that Murdock examined. Making weapons, pursuing sea mammals, and hunting came close to being exclusively male activities, but there were a few exceptions. Although Murdock discov- ered no specific work that was universally assigned only to women, he did find that making clothing, cooking, car- rying water, and grinding grain were almost always female tasks. In a few societies, however, such activities were regarded as men’s work.

From Murdock’s cross-cultural survey, we can conclude that nothing about biology requires men and women to be assigned different work. Anatomy does not have to equal des- tiny when it comes to occupations. As we have seen, pursuits that are considered feminine in one society may be deemed masculine in another, and vice versa. You can see how the photo essay on the next two pages, which shows women at work in India, underscores this point.

Gender and the Prestige of Work You might ask whether dividing work by sex really illustrates social inequality. Perhaps it simply represents each group’s arbitrary ways of deciding how to do work, not gender discrimination?

This could be the case, except for this finding: Universally, greater prestige is given to male activities—regardless of what those activities are (Linton 1936; Rosaldo 1974). If taking care of goats is men’s work, then the care of goats is considered important and carries high prestige; if it is women’s work, it is considered less important and is given less pres- tige. Let’s take an example closer to home. When delivering babies was “women’s work” done by midwives, it was given low prestige. But when men took over this task, they became “baby doctors” with high prestige (Ehrenreich and English 1973; Rothman 1994). In short, it is not the work that provides the prestige, but the sex with which the work is associated.

Other Areas of Global Discrimination Let’s briefly consider four additional aspects of global gender discrimination. Later, when we focus on the United States, we will examine these topics in greater detail.

The Global Gap in eDucaTion About 750 million adults around the world can- not read or write; two-thirds are women (UNESCO 2015). Illiteracy is especially common in Africa and the Middle East, although certainly not limited to those areas. In North America, only half of the adults in Haiti can read and write. As bad as these totals are, they underestimate the problem. Some people are counted as literate if they can write their names (Falkenberg 2008).

The Global Gap in poliTicS It is typical for women to be underrepresented in pol- itics. On average, women make up just 20 percent of the world’s national legislative bod- ies. At 18 percent, the United States is below the average. The United States has the same percentage as Asia, but is below Africa and Europe (Inter-Parliamentary Union 2013). In 2008, Rwanda became the first country in the world to elect more women (56 percent) than men to its national legislature (Pflanz 2008).

Vedda hunters in Sri Lanka. Anthropologist George Murdock surveyed 324 traditional societies worldwide. In all of them, some work was considered “men’s work,” while other tasks were considered “women’s work.” He found that hunting is almost always considered “men’s work.”

304 Chapter 11

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 304 11/19/15 8:53 AM

Some of the jobs that women

in India do match trad itional

Western expectations, and some diverge

sharply from our gender stereotypes.

Although women in Ind ia remain subservient

to men—with the wome n’s movement hardly

able to break the cultur al surface—women’s

occupations are hardly limited to the home.

I was surprised at some of the hard, heavy

labor that Indian wome n do.

Indian women are highly visible in public places. A storekeeper is as likely to be a woman as a man. This woman is selling glasses of water at a beach on the Bay of Bengal. The structure on which her glasses rest is built of sand.

I visited quarries in different parts of India, where I found men, women, and children hard at work in the tropical sun. This woman works 8 ½ hours a day, six days a week. She earns 40 rupees a day (about ninety cents). Men make 60 rupees a day (about $1.35). Like many quarry workers, this woman is a bonded laborer. She must give half of her wages to her master.

Women also take care of livestock. It looks as though this woman dressed up and

posed for her photo, but this is what she was wearing

and doing when I saw her in the field and stopped to talk to her. While the

sheep are feeding, her job is primarily to “be” there, to make certain the sheep

don’t wander off or that no one steals them.

The villages o f India have n

o indoor

plumbing. Ins tead, each vill

age has

a well with a hand pump, a

nd it is

the women’s job to fetch th

e water.

This is backbr eaking work,

for, after

pumping the water, the wo

men

wrestle the he avy buckets o

nto their

heads and car ry them home

. This

was one of th e few kinds o

f work I

saw that was limited to wo

men.

Work and Gender: Wo men at Work in India

Traveling through India was both a

pleasant and an eye-ope ning experience.

The country is incredibly diverse, the

people friendly, and the land culturally rich.

For this photo essay, wh erever I went—

whether city, village, or c ountryside—I

took photos of women a t work.

From these photos, yo u can see

that Indian women wo rk in a wide

variety of occupations .

© James M. Henslin, all photos

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 305 11/19/15 8:54 AM

Sweeping the house is tradit ional work for Western wom

en. So it is in India,

but the sweeping has been e xtended to areas outside the

home. These women

are sweeping a major interse ction in Chennai. When the

traffic light changes

here, the women will contin ue sweeping, with the drive

rs swerving around

them. This was one of the fe w occupations that seems to

be limited to women.

When I saw this unusual sight, I had to stop and talk to the workers. From historical pictures, I knew that belt-driven machines were common on U.S. farms 100 years ago. This one in Tamil Nadu processes sugar cane. The woman feeds sugar cane into the machine, which disgorges the stalks on one side and sugar cane juice on the other.

A common sight in India is women working on construction crews. As they work on buildings and on highways, they mix cement, unload trucks, carry rubble, and, following Indian culture, carry loads of bricks atop their heads. This photo was taken in Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

As in the West, food preparation in India is traditional women’s work. Here, however, food preparation takes an unexpected twist. Having poured rice from the 60-pound sack onto the floor, these women in Chittoor search for pebbles or other foreign objects that might be in the rice.

This woman belongs to the Dhobi subcaste, whose occupation is washing clothes. She stands waist deep at this same spot doing the same thing day after day. The banks of this canal in Hyderabad are lined with men and women of her caste, who are washing linens for hotels and clothing for more well-to-do families.

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 306 11/19/15 8:54 AM

Sex and Gender 307

The Global Gap in pay In every nation, women earn less than men. As we will see later, full-time working women in the United States average only 73 percent of what men make. (If you want to jump ahead, go to Figure 11.8.) In some countries, women make much less than this.

Global Violence aGainST WoMen A global human rights issue is violence against women. Historical examples include foot binding in China, witch burning in Europe, and, in India, suttee, burning the living widow with the body of her dead husband. Today, we have rape, wife beating, female infanticide, and the kidnapping of women to be brides. There is also forced prostitution, which was probably the case in our opening vignette. There is also swara, a practice in tribal areas of Pakistan: Unmarried girls, even children, are given as brides to compensate a family for a man’s crime ( Symington 2014). Another notorious example is female circumcision, the topic of the Cultural Diversity box.

“Honor killings” are another form of violence against women. In some societies, such as Afghanistan, India, Jordan, Kurdistan, and Pakistan, a woman who is thought to have brought disgrace on her family is killed by a male relative—usually a brother or her husband, but sometimes her father or uncles. What threat to a family’s honor can be so severe that a man would kill his own daughter, wife, or sister? The usual reason is sex outside of marriage. Virginity at marriage is so prized in these societies that even a woman who has been raped is in danger of becoming the victim of an honor killing

Swara, an ancient custom, includes both adult males marrying female children and marrying children to one another. In compensation for a murder committed by her father, this Pakistani woman, now 19, was married to a man four times her age when she was nine years old.

Cultural Diversity around the World Female Circumcision (Genital Cutting)

“Lie down there,” the excisor suddenly said to me [when I was 12], pointing to a mat on the ground. No sooner had I laid down than I felt my frail, thin legs grasped by heavy hands and pulled wide apart. . . . Two women on each side of me pinned me to the ground . . . I underwent the ablation of the labia minor and then of the clitoris. The operation seemed to go on forever. I was in the throes of agony, torn apart both physically and psychologically. It was the rule that girls of my age did not weep in this situation. I broke the rule. I cried and screamed with pain . . . !

Afterwards they forced me, not only to walk back to join the other girls who had already been excised, but to dance with them. I was doing my best, but then I fainted . . . . It was a month before I was completely healed. When I was better, everyone mocked me, as I hadn’t been brave, they said. (Walker and Parmar 1993:107–108)

Worldwide, about 125 million females have been circumcised, mostly in Muslim Africa and in some parts of Malaysia and Indonesia (Dugger 2013). In Egypt and Indonesia, about 91 percent of the women have been circumcised. At 98 percent, the highest rate is in Somalia (Turkewitz 2014). In most cultures, the surgery takes place between

the ages of 4 and 8, but in some, it is not performed until the girls reach adolescence. Because the surgery is usually done without anesthesia, the pain is excruciating, and adults hold the girls down. In urban areas, physicians sometimes perform the operation; in rural areas, a neighborhood woman usually does it, often with a razor blade.

In some cultures, only the girl’s clitoris is cut off; in others, more is removed. In Sudan, the Nubians cut away most of the girl’s genitalia, then sew together the outer edges. They bind the girl’s legs from her ankles to her waist for several weeks while scar tissue closes up the vagina. They leave a small opening, the diameter of a pencil, for the passage of urine and menstrual fluids. When a woman marries, the opening is cut wider to permit sexual intercourse. Before she gives

An excisor displaying the razor blades she will use to circumcise teenage girls of the Sebei tribe in Uganda.

AfricaAfrica

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 307 11/19/15 8:54 AM

308 Chapter 11

birth, the opening is enlarged further. After birth, the vagina is again sutured shut. This cycle of surgically closing and opening begins anew with each birth.

Why are girls circumcised? Some groups believe that it reduces sexual desire, making it more likely that a woman will be a virgin at marriage and, afterward, remain faithful to her husband. Others think that women can’t bear children if they aren’t circumcised (Kindzeka 2014).

In some societies, uncircumcised women are considered impure, and men do not want them as wives. Concerned that their daughters marry well, the mothers insist that this custom continue.

Feminists have campaigned against female circumcision, calling it a form of ritual torture to control female sexuality. They point out that men dominate the societies that practice it.

Change is on the way. A social movement to ban female circumcision has emerged. The World Health Organization has even declared that female circumcision is a human rights issue. Fifteen African countries have made the circumcision of females illegal. Without sanctions, though, these laws accomplish little.

Health workers have hit upon a strategy that is meeting with some success. They begin by teaching village women about germs and hygiene. Then they trace the women’s current health problems, such as incontinence, to female

circumcision. When enough support has been gained, an entire village will publicly abandon the practice. As other villages do the same, the lack of circumcision no longer remains an obstacle to marriage.

The most powerful indictor of the future is this: Compared to their mothers, fewer young women support circumcision and fewer have been circumcised (Dugger 2013). Yet we must balance this statement with this one: In Bandung, Indonesia, hospitals offer package deals: a special price if you combine infant vaccinations, ear piercing, and genital cutting (Haworth 2012).

SourceS: As cited, and Lightfoot-Klein 1989; Merwine 1993; Tuhus- Dubrow 2007; Lazaro 2011; Sacirbey 2012.

For Your Consideration → Do you think that the members of one culture have the

right to judge the customs of another culture as inferior or wrong and to then try to get rid of them? If so, under what circumstances? What makes us right and them wrong?

→ Let’s go further. Some are trying to ban the circumcision of boys. One court in Germany even ruled that the circumcision of boys “amounts to bodily harm even if the parents consent to the circumcision” (Kulish 2012). Why shouldn’t the same principle apply to both female and male circumcision?

(Falkenberg 2008; McCoy 2014). Another offense worthy of death is refusing to marry the man the father picked out (Nordland 2014). Killing the girl or woman—even one’s own sister or mother—removes the “stain” she has brought to the family and restores the family’s honor in the community. Shar- ing this view, the police generally ignore honor killings, consid- ering them to be private family matters.

in SuM Gender inequality is not some accidental, hit-or-miss affair. Rather, each society’s institutions work together to maintain the group’s particular forms of inequality. Customs, often ven- erated through history, both justify and maintain these arrange- ments. In some cases, the prejudice and discrimination directed at females are so extreme that they lead to enslavement and death.

Gender Inequality in the United States 11.3 review the rise of feminism and summarize gender inequality in everyday life,

health care, and education.

As we review gender inequality in the United States, let’s begin by going back in history a bit. What you will read, which you might find startling, will provide excellent back- ground for understanding gender relations today.

Fighting Back: The Rise of Feminism In the early history of the United States, the second-class status of women was taken for granted. A husband and wife were legally one person—him (Chafetz and Dworkin 1986).

Photo of Xiao Xiuxiang, taken in 2002. Tiny feet were a status symbol. Making it difficult for a woman to walk; small feet indicated that a woman’s husband did not need his wife’s labor. To make the feet even smaller, sometimes the baby’s feet were broken and wrapped tightly. Some baby’s toes were cut off. Foot binding was banned by the Chinese government in 1911, but continued to be practiced in some places for several decades.

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 308 11/19/15 8:54 AM

Sex and Gender 309

Women could not vote, buy property in their own names, make legal contracts, or serve on juries. How could relationships have changed so much in the last hundred years that these examples sound like fiction?

A central lesson of conflict theory is that power brings privilege. Like a magnet, power draws society’s best resources to the elite. Because men tenaciously held onto their privileges and used social institutions to maintain their dominance, basic rights for women came only through prolonged and bitter struggle.

feminism—the view that biology is not destiny, that stratification by gender is wrong and should be resisted, and that men and women should be equal—met with strong opposition, both by men who had privilege to lose and by women who accepted their status as morally correct. In 1894, for example, Jeannette Gilder said that women should not have the right to vote: “Politics is too public, too wearing, and too unfitted to the nature of women” (Crossen 2003).

Feminists, known at that time as suffragists, struggled against such views. In 1916, they founded the National Woman’s Party, and in 1917, they began to picket the White House. After picketing for six months, the women were arrested. Hundreds were sent to prison, including Lucy Burns, a leader of the National Woman’s Party. The extent to which these women had threatened male privilege is demonstrated by how they were treated in prison.

Two men brought in Dorothy Day [the editor of a periodical that promoted women’s rights], twisting her arms above her head. Suddenly they lifted her and brought her body down twice over the back of an iron bench . . . . They had been there a few minutes when Mrs. Lewis, all doubled over like a sack of flour, was thrown in. Her head struck the iron bed and she fell to the floor senseless. As for Lucy Burns, they handcuffed her wrists and fastened the handcuffs over [her] head to the cell door. (cowley 1969)

This first wave of the women’s movement had a radical branch that wanted to reform all the institutions of society and a conservative branch whose goal was to win the vote for women (Freedman 2001). The conservative branch dominated, and after winning the right to vote in 1920, the movement basically dissolved.

The “first wave” of the U.S. women’s movement met enormous opposition. The women in this 1920 photo had just been released after serving two months in jail for picketing the White House. Lucy Burns, mentioned on this page, is the second woman on the left. Alice Paul, who was placed in solitary confinement and is a subject of this 1920 protest, is featured in the photo wheel of early female sociologists in Chapter 1, page 17.

feminism the philosophy that men and women should be politically, economically, and socially equal; organized activities on behalf of this principle

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 309 11/19/15 8:54 AM

310 Chapter 11

Inequality continued, of course, and even social science was part of the problem. In what is historically humorous, male social scientists paraded themselves as experts on the essence of womanhood. Here is what a renowned psychologist wrote in the 1960s, the paternalism oozing out of his well-intentioned statement: “We must start with the realization that, as much as we want women to be good scientists or engineers, they want first and foremost to be womanly companions of men and to be mothers” (Bettelheim 1965:15 in Eagly et al. 2012).

This man knew what women wanted—and in the 1960s, almost everyone else made the same assumption. From infancy, women were immersed in the idea that their pur- pose in life was to be “womanly companions of men and mothers.” Even children’s books reinforced such thinking, as you can see from Figure 11.1.

Reared with this idea, most women thought of work as a temporary activity intended to fill the time between completing school—usually high school—and getting married (Chafetz 1990). Then, as more women took jobs, they began to regard them as careers. This fundamental shift in perspective ushered in huge discontent. Women compared their work- ing conditions with those of men, and they didn’t like what they saw. The result was a second wave of protest against gender inequalities, roughly from the 1960s to the 1980s (Eagly et al. 2012). The goals of this second wave (which continue today) were broad, ranging from rais- ing women’s pay to changing policies on violence against women and legalizing abortion.

About 1990, the second wave gradually merged into a third wave (Byers and Crocker 2012). This current wave has many divisions, but three main aspects are apparent. The first is a greater focus on the problems of women in the Least Industrialized Nations (Lövheim 2013). Women there are struggling against conditions overcome long ago by women in the Most Industrialized Nations. The second is a criticism of the values that dominate work and society. Some feminists argue that competition, toughness, and cal- loused emotions represent “male” qualities that need to be replaced with cooperation, connection, and openness (England 2000). A third aspect is an emphasis on women’s freedom to explore sexual pleasure (Nguyen 2013).

Source: From Dick and Jane: Fun with Our Family, Illustrations © copyright 1951, 1979, and Dick and Jane: We Play Outside, copyright © 1965, Pearson Education, Inc., published by Scott, Foresman and Company. Used with permission.

Figure 11.1 Teaching Gender

The “Dick and Jane” readers were the top selling readers in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s. In addition to reading, they taught “gender messages.” What gender message do you see here?

What gender lesson is being taught here?

Besides learning words like “pigs” (relevant at that historical period), boys and girls also learned that rough outside work was for men.

What does this page teach children other than how to read the word “Father”? (Look to the left to see what Jane and Mother are doing.)

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 310 11/19/15 8:54 AM

Sex and Gender 311

Sharp disagreements have arisen among feminists (Kantor 2013). Some in the third wave promote what is called “girlie feminism” (Nguyen 2013). They say that women should declare the battle for equality won and move on to confidently enjoy the “pink things” of childhood. Women should focus on self-fulfillment and sexual pleasure. They should also embrace their “erotic capital,” using their sexual attractiveness and seduc- tiveness to get ahead at work. Those who struggled in the second wave are shocked by these younger feminists. Such attitudes, they say, are a denial of women’s ability to com- pete with men on equal terms, a betrayal of the equality that women have fought for (Hakim 2010).

Although U.S. women enjoy fundamental rights today, we are far from having reached the end of gender inequality. Let’s examine how gender inequality shows up in several areas of social life. We will begin by looking at everyday life, the most pervasive form of gender inequality.

Gender Inequality in Everyday Life Gender discrimination is common in everyday life. Let’s look at how femininity is deval- ued, something so frequent that it is often invisible, assumed as a normal background factor of social interaction.

DeValuaTion of ThinGS feMinine In general, with masculinity symbolizing strength and success, a higher value is placed on things considered masculine. Femininity, in contrast, is often perceived as weakness and lack of accomplishment. People are often unaware that they make these evaluations, but if you listen carefully, you can hear them pop up in everyday speech. Let’s take a quick historical glance at one of these indicators. It might even be one that you have used:

Sociologist Samuel Stouffer headed a research team that produced The american Soldier (Stouffer et al. 1949), a classic study of World War II combat soldiers. To motivate their men, officers used feminine terms as insults. If a man showed less-than-expected courage or endurance, an officer might say, “Whats a matter, Bud—got lace on your drawers?” [“Drawers” was a term for underpants.] A generation later, as officers trained soldiers to fight in Vietnam, they still used accusations of femininity to motivate their men. Drill sergeants would mock their troops by saying, “Can’t hack it, little girls?” (Eisenhart 1975). The practice continues. Male soldiers who show hesitation during maneuvers are mocked by others, who call them girls. (Miller 1997/2007)

It is the same in sports. Anthropologist Douglas Foley (1990/2006), who studied high school football in Texas, reports that coaches insult boys who don’t play well by shout- ing that they are “wearing skirts.” In her research, sociologist Donna Eder (1995) heard junior high boys call one another “girl” when they didn’t hit hard enough in football. In basketball, boys of this age also call one another a “woman” when they miss a basket (Stockard and Johnson 1980). If professional hockey players are not rough enough on the ice, their teammates call them “girls” (Gallmeier 1988:227).

In the ghetto, too, boys are under pressure to prove their manhood, and a boy who won’t react violently to an insult is said to be “wearing a skirt” (Jones 2010).

How do these insults, which roll so easily off the tongues of men, represent a deval- uation of femininity? Sociologists Stockard and Johnson (1980:12) hit the nail on the head when they pointed out, “There is no comparable phenomenon among women, for young girls do not insult each other by calling each other ‘man.’”

Gender Inequality in Health Care Medical researchers were perplexed. Reports were coming in from all over the country: Women were twice as likely as men to die after coronary bypass surgery. Researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles checked their own records. They found that of 2,300 coronary bypass patients, 4.6 percent of the women died as a result of the surgery, compared with 2.6 percent of the men.

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 311 11/19/15 8:54 AM

312 Chapter 11

Down-to-Earth Sociology Cold-Hearted Surgeons and Their Women Victims While doing participant observation in a hospital, sociologist Sue Fisher (1986) was surprised to hear surgeons recommend total hysterectomy (removal of both the uterus and the ovaries) when no cancer was present. When she asked why, the male doctors explained that the uterus and ovaries are “potentially disease producing.” They also said that these organs are unnecessary after the childbearing years, so why not remove them? Doctors who reviewed hysterectomies confirmed this gender- biased practice. Ninety percent of hysterectomies are avoidable. Only ten percent involve cancer (Costa 2011).

Greed is a powerful motivator in many areas of social life, and it rears its ugly head in surgical sexism (Domingo and Pellicer 2009). Surgeons make money when they do hysterectomies. The more hysterectomies they do, the more money they make.

Since women, to understate the matter, are reluctant to part with these organs, surgeons have to “sell” this operation. Here is how one resident explained the “hard sell” to sociologist Diana Scully (1994):

You have to look for your surgical procedures; you have to go after patients. Because no one is crazy enough to come and say, “Hey, here I am. I want you to operate on me.” You have to sometimes convince the patient that she is really sick—if she is, of course [laughs], and that she is better off with a surgical procedure.

Used-car salespeople would love to have the powerful sales weapon that surgeons have at their disposal: To “convince” a woman

to have this surgery, the doctor puts on a serious face and tells her that the examination has turned up fibroids in her uterus— and these lumps might turn into cancer. This statement is often

The researchers faced a sociological puzzle. To solve it, they first turned to biology (Bishop 1990). In coronary bypass surgery, a blood vessel is taken from one part of the body and stitched to an artery on the surface of the heart. Perhaps the surgery was more difficult to do on women because of their smaller arteries. To find out, researchers mea- sured the amount of time that surgeons kept patients on the heart–lung machine. They were surprised to learn that women spent less time on the machine than men. This indi- cated that the surgery was not more difficult to perform on women.

As the researchers probed further, a surprising answer unfolded: unintended sexual discrimination. When women complained of chest pains, their doctors took them only one-tenth as seriously as when men made the same complaints. How do we know this? Doctors were ten times more likely to give men exercise stress tests and radioactive heart scans. They also sent men to surgery on the basis of abnormal stress tests, but they waited until women showed clear-cut symptoms of heart disease before sending them to surgery. Patients with more advanced heart disease are more likely to die during and after heart surgery.

Although these findings have been publicized in medical circles, the problem continues (Varughese et al. 2014). Perhaps as more women become physicians, the sit- uation will change, since female doctors are more sensitive to women’s health problems (Tabenkin et al. 2010). For example, they are more likely to order Pap smears and mam- mograms (Lurie et al. 1993). In addition, as more women join the faculties of medical schools, we can expect women’s health problems to receive more attention in the training of physicians. Even this might not do it, however, as women, too, hold our cultural ste- reotypes of the sexes.

In contrast to unintentional sexism in heart surgery, let’s look at a type of surgery that is a blatant form of discrimination against women. This is the focus of the Down-to- Earth Sociology box.

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 312 11/19/15 8:54 AM

Sex and Gender 313

Gender Inequality in Education The paST

Until 1832, women were not allowed to attend college with men. When women were admitted to colleges attended by men—first at Oberlin College in Ohio—they had to wash the male students’ clothing, clean their rooms, and serve them their meals (Flexner 1971/1999).

How times have changed—so much so that this quote sounds like it is a joke. But there is more. The men who controlled education were bothered by female organs. They said that women’s minds were dominated by their organs, making women less qualified than men for higher education. The men considered menstruation to be a special obstacle to women’s success in education: It made women so feeble that they could hardly continue with their schooling, much less anything else in life. Here is how Dr. Edward Clarke, of Harvard University, put it:

A girl upon whom Nature, for a limited period and for a definite purpose, imposes so great a physiological task, will not have as much power left for the tasks of school, as the boy of whom Nature requires less at the corresponding epoch. (andersen 1988)

Because women are so much weaker than men, Clarke urged them to study only one-third as much as young men. And, of course, in their weakened state, they were advised to not study at all during menstruation.

a funDaMenTal chanGe Like out-of-fashion clothing, such ideas were discarded. As Figure 11.2 on the next page shows, by 1900 one-third of college students were women. The change since then has been fundamental, extensive, and ongoing. Today, far more women than men attend college, but this overall average hides many distinctions. Look at Figure 11.3 to see major differences by racial–ethnic groups. You can see that African Americans have the most women relative to men, and Asian Americans the least. Overall, women now earn an astounding 57 percent of all bachelor’s degrees and 60 per- cent of all master’s degrees (Statistical Abstract 2014:Table 303). Do you think it might be time to apply affirmative action to men? Let’s consider this in the Down-to-Earth Sociol- ogy box on page 315.

Figure 11.4 on page 315 illustrates another major change—how women have increased their share of professional degrees. The greatest change is in dentistry: In 1970, across the entire United States, only 34 women earned degrees in dentistry. Today, that total has jumped to 2,300 a year. As you can also see, almost as many women as men now become dentists, lawyers, and physicians. It is likely that women will soon outnumber men in earning these professional degrees.

sufficient to get the woman to buy the surgery. She starts to picture herself lying at death’s door, her sorrowful family gathered at her death bed. Then the used car salesperson—I mean, the surgeon—moves in to clinch the sale. Keeping a serious face and displaying an “I-know-how-you-feel” look, the surgeon starts to make arrangements for the surgery. What the surgeon withholds is the rest of the truth—that uterine fibroids are common, that they usually do not turn into cancer, and that the patient has several alternatives to surgery.

In case it is difficult to see how this is sexist, let’s change the context just a little. Let’s suppose that the income

of some female surgeon depends on selling a specialized operation. To sell it, she systematically suggests to older men the benefits of castration—since “those organs are no longer necessary and might cause disease.”

For Your Consideration

Hysterectomies have become so common that by age 60, one of three U.S. women has had her uterus surgically removed (Rabin 2013). → Why do you think that surgeons are so quick to operate? → How can women find alternatives to surgery?

M11_HENS5571_13_SE_C11.indd 313 11/19/15 8:54 AM

314 Chapter 11

GenDer TrackinG With such extensive change, it would seem that gender equality has been achieved or at least almost so. In some instances—as with the changed sex ratio in college—we even have a new form of gender inequality. If we look closer, however, we can see gender tracking. That is, college degrees tend to follow gender, which rein- forces male–female distinctions. Here are two extremes: Men earn 95 percent of the asso- ciates’ degrees in the “masculine” field of construction trades, while women are awarded 96 percent of the associates’ degrees in the “feminine” field of “family and consumer

sciences” (Statistical Abstract 2014:Table 306). Because gender socialization gives men and women different orientations to life, they enter college with gender-linked aspirations. Social- ization—not some presumed innate characteristic—channels men and women into different educational paths.

GraDuaTe School anD beyonD If we follow students into graduate school, we see that with each passing year, the proportion of women drops. Table 11.1 on page 316 gives us a snapshot of doctoral programs in the sciences. Note how aspi- rations (enrollment) and accomplishments (doctorates earned) are sex-linked. In four of these doctoral programs men outnum- ber women, in three women outnumber men, and one is a tie. In all, however, women are less likely to complete the doctorate.

If we follow those who earn doctoral degrees to their teach- ing careers at colleges and universities, we find gender stratifi- cation in rank and pay. Throughout the United States, women are less likely to become full professors, the  highest-paying and most prestigious rank. In both private and public colleges, the average pay of full professors is more than twice that of instruc- tors (Statistical Abstract 2014:Table 299). Even when women do become full professors, their average pay is less than that of men who hold the same rank (AAUP 2014:Table 5).

0%

10%

20%

30%

50%

40%

60%

P er

ce nt

ag e

70%

Whites Latinos African Americans

Asian Americans

Native Americans

WomenMen

53

47

56

44

58

42

60

40

64

36

Source: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2014:Table 283.

Figure 11.3 College Students, by Sex and Race–Ethnicity

0%