SOCY
vemylami
SOCYDISC4.docxPart 1-
Course materials this week talked about class and caste systems. However, no system is purely caste or class- all societies have some elements of each. They sit on a continuum between the two ideas.
If we think about societies as being a blend of caste and class aspects, we can think about life chances being about a blend of ascribed characteristics and achieved characteristics.
This blend applies to all societies and while we are very quick to see the achieved characteristics in our own society, we may not always see how the ascribed characteristics manifest.
Use your course materials, outside sources and the statistics below to discuss the caste elements of U.S. culture that are supported by evidence.
To help with this, as a reminder these are the things that determine social mobility or movement from one class to the other
—1 the rigidity of the system- how difficult it is for people to change from one group to another
—2 the relative importance of ascribed versus achieved status
—3. the extent to which restrictions are placed on social interaction between categories
statistics about the U.S.
90% of the nation's wealth is owned by 20% of the nation's population
About 70% of the U.S. population lives in racially and economically segregated neighborhoods (meaning most people live and interact on a daily basis with people in their same class)
Intergenerational mobility- about 70% of people die in the same social and economic class they were born into
Intragenerational Mobility- about 65% of adults are in the same social and economic class as their parents were and over 60% are in the same economic and social class as their grandparents were
Although the supreme court ruled to allow marriage rights to all couples regardless of sex – individuals in same sex relationships still face significant restrictions in adoption as well as discriminatory laws in the workplace and world in general.
Only about 12% of all marriages in the U.S. are interracial or interethnic
If you choose almost any social event in your city - (a concert, a club, a play, a sporting event)- 70 to 90% of the people there will share a social class
More information statistics on social stratification here
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
Part 2
Functionalists argue that the system works- there are enough opportunities around that if you work hard enough you can get ahead. Basically, functionalists would argue that the only barriers to success are individual- that only achieved status matters for success.
Conflict theorists argue that the system is unequal and operates to keep those at the top of the hierarchy there. That opportunities are not equal and that the system makes it hard to move up and gives more chances to those at the top even if they lack ability. Conflict theory argues that ascribed status matters. Even if you have inherent individual ability to succeed, there are more barriers to success for those with minority ascribed statuses.
Given the evidence you used for part 1 which of these theories have more support?
Part 3-
When we talk about social inequality one of the concepts that is important is the idea of Hegemony- the dominance or control of one group over another often supported by legitimating norms or ideas. The idea of Hegemony is that in order for a small group to maintain power over a larger group the larger group needs to maintain the inequality. This is done by socializing the larger group into beliefs that lead them to act against their own interests and maintain the power of those who oppress them. These beliefs are called legitimizing myths. Although they often rely on stereotypes, they are different from stereotypes because they have the express purpose of giving the illusion that individuals are to blame for their circumstances rather than the social system being to blame.
List some legitimizing myths that we use in the U.S. to maintain inequality
In what ways can American dream (the American dream basically is the idea that if you work hard that you can achieve all of your goals) be seen as a legitimizing myth?
RESOURCES
READ/VIEW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlkIKCMt-Fs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtxtI5IGrfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a21mndoORE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rts_PWIVTU&t=5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b350ljkYWrU
Open Stax Introduction to Sociology chapter 10- Introduction to Global inequality
SEE ATTACHMENT for Open Stax
· Course module parts 1 and 2 inequalities
Module 3: Stratification and Social Inequalities (Stratification, Gender, Race, Age)
Topics
I. How Societies Are Stratified II. Inequality and Poverty in the United States and the World III. Social Inequality in Everyday Life
All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
—Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
The uneven division of power and wealth, the wide differences of health and comfort among nations of mankind, are the sources of discord in the modern world, its major challenge and, unrelieved, its moral doom.
Patrick M.S. Blackett (Nobel Prize winner in Physics, 1948)
As humans have developed the ways of organization and technology to ensure survival, inequalities have been formed. Human enlightenment over the centuries has always involved the pursuit of equality as one of its central principles.
Two great revolutions of the eighteenth century, the American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution, both declared the right of the individual to be treated equally with others. Despite such high principles, huge increases in wealth—made possible by industrialized production—have been accompanied by equally huge disparities and inequalities. This observation highlights the importance of examining why inequalities persist and, at times, even increase. Sociologists address this circumstance of inequality through the concept of stratification. When entire categories of people are elevated above other categories of people so that some people have more resources than another group, it is clear that social rather than individual forces are at work and these forces are what sociology describes as stratification. It can be argued that the study of stratification is the heart of sociology. In its essence, the study of stratification asks (and seeks to answer) the question: "Who gets what and why?" (Lenski, 1966, p. 1).
I. How Societies Are Stratified
What Is Social Stratification?
As indicated above, stratification refers to a system by which a society ranks categories of people into a number of different hierarchies. Individuals can be ranked on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, age, income, or other characteristics. Although some of these characteristics are of little or no social consequence (e.g., eye color), others (e.g., income or skin color) obviously are. This module examines several types of stratification, including economic (or social), gender, racial and ethnic, and age stratification. We begin with economic or social stratification, i.e., the categorizing of society's members into various social classes, with the latter addressed here in terms of income levels. (Two other factors contributing to social stratification are, of course, educational attainment and occupational prestige. Consult your text for the discussion of these within the context of social class issues.
Three points can be made about social stratification:
1. Social stratification is a characteristic of society, not of individual people. We tend to exaggerate the extent to which people control their destinies. Certainly children born to rich or poor parents had no control over the choice of their parents, yet the presence (or absence) of family monies ensures that these children have very different chances to enjoy good health, education, and access to good jobs. More directly, although these children didn't cause the stratification system, they must live within its structure.
2. Social stratification is relatively stable over generations. Whereas in the United States there are notable success stories about sports, entertainment, or business personalities who have arisen from humble, impoverished backgrounds, and whereas there is even a good deal of social mobility in the United States (not only up or down, but horizontally), it is still the case that because most children are born into the social position of their parents, the conditions of the parents tend to have a lasting impact on the achievements of the children.
3. Social stratification doesn't involve economic inequality only; it also involves beliefs. All stratification systems have ideologies that support and justify the reasons for inequality.
Is social stratification a new phenomenon? The answer is both yes and no. Every society has some form of stratification system, typically, they have many types of stratification systems. Historically, stratification systems have come in various ways, e.g., slavery, castes, estates, and in modern society—the period since the Industrial Revolution—as class distinctions. What distinguishes social stratification in modern societies, however (in contrast with traditional, pre-industrial societies), is the level of mobility permitted between categories. In slavery and caste systems, there is virtually no mobility permitted. From birth to death, individuals in such systems usually live out their lives stuck at a certain position in society. In class systems, mobility between levels of class is common.
Below are but a few examples of several kinds of historical stratification systems and how society is ordered within them.
|
Name of the System |
Description of the system |
An example of where it can be found |
Examples of what privileges and limitations flow from stratification |
Examples of beliefs that support inequality |
|
Caste system |
Caste is a rigid status system based on religion. Apartied is a type of caste system, a systematic segregation based on race. Status is determined by race (and thus by birth). |
Although illegal in India, the caste system is widely practiced there, particularly in rural areas. South Africa (Slavery officially ended in 1834, although segregation took hold and was formalized legally after WWII and continued until March 1992.) |
Marriage is within the caste. Members participate in norms and ritualistic practices that distinguish their caste from others. In Apartheid, one's race determines where one lives, goes to school, and other aspects of social life. |
The lowest caste, the "untouchables," are forbidden to move about in daylight lest their shadows violate the person of another caste. Customs and practices associated with caste are supported by religion. |
|
Estate system |
In this closed system of stratification, membership is determined by inheritance and upheld by law and religion. |
Britain, France, and Spain until the Industrial Revolution. |
Degree of royal blood determines one's right to real estate, power, and privilege. |
Royal privilege is supported by religion; the British monarch, for example, also represents the Church. |
|
Slavery |
This extreme form of legal social inequality is based on the ownership of people. Modern approximations of slavery include exploitation of people's work and strict limitations to opportunities for self-advancement |
Historically, United States from 1619–1865. Currently, Sudan. Exists in first-world countries. |
Because of skin color, free blacks had to carry papers identifying them as free. Guest workers such as maids, agricultural workers, or prostitutes can be employed by overseers who exert enormous control over them. |
Slaves are property and have no human rights. Status is justified by religious ideology, including the assumption that slavery is a preordained status. Employers who control the passports or detection of illegal workers may threaten them with deportation if they resist work at low wages or under bad conditions. |
|
Class (a system that depends on achieving socially and economically defined goals) |
In this system, based primarily on money and material possessions, power and prestige are attainable by levels of education, income, property, and social connections. |
United States, England, France, and Germany. |
Initially, class begins at birth with ascribed or achieved status, but the achievements of life may accrue wealth or power, and thus class can change. |
Ideological beliefs supporting class arrangements include beliefs that poor people are undeserving because they are lazy and don't work hard. Ironically, rich people who don't work and instead live off of their investments are to be admired. |
As an inspection of the above chart indicates, stratification systems, particularly social stratification, have a number of things in common:
1. The statuses that people occupy tend to order access to resources such as jobs, residential location, education, and religious participation.
2. The contributions made by each level of the hierarchy are valued differently.
3. Each system is supported by a belief system (typically religious in nature) that justifies the inequalities that exist within the system.
What Accounts for the Stability of Stratification Over Time?
Stratification systems are remarkably stable across time and culture. In the United States, several hundred families have had considerable amounts of money, power, and prestige for periods of up to 150 or more years. In Europe and Japan, ruling families have been in power for centuries. The continued presence of such families with power is evidence of the stability of stratification patterns over time and across cultures. Thus, despite the dreams of millions of Americans to surpass the living standards of their parents, most find that they remain about the same class as their parents.
Ideologies play a key role in keeping societies stratified. Some examples of ideology include beliefs in the "divine right" of royalty and assumptions about racial superiority. In the first case, the divine right of royalty helps to rationalize royal power and provide a justification for the heavy taxation and forced labor of peasants in service to the reigning monarch. In the second case, assumptions about racial superiority justify both slavery and economic exploitation and, in some cases, ensure the continuation of both over time, especially if the racial ideology is linked to a religious ideology. For example, in American history, owners of slaves often justified the bondage status of their slaves with religious principles (see the discussion by Major L Jones in Black Awareness: A Theology of Hope, Abingdon Press, 1971, pp 20, 34–40). Today we look back at such times and can see more clearly the power of ideologies to justify stratification, but we can also see how ideological justifications for social inequality vary by culture and across history.
How Can We Explain the Existence of Stratification?
Historically, sociologists draw from the writings from Marx and Engels (1848) and Weber (1921}. In the contemporary period, sociologists tend to cite Davis and Moore (1945) and Herbert Gans (1995) for the functional perspective and Gerhard Lenski (1966, 1995) for the contemporary conflict perspective.
Historical Theories about Stratification
Conflict theorists Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (1848) proposed that stratification provides some people the chance to obtain power, prestige, or wealth at the expense of others. Conflicts arise when workers (who must sell their labor to capitalists) are exploited for the benefit of capitalists (who own and operate companies and businesses). Further, the societal values and beliefs that justify inequality tend to be those of the most powerful people in society. The exploitation of workers will eventually cause so much conflict that they will overthrow that capitalist class. The stability of the stratification system and lack of revolution show that Marx and Engels' predictions of the demise of capitalism have not come true.
Max Weber (1921), a functional theorist, saw stratification as a multidimensional concept: social hierarchy depends not only on wealth but on class (a social ranking system), status (social prestige), and power. Class ranking often follows income. From Weber's perspective, the higher the class, the better one's life chances. Conversely, because those in lower classes must devote a great proportion of their efforts just to get the necessities of life, their life chances are more limited. The same is true of power. According to Weber, there is a vast disparity between the rich and poor in society. Given the control the rich have over law, business, and other social institutions, the power of class is both formidable, far-reaching, and entrenched.
Contemporary Theories about Stratification
Contemporary theories of stratification stress its continuation over time and attempt to explain how this occurs. An example of such theorizing is the classic discussion by Davis and Moore, first published in 1945.
Davis and Moore attempt to explain social stratification through an analysis of society's highly differentiated levels of professional and occupational skills. In this perspective, stratification is a mechanism by which societies ensure that the most important positions are systematically filled by the most qualified people. Their argument is that to be efficient and productive, society is based on meritocracy, where talent, ability, and hard work are rewarded. The greater the functional importance of a job, the greater the preparation required for the job (in terms of education or training) and the higher the rewards given. Rewards can be economic (money), esthetic (entertainment), or symbolic (self-respect obtained from earning promotion or awards). Values and beliefs, such as Work hard and you shall succeed, legitimize social inequality. Because these values and beliefs are widely shared in all classes, inequality is relatively stable.
Another contemporary functionalist is Herbert Gans (1995) who wrote extensively about the ways in which the presence of lower classes and poverty benefit society, particularly the rich. For example, the lower classes provide markets for less desirable goods and services and generate jobs for social workers, law enforcement agencies, and others who deal with the social problems of the poor. One last example of the functionality of poverty is that it provides an ideological incentive to higher classes in capitalistic systems. Because each class is valued differently, it is useful for society to believe that lower class people are undeserving. In fairness to his discussion, it must be pointed out that Gans was providing a functional analysis of poverty from a critical perspective that sought to drive home the struggles of the poor and not their functions per se.
A conflict approach to stratification is provided by sociologist Gerhard Lenski (1966, Lenski et al, 1995) who argues that as society advances and develops new technology, it develops a surplus of goods. In turn, as this surplus of goods becomes common, the possession of such goods greatly expands the possibility of inequality, because those who control the surplus have, in effect, the edge on prestige, influence, and power by virtue of that control. Further, over time, the control of such surpluses gives rise to the social class system.
Notice that each theoretical perspective proposes how and why societies are organized the way they are. Obviously, each perspective has strengths and weaknesses.
Think about this... The functionalist theory of stratification assumes that people are fairly compensated for the amount of time, energy and skills they put into their jobs. What criticisms could one make about this view?
II. Inequality and Poverty in the United States and the World
What Is the Current State of Inequality in the United States?
Income is, by any measure, unevenly distributed in the United States. In 1998, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Samuelson said of inequality "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" (Samuelson and Nordhaus, 1998, p. 344).
Wealth is even more unevenly distributed in the United States. By many estimates, the richest fifth of the U.S. population controls the bulk of the country's wealth. Very rich households have millions of dollars of assets, while the bottom tier of the U.S. population has a negative net worth. Moreover, when education and race are taken into account, additional disparities come to light, with college-educated white households faring better than college-educated African American households (Kennickell et al, 2000).
Typically, in considerations of social class, levels of income and wealth accompany power and prestige, but this is not always the case. Well-known figures such as Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi all wielded enormous power but had modest or even no income. Conversely, it is also possible for someone such as Donald Trump, for example, to have vast wealth but relatively narrow power. (To get better idea of how rich the richest people in the United States are, you may want to visit the Forbes Magazine Web link in the Additional Resources section of this module. The magazine profiles the 15 richest people in the world.)
In discussing the state of inequality in the United States, it is useful to consider the effect of income on society's members, particularly the impact of low income or poverty, given that in the United States (as elsewhere), income affects virtually everything one does or wants to do. Discussing poverty requires some theoretical distinctions, however, because in the United States, the determination of poverty is unclear. On the one hand, the government conceives of poverty as a "poverty line" or as a threshold beneath which no human should be expected to live. Known as an "absolute" approach to poverty, for the government, this line is defined as three times the cost of an individual's nutritionally adequate diet. When this number is multiplied by four, one gets the poverty line for a family of four. (One increases the number by which to multiply to determine the "poverty level" for a family of any size.) Of note here, however, is that for government purposes, the poverty line serves as an official definition of poverty in America. The following examples illustrate this point.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the 2003 HHS Poverty Guidelines show that the poverty line is $8,980 for 1 person, $12,120 for a family of 2, $15,260 for a family of 3, and $18,400 for a family of four (the poverty figures are slightly higher in Hawaii and Alaska) (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/03poverty.html). As already noted, the official government poverty line represents an absolute poverty level of subsistence living, beneath which no family should be expected to live. This changing standard is used to determine eligibility for such things as school lunches, food stamps, and welfare.
On the other hand, a second definition of poverty is more relative. Relative poverty concerns a standard by which people are judged. Even middle- or upper-class people can feel relatively poor compared to their neighbors or wealthier colleagues living in a different area of town. This phenomenon is illustrated by the findings of the 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation/National Public Radio survey on the "real" face of poverty in America. In that study, researchers found some families making $35,000 a year who felt hardly able to make ends meet. At the same time, the study authors also found families with half that amount who felt quite comfortable with what they had (http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/poverty/).
Who Are the Poor?
The number of poor in the United States in 2001—32.9 million people—was 1.3 million more than in 2000, according to the US Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income01/prs02asc.html). Statistically, higher rates of poverty are found in the South, among the young and old, among female-headed households, and among minorities. In 2001, the child poverty rate was 16.1 percent (ibid.). Children comprise 36 percent of the official poor even though they are only 26 percent of the total population (ibid.). Poverty rates for adults over 65 were 10.1 percent (ibid.).
When describing the poor, one always runs the risk of stereotyping; but here are some facts that challenge several stereotypes (all statistics from Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition of Seattle, http://www.wroc.org/mythfact.htm):
· The majority of poor want to work but are unable to find employment
· Many poor adults work outside of the home for very low wages. It is important here to note that a full-time employed person working at a fast food restaurant for 52 weeks a year being paid minimum wage ($5.15 an hour) will earn $10,712 annually. Of course, if there were a child to support on this income, the individual would fall below the official poverty line.
· An increasing proportion of poor families are headed by women, a trend often referred to as the feminization of poverty. This trend describes women in a life transition—those women coping with economic hardship due to divorce, widowhood, disability, or unintended pregnancy.
· Although whites make up the numerical majority of poor people in the United States, people of color are proportionately more likely to be poor.
· The poor are not a static class. Seasonal work and layoffs account for the fact that most people revolve in and out of poverty in single year.
To see more about myths of poverty, look at the Web site of the nonprofit organization, Twin Cities Community Voice Mail (TCCVM) at: http://www.tccvm.org/focus_01.html TCCVM helps low-income Minnesotans without phones by providing them with free voice mail service.
Think about this... After completing the module, take a moment to browse the articles on the real face of poverty in America at http://www.poormagazine.com/. What kinds of challenges face poor people in America?
What Is the Current State of Inequality in the World?
The World Bank and other international organizations define poverty not only in terms of income but in terms of the essentials for well-being, especially health and education. Of the world's population (which is just over 6 billion people), 2.8 billion live on less than $2.00 per day, and 1.2 billion of those people live on just $1.00 a day (http://www.worldwatch.org/worldsummit/briefs/20020228.html). In contrast, the richest billion receive 78 percent of world income (ibid.).
High-income countries (26 countries including Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, United States, Austria, Germany, and Sweden) are rich because their economies have benefited from the Industrial Revolution (http://www.undp.org.np/publications/hdr2001/19_cntryclassf.pdf). These countries thereby control world financial markets and produce most of the world's scientific and technological output. These countries have a combined population of 0.9 billion people(one-sixth of the world's population) (http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/economic/gnp/print.html). In 2002, the annual gross national product (GNP) per capita level for high-income countries was $9,266 (ibid.).
Middle-income countries have a GNP of between $755 and $9,266 (in 2002). There are 64 middle-income countries with one million or more people, with a combined population of 2.7 billion people (ibid.). Middle-income countries tend to be found in the former Soviet Union, the oil-rich nations of the Middle East, and in Latin America. They have not yet fully industrialized and parts of these countries remain agricultural. Although there is access to goods and services, many people still cannot meet basic needs.
Low-income countries are those with a GNP of $755 or less in 2002. These countries tend to have poor populations. There are about 60 low-income countries with a combined population of about 2.5 billion people (ibid.). Hunger, poor housing, disease, and famine are a common feature of life for people in these countries.
What Global Inequalities Exist and What Explains Them?
A number of factors seem to explain what distinguishes poor from rich countries. First, just as in the United States, income varies widely in other countries. To compare income internationally, economists adjust national incomes to account for both the standard of living in that country and the power of that currency to purchase goods and services. Using these adjusted figures, the CIA Factbook shows that the gross domestic product of such countries as Sudan, Ethiopia, and Rwanda have the buying power of about $1,300, $700, and $1,000 (respectively) per year per person (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/). These figures can be compared to the buying power in high-income countries such as the United States ($36,300), Switzerland (in US$31,700), Japan (in US$28,000), or Sweden (in US$25, 400) (ibid.). (For additional figures discussions see the data cited at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/).
A second factor distinguishing rich and poor countries is population growth. Population growth says much about the living conditions within countries. Poor countries usually have high birth rates—and high death rates as well—due to the lack of health care, birth control, and educational opportunities for women. In contrast, population levels in rich countries are usually level or even declining.
Third, poor-rich differentials are also borne of cultural forces, because culture itself varies as one moves from society to society. By way of illustration, modern societies have secular governments, are often more tolerant of religious and ethnic diversity, and they depend on technological innovations such as computers, cell phones, and faxes. On the other hand, poorer societies are often more traditional and tend to have closer ties between religion and government with very limited access to expensive technological innovations.
Fourth and last, gender norms differ in rich and poor countries. Wealthier countries have greater gender equality and tend to have higher levels of women's educational achievement and labor force participation. In poorer countries, the greater inequality between men and women is associated with higher birth rates and lower labor force participation of women.
In addition to the above factors, history and culture also seem to play a very strong role in what makes some countries poor and others wealthy. Two perspectives shed light on this point. According to modernization theory (Rostow, 1974), societies cannot advance without acquiring new technology and changing their culture from traditional to modern frameworks. Rostow bases this argument on the observation that rich countries have created wealth by reducing population growth, growing more food, and encouraging development in industry and commerce. In contrast, Wallerstein's (1974, 1979) dependency theory says that from an historical perspective, capitalism has lead to the wealth and poverty of nations. In brief, poor countries of the world have been the colonies of other nations and as such, they have been exploited for their natural resources and cheap labor to benefit rich countries. In effect, then, dependency theory says that colonialism has made some countries rich and kept many poor. Today, most poor countries have won their independence from colonialism, but a new kind of exploitation called neo-colonialism now exists as multinational corporations jump international boarders to sell products abroad in poor as well as rich countries. This situation generates foreign debt in poor countries, which hurts their chances to develop. Profits from such commerce go to rich countries.
Both modernization theory and dependency theory provide explanations for world inequality and each theory has been supported by data. Some poor countries do seem to be held back, while some countries seem to be surging ahead despite the odds. For example, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore are relatively small countries whose small populations and efficient governments have allowed rapid economic expansion.
Think about this … To explore world inequality and poverty in depth, go to the World Bank Group Web site . There you can compare life conditions in different countries, for example, you could compare Mozambique, Zimbabwe, or Bangladesh against the UK, France, Japan, or the United States. How would life chances be different in such countries?
III. Social Inequality in Everyday Life
Social inequality finds its way into everyday life in several ways, including the effects of gender, race, age, and individual experience. As a background to this discussion, however, it is helpful to review the concept of minority group as interpreted in by sociologists.
The term minority group is used by sociologists to describe a group of people who, because of physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from others in society for differential or unequal treatment. As a result, the minority group regards itself as the object of collective discrimination (Wirth, 1944, Linton, 1936).
In general, minority groups tend to share the following characteristics (Wagley and Harris, 1958):
1. Minority groups can be characterized by the unequal treatment they get from the dominant group. The inequality they experience is often maintained over time by discrimination, segregation, and prejudice.
2. Those belonging to a minority group are born into that group. Sociologists call minority group status an "ascribed status" because it is assigned at birth and is something over which individuals have virtually no control (e.g., one's gender or the color of one's skin).
3. Minority group members are encouraged to marry within their own groups.
4. Minority group members are distinguished by cultural and physical differences that are typically defined in negative terms by majority or dominant group members.
5. A strong sense of identity distinguishes the minority group and members share a we versus them feeling of their own group relative to other groups.
How Are Societies Stratified by Race and Ethnicity?
Race and ethnicity are important factors in shaping people's lives in the United States and other countries. Although in a biological sense there are no "pure" races and no physical traits that are used in all societies to uniquely distinguish specific groups, society persists on using race as a significant factor in social life. Sociologists point out, however, that this usage indicates the socially constructed character of "race" (that is, race is defined by the assumptions attached to it) and that this social construction provides the basis for ranking people into categories. This ranking can, in turn, result in people being treated unequally.
Stereotypes and self-fulfilling prophecies give social significance to the concepts of race and ethnicity in that they are used to convey the meanings of subordinate group membership to others. In addition, stereotypes and self-fulfilling prophecies tend both to replicate and enforce social impressions and valuations. These ways of thinking are damaging to minority groups because as the unchallenged assumptions about the individuals comprising the specific group, they provide a framework of social judgment that can be internalized by the group's members and, in turn, acted upon. Further, as this internalized judgment is acted upon, its social definition is again taken as the norm and the group is (through various means) denied access to valued education or health or job opportunities. In the end, then, minority group members do not achieve their full potential.
Prejudice often leads to discrimination or the denial of rights or opportunities based on real or imagined differences tied to group membership. For example, racial profiling by police puts some groups under special surveillance. Fearing terrorists, violent criminals, or drug dealers, authorities can single out some individuals for special treatment. This situation is often made more difficult in a country where many people are inaccurately lumped into racial and ethnic groups based on a name or skin color.
Institutional discrimination occurs when racial prejudice and discriminatory patterns are built into the normal operations of a society. Sociologists have long observed how housing, health care, employment, educational achievement, and even imprisonment vary by race. Affirmative action programs instituted in the 1960s have tried to overcome past discriminatory patterns, but these programs have themselves been challenged by individuals seeking to redress what they perceive as a form of reverse discrimination. Court challenges to affirmative action have been growing since the Bakke Supreme Court decision in 1978 and, at this writing, the issue is still undecided, although cases went to the Supreme Court in 2003.
Current patterns in immigration in the United States and abroad have heightened sensitivities about race and ethnic relations. The year 2000 census clearly shows that the ethnic and racial composition of the United States is clearly changing and becoming more diverse. Immigration in the United States and worldwide also has important consequences for race and ethnic relations.
Think about this ... An increasing number of people come from two or more racial or ethnic groups. Speak to a friend or family member who is brought up in two cultures and how they have adapted to being “in between. Also read the excellent article on this topic entitled “Growing up in Two Elsewheres” at http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/jouvert/v6i1-2/ledgis.htm
How Are Societies Stratified by Gender?
Like race, gender is an ascribed status that provides a basis for social differentiation. Thus, although females make up 51 percent of the U.S. population, sociologists recognize women as a minority group, given their history of unequal treatment both nationally and globally. Differential treatment by gender is such a taken-for-granted part of social interaction that it is difficult to see its influence in everyday behavior. This circumstance occurs because we are socialized to our gender roles from birth onward by parents and other agents of socialization to think and act in accordance with society's norms about our biologically defined sex.
As with race, gender is also a social construction in that its interactive components continue to determine different expectations for women and men, both nationally and worldwide. In addition, and as with race, the constructed quality of gender also provides the basis for prejudice and discrimination. For example, at the national level, women receive salaries that are lower, on average, than those of men. Political representation in the Congress and in high areas of government is relatively low given the numerical majority that women have in the U.S. population in general.
Sexism, the ideology that one sex is superior to another, victimizes women just as racism can victimize African Americans or Asian Americans. Thus, women who are also members of other minority groups due to their race or age can be doubly discriminated against.
Institutional discrimination exists when women are denied opportunities to participate equally in the normal operations of society. Not only are the major institutions controlled by men—medicine, corporations, government, universities—but the way these institutions function typically precludes women's equal participation. To take a recent example from the press, professional women golfers denied membership in a golf club that hosts a world golfing event effectively removes women from any chances of fair competition as well as the chance to win top cash prizes available to professional golfers who are men. Similarly, to deny women the opportunity to enter an area of the military, such as combat arms, can result in blocked opportunities for advancement.
Women around the world experience sexism and sexual discrimination. That is, across the globe, women generally have the lowest-paying jobs, the lowest educational attainment, the least work opportunities, and the most tenuous personal security. It is clear to sociologists that women's relatively poor standing worldwide is due to institutional subordination. Further, the unpaid domestic and low-wage labor done by women is an advantage to big corporations who depend on pools of cheap labor.
Think about this… Women have suffered disproportionately from globalization, while seeing few of its benefits. To learn more about this topic and how women are mobilizing worldwide to improve conditions for themselves and their children, visit the Global Policy Institution at http://www.globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/global-injustice-and-inequality/gender-and-inequality.html.
How Are Societies Stratified by Age?
All developed countries are now experiencing a rapid rise in the proportions of older adults. Thanks to better nutrition, medical care, and lifestyles, today's generations can expect to live longer and in a healthier state than any previous generation. The social definition of being old, then, is under change. (We now have rock stars who are grandparents!) Concepts of youth are also under change. Increasing attention is now being given in the media to adultolescents or young adults in their 20s who choose to return home after finishing college. This phenomenon has acted to extend childhood considerably past teenage years. Further, the behaviors, beliefs, or ideas that are considered too old in one culture may be just the right age in another culture.
Age, then, carries with it certain social expectations for behavior. As with gender and race, age is an ascribed status that forms the basis for social differentiation. Age discrimination casts negative valuations on people that can result in prejudice and discrimination leading to unequal treatment in employment, health care, or housing. The elderly thus share physical characteristics that identify them as a group and they have a strong sense of solidarity, as reflected in retirement communities, senior citizen organizations, and voting organizations.
How Should Society Treat Its Seniors?
Disengagement theory suggests that society should help people withdraw from their usual social roles, but activity theory emphasizes that activity and social involvement give elderly persons hope for fulfilling and healthy lives. From a conflict theory perspective, the low status of older adults is realized in discrimination and prejudice in such aspects as the workplace, health care, and the media.
The particular problems experienced by the elderly have led to a new specialized area of research called gerontology, a discipline that focuses on the sociological and psychological aspects of aging and on other disciplines such as anthropology and medicine.
Think about this… A challenge frequently cited in the press facing elderly citizens today is how to pay for medications. For many, the high costs of medication (not covered by Medicare) and the recent stock market losses that cut retirement incomes for many of them, make it necessary to return to work after retirement or to delay retirement five or more years. What does this mean for the lives of older adults? What could this mean for the greater society, who must provide employment opportunities to incoming members of society? Should pharmaceutical companies control drug prices to and from the Canadian or Mexican borders so that elderly cannot travel or log on to buy their medications more cheaply?
How Can We Explain Gender, Race, and Age Inequality?
Sociologists recognize that each of the three theoretical perspectives provide useful frameworks to understand inequalities we experience in everyday life based on gender, race, and age. A short summary of these perspectives is provided below.
|
|
Functionalist |
Conflict |
Symbolic Interactionist |
|
Gender |
Jobs must be delegated for families to function. The traditional division of labor between men and women is a historically stable arrangement that gives Mom the emotional supportive role and Dad the role of accomplishing tasks and setting goals. One possible criticism is that men and women don't seem to be programmed into such prescribed roles. |
Men and women have historically had unequal power; men who once had power due to size, strength, and freedom from childbearing had more power; today's inequality rests on long-established cultural beliefs. Beliefs about the value of gender result in subjugation of women by men. |
Examinations of power dynamics between the sexes show that in face-to-face conversations, men are more likely to interrupt, change topics, and minimize the contributions made by the opposite sex. Such patterns show the dominant position of males. |
|
Race and Ethnicity |
Prejudice benefits the dominant group by providing a moral justification for depriving opportunities to a group; it also discourages the minority group from questioning its lower status. The majority group resists change by suggesting that it would only bring about hardship to the majority's standard of living. |
Discrimination keeps minorities in low-paying jobs, thereby benefiting the wealthy; a cheap pool of labor at low wages is useful and flexible. Those who would demand higher wages can be replaced by those who would accept lower wages. |
Interracial group contact under conditions of cooperation will reduce prejudice and stereotypes. |
|
Age |
The loss of social roles and functions, such as parenthood, and employment status due to aging is functional for society, which depends on the passing on of these roles for social stability. Disengagement theory (Cummings and Henry, 1981) says that both society and the aging person benefit from this arrangement. Of course, not all people see old age as a time to fade out of work and social life. Critics of this approach worry that the expectation to reduce social roles can leave the elderly socially isolated. |
To understand aging, we must consider how one's position in the social structure affects the aging process. Affluent elderly have an easier time with aging, whereas working-class elderly with limited resources who may be exposed to more health hazards at work may find aging difficult. Those that must rely upon Social Security and pensions may have problems paying for drugs, food, housing, and other necessities. |
Activity theory says that aging people who remain physically and socially active in life have higher levels of well-being and lower morbidity and mortality rates. Improved health and nutrition can mean that older adulthood can bring the assumption of new social roles and the creations of new social networks. |
References
CIA. The World Factbook 2002. At http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ accessed on May 16, 2003.
