Unit 7
Bonita86
Unit5.1Unit5.2.docxUnit 5.1: Race and Ethnicity Ch. 10
10-1Race and Ethnicity
What is race? Some people think it refers to skin color (the Caucasian “race”); others use it to refer to a religion (the Jewish “race”), nationality (the British “race”), or the entire human species (the human “race”) (Marger, 2015). Popular usages of the word have been based on the assumption that a race is a grouping or classification based on genetic variations in physical appearance, particularly skin color. However, social scientists, biologists, and genetic anthropologists dispute the idea that biological race is a meaningful concept. Researchers with the Human Genome Project, which was commissioned to map all of the genes on the 23 pairs of human chromosomes and to sequence the 3.1 billion DNA base pairs that make up the chromosomes, made this statement about genes and race:
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common [an allele is one member of a pair or series of genes that occupy a specific position on a specific chromosome], but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
The idea of race has little meaning in a biological sense because of the enormous amount of interbreeding that has taken place within the human population. For these reasons, sociologists sometimes place “race” in quotation marks to show that categorizing individuals and population groups on biological characteristics is neither accurate nor based on valid distinctions between the genetic makeup of differently identified “races.”
Today, sociologists emphasize that race is a socially constructed reality, not a biological one. Race as a social construct means that races as such do not actually exist but that some groups are
still racially defined because the idea persists in many people’s minds that races are distinct biological categories with physically distinguishable characteristics and a shared common cultural heritage. The process of creating a socially constructed reality involves three key activities: collective agreement, imposition, and acceptance of a specific construction (Lusca, 2008).
Collective agreement means that people jointly agree on the idea of race and that they accept that it exists as an important component in how we describe or explain the individual’s experiences in everyday life. Examples of collective agreement include a widely held acceptance of the view that “racial differences affect people’s athletic ability” or of the assumption that “physical differences based on race cause cultural differences among various distinct categories of people.”
Imposition refers to the fact that throughout much of human history, the notion of race has been defined by members of dominant groups who have the power to establish a system that hierarchically organizes racial categories (as superior or inferior, for example) to establish and maintain permanent status differentials among individuals and groups. These differences are demonstrated by the level of access that dominant- and subordinate-group members have to necessary and desired goods and services, such as education, housing, employment, health care, and legal services.
Finally, acceptance of a specific construction means that ideas pertaining to race become so widely accepted that they become embedded in law and social customs in a society and become much more difficult to change or eliminate. When a significant number of people, or a number of significant people, accept a social construction as absolute and real, the prevailing group typically imposes its beliefs and practices upon others through tradition and law. Over time, ideas about race, inadequate or false though they may be, are passed on from generation to generation.
In sum, the social significance that people accord to race is more important than any biological differences that might exist among people who are placed in arbitrary categories. Although race does not exist in an objective way, it does have real consequences and effects in the social world.
10-1aComparing Race and Ethnicity
LO 1
Distinguish between the terms race and ethnicity.
A race is a category of people who have been singled out as inferior or superior, often on the basis of real or alleged physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, eye shape, or other subjectively selected attributes (Feagin and Feagin, 2012). Racial categories identified by the U.S. Census Bureau include white, black, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaska Native.
As compared with race, ethnicity refers to one’s cultural background or national origin. An ethnic group is a collection of people distinguished, by others or by themselves, primarily on the basis of cultural or nationality characteristics (Feagin and Feagin, 2012) (Figure 10.1). Ethnic groups share five main characteristics:
· (1)
unique cultural traits, such as language, clothing, holidays, or religious practices;
· (2)
a sense of community;
· (3)
a feeling of ethnocentrism;
· (4)
ascribed membership from birth; and
· (5)
territoriality, or the tendency to occupy a distinct geographic area (such as Little Italy or Little Moscow) by choice and/or for self-protection.
Figure 10.1
New York City’s Chinatown is an ethnic enclave where people participate in social interaction with other individuals in their ethnic group and feel a sense of shared identity. Ethnic enclaves provide economic and psychological support for recent immigrants as well as for those who were born in the United States.
Steven Widoff/Alamy
Although some people do not identify with any ethnic group, others participate in social interaction with individuals in their ethnic group and feel a sense of common identity based on cultural characteristics such as language, religion, or politics. However, ethnic groups are not only influenced by their own history but also by patterns of ethnic domination and subordination in societies. It is important to note that terminology pertaining to racial–ethnic groups is continually in flux and that people within the category as well as outsiders often contest these changes. Examples include the use of African American, as compared to black, and Hispanic, as compared to Latino/a.
10-1bThe Social Significance of Race and Ethnicity
Race and ethnicity take on great social significance because how people act in regard to these terms drastically affects other people’s lives, including what opportunities they have, how they are treated, and even how long they live. According to the now-classic works on the effects of race by the sociologists Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994: 158), race “permeates every institution, every relationship, and every individual” in the United States:
As we … compare real estate prices in different neighborhoods, select a radio channel to enjoy while we drive to work, size up a potential client, customer, neighbor, or teacher, stand in line at the unemployment office, or carry out a thousand other normal tasks, we are compelled to think racially, to use the racial categories and meaning systems into which we have been socialized.
(Omi and Winant, 1994: 158)
Historically, stratification based on race and ethnicity has pervaded all aspects of political, economic, and social life. Consider sports as an example. Throughout the early history of the game of baseball, many African Americans had outstanding skills as players but were categorically excluded from Major League teams because of their skin color. Even in 1947, after Jackie Robinson broke the “color line” to become the first African American in the Major Leagues, his experience was marred by racial slurs, hate letters, death threats against his infant son, and assaults on his wife (Ashe, 1988; Peterson, 1992/1970). With some professional athletes from diverse racial–ethnic categories having multimillion-dollar contracts and lucrative endorsement deals, it is easy to assume that racism in sports—as well as in the larger society—is a thing of the past. However, this commercialization of sports does not mean that racial prejudice and discrimination no longer exist (Coakley, 2009).
10-1cRacial Classifications and the Meaning of Race
LO 2
Explain how racial and ethnic classifications continue to change in the United States.
If we examine racial classifications throughout history, we find that in ancient Greece and Rome, a person’s race was the group to which she or he belonged, associated with an ancestral place and culture. From the Middle Ages until about the eighteenth century, a person’s race was based on family and ancestral ties, in the sense of a line, or ties to a national group. During the eighteenth century, physical differences such as the darker skin hues of Africans became associated with race, but racial divisions were typically based on differences in religion and cultural tradition rather than on human biology. With the intense (though misguided) efforts that surrounded the attempt to justify black slavery and white dominance in all areas of life during the second half of the nineteenth century, races came to be defined as distinct biological categories of people who were not all members of the same family but who shared inherited physical and cultural traits that were alleged to be different from those traits shared by people in other races. Hierarchies of races were established, placing the “white race” at the top, the “black race” at the bottom, and others in between.
However, racial classifications in the United States have changed over the past century. If we look at U.S. Census Bureau classifications, for example, we can see how the meaning of race continues to change. First, race is defined by perceived skin color: white or nonwhite. Whereas one category exists for “whites” (who vary considerably in actual skin color and physical appearance), all of the remaining categories are considered “nonwhite.”
Second, categories of official racial classifications may (over time) create a sense of group membership or “consciousness of kind” for people within a somewhat arbitrary classification. When people of European descent were classified as “white,” some began to see themselves as different from “nonwhite.” Consequently, Jewish, Italian, and Irish immigrants may have felt more a part of the Northern European white mainstream in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Whether Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Korean Americans, and Filipino Americans come to think of themselves collectively as “Asian Americans” because of official classifications remains to be seen.
Multiracial individuals do not always identify as such. Although former President Barack Obama is the product of an interracial couple (his mother was white, and his father was black), for the 2010 census Obama checked only one box: black (Saulny, 2011b). For many multiracial individuals, choosing a racial–ethnic identity is not simple. Consider the case of Michelle López-Mullins, a mixed-race college student whose father is both Asian and Latino, and whose mother, with her long blonde hair, is mostly European in ancestry but is mixed with some Cherokee and Shawnee Native American. In grade school, Ms. López-Mullins was frequently asked “What are you?” and “Where are you from?” As she explains,
I hadn’t even learned the word “Hispanic” until I came home from school one day and asked my dad what I should refer to him as, to express what I am…. Growing up with my parents, I never thought we were different from any other family…. I was always having to explain where my parents are from because just saying “I’m from Takoma Park, Maryland,” was not enough…. Saying “I’m an American” wasn’t enough…. Now when people ask what I am, I say, “How much time do you have?” … Race will not automatically tell you my story.
(qtd. in Saulny, 2011b)
When asked what box she checks on forms such as the census, López-Mullins replied, “Hispanic, white, Asian American, Native American…. I’m pretty much checking everything” (qtd. in Saulny, 2011b).
As noted earlier, the way that people are classified remains important because such classifications affect their access to employment, education, housing, social services, federal aid, and other public and private goods and services that might be available to them.
10-1dDominant and Subordinate Groups
The terms majority group and minority group are widely used, but their meanings are less clear as the composition of the U.S. population continues to change. Accordingly, many sociologists prefer the terms dominant and subordinate to identify power relationships that are based on perceived racial, ethnic, or other attributes and identities. To sociologists, a dominant group is a racial or ethnic group that has the greatest power and resources in a society (Feagin and Feagin, 2012). In the United States, whites with Northern European ancestry (often referred to as Euro-Americans, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or WASPs) have been considered to be the dominant group for many years. A subordinate group is one whose members, because of physical or cultural characteristics, are disadvantaged and subjected to unequal treatment and discrimination by the dominant group. Historically, African Americans and other persons of color have been considered to be subordinate-group members, particularly when they are from lower-income categories.
It is important to note that, in the sociological sense, the word group as used in these two terms is misleading because people who merely share ascribed racial or ethnic characteristics do not constitute a group. However, the terms dominant group and subordinate group do give us a way to describe relationships of advantage/disadvantage and power/exploitation that exist in contemporary nations.
10-2Prejudice
LO 3
Define prejudice, stereotypes, racism, scapegoat, and discrimination.
Although there are various meanings of the word part dice, sociologists define prejudice as a negative attitude based on faulty generalizations about members of specific racial, ethnic, or other groups. The term prejudice is from the Latin words prae (“before”) and judicium (“judgment”), which means that people may be biased either for or against members of other groups even before they have had any contact with them. Although prejudice can be either positive (bias in favor of a group—often our own) or negative (bias against a group—one we deem less worthy than our own), it most often refers to the negative attitudes that people may have about members of other racial or ethnic groups (Figure 10.2).
Figure 10.2
Contemporary prejudice and discrimination cannot be understood without taking into account the historical background. School integration in the 1950s was accomplished despite white resistance. Today, integration in education, housing, and many other areas of social life remains a pressing social issue.
AP Images
10-2aStereotypes
Prejudice is rooted in ethnocentrism and stereotypes. When used in the context of racial and ethnic relations, ethnocentrism refers to the tendency to regard one’s own culture and group as the standard—and thus superior—whereas all other groups are seen as inferior. Ethnocentrism is maintained and perpetuated by stereotypes —overgeneralizations about the appearance, behavior, or other characteristics of members of particular categories.
10-2bRacism
What is racism? Racism is a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices that is used to justify the superior treatment of one racial or ethnic group and the inferior treatment of another racial or ethnic group. The world has seen a long history of racism: It can be traced from the earliest civilizations. At various times throughout U.S. history, various categories of people, including Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Jewish Americans, African Americans, and Latinos/as, have been the objects of racist ideology.
Sociology & Social Policy
Racist Hate Speech on Campus Versus First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech
From news reports and social media:
· Racist graffiti scrawled on the walls of college dorms and other buildings
· Derogatory comments from current students directed toward persons of color visiting a campus on recruitment weekend
· Fraternity members singing a disparaging chant that targets African Americans
All of these forms of racist hate speech have been reported in recent years on college and university campuses throughout the United States. What is “hate speech” anyway? Hate speech refers to speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Hate speech is often directed at historically oppressed racial or religious minorities, or persons in other subordinate-power groups, with the intent to insult and demean them.
In our government and political science courses, most of us learned that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to speech even when others disagree with the speech or find it contemptible. The First Amendment, in part, states, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech….” And public colleges and universities are not exempt from this provision. U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as Healy v. James (1972), have reaffirmed that free speech rights extend to college campuses because they are not “enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment.”
Although racist speech is constitutionally protected, many institutions of higher education have established speech codes to ban offensive expression on campus, to specify what speech and behaviors are prohibited, and to foster a productive learning environment for all students. A speech code is a set of rules or regulations that limit, restrict, or ban speech beyond strict legal limitations upon freedom of speech or press found in the legal definitions of harassment, slander, libel, and fighting words. Advocates for speech codes in higher education argue that even though hateful, racist speech is protected by the First Amendment, there still must be protection against speech that might constitute a direct threat to an individual or might provoke an immediate violent response. One university’s code, for example, prohibits “conduct that is sufficiently severe and pervasive that it alters the conditions of education or employment and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, harassing or humiliating” (Dallas Morning News, 2015). In lawsuits involving public universities, the courts have typically ruled that the rights bestowed by the Constitution take precedent over any speech codes the institutions might devise (with specific exceptions that are beyond the scope of our discussion).
Like all other areas of social life, college campuses are not immune to racist hate speech and blatant acts of racism that target persons of color. Shown here, protesting students chant “No Diversity, No University” after a noose was found hanging on an African American professor’s door at Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York City. Are such actions a reflection of a climate of racism in our society? Why or why not?
Mario Tama/Getty Images
However, other legal scholars argue that college speech codes are unconstitutional because they limit students’ freedom of speech and send the wrong idea about what values should govern a free society. This approach is taken by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, 2015):
Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone’s rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice.
Therefore, the fundamental right to free speech should not be restricted even for bigots because this might mean that rights become restricted for other persons who are fighting for tolerance of diversity and justice. The assumption is that aggrieved individuals will engage in counterspeech that offsets the negative, racist, or sexist speech. Counterspeech refers to the process of using more speech to contradict the negative and add new thoughts and values to the marketplace of ideas. But as Boston College Law School professor Kent Greenfield (2015) has stated, “Those not targeted by the [hate] speech can sit back and recite how distasteful such racism or sexism is, and isn’t it too bad so little can be done. Meanwhile, those targeted by the speech are forced to speak out, yet again, to reassert their right to be treated equally, to be free to learn or work in an environment that does not threaten them with violence.” According to Professor Greenfield, counterspeech is both “exhausting” and “distracting” because individuals continually have to be speaking up and standing up for their rights, emphasizing why they should not be oppressed by other people. From this perspective, individuals who are underrepresented—those with less power—do not have equal access to freedom of speech. In the case of the Oklahoma fraternity members’ racist speech, for example, countering with a protest of their own does not offset the negative effects of the racist chant.
The debate over hate speech versus First Amendment rights has gone on for decades and no doubt will continue for many years to come.
Reflect & Analyze
· How do laws and court interpretations affect how we perceive race and racism in this country? Is there a possibility that counterspeech might produce new ideas about race and how to get along with each other? Why or why not?
Racism may be overt or subtle. Overt racism is more blatant and may take the form of public statements about the “inferiority” of members of a racial or ethnic group. An example of overt racism would be the 2015 situation in which some University of Oklahoma fraternity members were videorecorded singing a song that was extremely derogatory toward African Americans and which indicated that a black student would never be a member of their organization. It was later revealed that these students had learned the chant at a nationwide leadership retreat hosted by the national organization of Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE). However, hateful words such as this are often protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, creating a quandary for those seeking to end overt racism and discrimination (see “Sociology and Social Policy”). Similarly, in other organizations, including sports teams and their fan bases, researchers have documented that racist behavior continues to occur across generations, despite some people’s belief that racism is a thing of the past. Examples of recurring patterns of racist behavior by sports team members or their fans include calling a player of color by a derogatory name, participating in racist chants, and writing racist graffiti on game-day signs, locker rooms, and school buildings. These actions are blatant and highly visible, but many subtle forms of racism also exist.
10-2cTheories of Prejudice
Are some people more prejudiced than others? To answer this question, some theories focus on how individuals may transfer their internal psychological problem onto an external object or person. Others look at factors such as social learning and personality types.
The frustration–aggression hypothesis states that people who are frustrated in their efforts to achieve a highly desired goal will respond with a pattern of aggression toward others (Dollard et al., 1939). The object of their aggression becomes the scapegoat —a person or group that is incapable of offering resistance to the hostility or aggression of others (Marger, 2015). Scapegoats are often used as substitutes for the actual source of the frustration. For example, members of subordinate racial and ethnic groups are often blamed for local problems (such as the home team losing a football, basketball, or soccer game) or societal problems (such as large-scale unemployment or an economic recession) over which they believe they have little or no control (Figure 10.3).
Figure 10.3
According to the frustration–aggression hypothesis, members of white supremacy groups such as the Ku Klux Klan often use members of subordinate racial and ethnic groups as scapegoats for societal problems over which they have no control.
Michael Greenlar/The Image Works
According to some symbolic interactionists, prejudice results from social learning; in other words, it is learned from observing and imitating significant others, such as parents and peers. Initially, children do not have a frame of reference from which to question the prejudices of their relatives and friends. When they are rewarded with smiles or laughs for telling derogatory jokes or making negative comments about outgroup members, children’s prejudiced attitudes may be reinforced.
Psychologist Theodor W. Adorno and his colleagues (1950) concluded that highly prejudiced individuals tend to have an authoritarian personality , which is characterized by excessive conformity, submissiveness to authority, intolerance, insecurity, a high level of superstition, and rigid, stereotypic thinking. This type of personality is most likely to develop in a family environment in which dominating parents who are anxious about status use physical discipline but show very little love in raising their children (Adorno et al., 1950). Other scholars have linked prejudiced attitudes to traits such as submissiveness to authority, extreme anger toward outgroups, and conservative religious and political beliefs (Altemeyer, 1981, 1988; Weigel and Howes, 1985).
Whereas prejudice is an attitude, discrimination involves actions or practices of dominant-group members (or their representatives) that have a harmful effect on members of a subordinate group. Prejudiced attitudes do not always lead to discriminatory behavior. As shown in Figure 10.4, the sociologist Robert K. Merton (1949) identified four combinations of attitudes and responses. Unprejudiced nondiscriminators are not personally prejudiced and do not discriminate against others. For example, two players on a professional sports team may be best friends although they are of different races. Unprejudiced discriminators may have no personal prejudice but still engage in discriminatory behavior because of peer-group pressure or economic, political, or social interests. For example, on some sports teams, players may hold no genuine prejudice toward players from diverse racial or ethnic origins but believe that they have to impress their “friends” by making disparaging remarks about persons of color so that they can get into, or remain in, a peer group. By contrast, prejudiced nondiscriminators hold personal prejudices but do not discriminate because of peer pressure, legal demands, or a desire for profits. For example, professional sports teams’ owners and coaches who hold prejudiced beliefs may hire a player of color to enhance the team’s ability to win. Finally, prejudiced discriminators hold personal prejudices and actively discriminate against others. For example, a baseball umpire who is personally prejudiced against persons of color may intentionally call a play incorrectly based on that prejudice. Of course, we hope that such an umpire does not exist or that his or her actions would be quickly sanctioned if such an event occurred. But the purpose of Merton’s typology is to show that prejudice and discrimination do not always coexist as directly and specifically as many of us might imagine.
Figure 10.4Merton’s Typology of Prejudice and Discrimination
Merton’s typology shows that some people may be prejudiced but not discriminate against others. Do you think that it is possible for a person to discriminate against some people without holding a prejudiced attitude toward them? Why or why not?
Steven Widoff/Alamy
Discriminatory actions vary in severity, from the use of derogatory labels to violence against individuals and groups. The ultimate form of discrimination occurs when people are considered to be unworthy to live because of their race or ethnicity. Genocide is the deliberate, systematic killing of an entire people or nation. Examples of genocide include the killing of thousands of Native Americans by white settlers in North America and the extermination of six million European Jews by Nazi Germany. A lack of consensus exists as to whether genocide has occurred in the twenty-first century. Some analysts believe that the mass slaughter and rape of Darfuri men, women, and children in Western Sudan that began in 2003 should be classified as genocide. However, international governing bodies typically have ruled that this situation does not fit the description because for something to be identified as genocide, the perpetrators must have the intent to destroy an entire group. By contrast, inflicting damage on a group or removing the population from a location does not qualify. More recently, the term ethnic cleansing has been used to define a policy of “cleansing” geographic areas by forcing persons of other races or religions to flee—or die.
Discrimination varies in how it is carried out. Individuals may act on their own, or they may operate within the context of large-scale organizations and institutions, such as schools, churches, corporations, and governmental agencies. How does individual discrimination differ from institutional discrimination? Individual discrimination consists of one-on-one acts by members of the dominant group that harm members of the subordinate group or their property. Individual discrimination is often considered to be based on the prejudicial beliefs of bigoted individuals who overtly express those beliefs through discriminatory actions. For example, a college student may write racist graffiti on the dorm door of another student because the perpetrator possesses bigoted attitudes about the superiority or inferiority of others based on their race or ethnicity.
However, sociologists emphasize that individual discrimination is not purely individual. As sociologists in the past moved beyond studying individual racial discrimination, they found that a close relationship exists between individual and institutional discrimination because they are two aspects of the same phenomenon. Simply stated, when individuals engage in racial discrimination, their actions are shaped by structural racial inequalities in the existing society or social system, and, in turn, their actions reinforce existing large-scale patterns of discrimination, which we refer to as institutional discrimination. Institutional discrimination consists of the day-to-day practices of organizations and institutions that have a harmful effect on members of subordinate groups. For example, a bank might consistently deny loans to people of a certain race; a university might not accept additional Asian American students in its first-year class or medical school because of an institutional assumption that persons in this racial–ethnic category are already overrepresented at the school. However, it is important to note that institutional discrimination is carried out by the individuals who implement the policies and procedures of organizations.
Sociologist Joe R. Feagin has identified four major types of discrimination:
1. Isolate discrimination is harmful action intentionally taken by a dominant-group member against a member of a subordinate group. This type of discrimination occurs without the support of other members of the dominant group in the immediate social or community context. For example, a prejudiced judge may give harsher sentences to African American defendants but may not be supported by the judicial system in that action.
2. Small-group discrimination is harmful action intentionally taken by a limited number of dominant-group members against members of subordinate groups. This type of discrimination is not supported by existing norms or other dominant-group members in the immediate social or community context. For example, a small group of white students may hang nooses (that signify the practice of racial lynching in the past) on the door of an African American professor’s office without the support of other students or faculty members.
3. Direct institutionalized discrimination is organizationally prescribed or community-prescribed action that intentionally has a differential and negative impact on members of subordinate groups. These actions are routinely carried out by a number of dominant-group members based on the norms of the immediate organization or community (Feagin and Feagin, 2012). Intentional exclusion of people of color from public accommodations in the past is an example of this type of discrimination.
4. Indirect institutionalized discrimination refers to practices that have a harmful effect on subordinate-group members even though the organizationally or community-prescribed norms or regulations guiding these actions were initially established with no intent to harm. For example, special education classes were originally intended to provide extra educational opportunities for children with various types of disabilities. However, critics claim that these programs have amounted to racial segregation in many school districts.
10-3Sociological Perspectives on Race and Ethnic Relations
LO 4
Compare the major sociological perspectives on race and ethnic relations.
Symbolic interactionist, functionalist, and conflict analysts examine race and ethnic relations in different ways. Symbolic interactionists examine how microlevel contacts between people may produce either greater racial tolerance or increased levels of hostility. Functionalists focus on the macrolevel intergroup processes that occur between members of dominant and subordinate groups in society. Conflict theorists analyze power and economic differentials between the dominant group and subordinate groups.
10-3aSymbolic Interactionist Perspectives
What happens when people from different racial and ethnic groups come into contact with one another? Symbolic interactionists claim that intergroup contact may either intensify or reduce racial and ethnic stereotyping and prejudice, depending on the context. In the contact hypothesis, symbolic interactionists point out that contact between people from divergent groups should lead to favorable attitudes and behavior when certain factors are present: Members of each group must
· (1)
have equal status,
· (2)
pursue the same goals,
· (3)
cooperate with one another to achieve their goals, and
· (4)
receive positive feedback when they interact with one another in positive, nondiscriminatory ways (Figure 10.5).
However, if these factors are not present, intergroup contact may lead to increased stereotyping and prejudice.
Figure 10.5
Symbolic interactionists believe that intergroup contact can reduce stereotyping and prejudice if group members have equal status, pursue the same goals and cooperate to achieve them, and receive positive feedback when they interact with one another in positive ways. How do sports teams enable such interaction?
Jeff Gross/Getty Images
Of course, intergroup contact does not always include the four factors described above. What then happens when individuals meet someone who does not conform to their existing stereotype? According to symbolic interactionists, they frequently ignore anything that contradicts the stereotype, or they interpret the situation to support their prejudices. For example, a person who does not fit the stereotype may be seen as an exception—“You’re not like other [persons of a particular race].” Conversely, when a person is seen as conforming to a stereotype, he or she may be treated simply as one of “you people.”
Symbolic interactionist perspectives make us aware of the importance of intergroup contact and the fact that it may either intensify or reduce racial and ethnic stereotyping and prejudice.
10-3bFunctionalist Perspectives
How do members of subordinate racial and ethnic groups become a part of the dominant group? To answer this question, early functionalists studied immigration and patterns of dominant- and subordinate-group interactions.
Assimilation
Assimilation is a process by which members of subordinate racial and ethnic groups become absorbed into the dominant culture. To some analysts, assimilation is functional because it contributes to the stability of society by minimizing group differences that might otherwise result in hostility and violence.
Assimilation occurs at several distinct levels, including the cultural, structural, biological, and psychological stages. Cultural assimilation, or acculturation, occurs when members of an ethnic group adopt dominant-group traits, such as language, dress, values, religion, and food preferences. Cultural assimilation in this country initially followed an “Anglo conformity” model; members of subordinate ethnic groups were expected to conform to the culture of the dominant white Anglo-Saxon population. However, members of some groups refused to be assimilated and sought to maintain their unique cultural identity.
Structural assimilation, or integration, occurs when members of subordinate racial or ethnic groups gain acceptance in everyday social interaction with members of the dominant group. This type of assimilation typically starts in large, impersonal settings such as schools and workplaces, and only later (if at all) results in close friendships and intermarriage. Biological assimilation, or amalgamation, occurs when members of one group marry those of other social or ethnic groups. Biological assimilation has been more complete in some other countries, such as Mexico and Brazil, than in the United States.
Psychological assimilation involves a change in racial or ethnic self-identification on the part of an individual. Rejection by the dominant group may prevent psychological assimilation by members of some subordinate racial and ethnic groups, especially those with visible characteristics such as skin color or facial features that differ from those of the dominant group.
Ethnic Pluralism
Instead of complete assimilation, many groups share elements of the mainstream culture while remaining culturally distinct from both the dominant group and other social and ethnic groups. Ethnic pluralism is the coexistence of a variety of distinct racial and ethnic groups within one society.
Equalitarian pluralism, or accommodation, is a situation in which ethnic groups coexist in equality with one another. Switzerland has been described as a model of equalitarian pluralism; more than six million people with French, German, and Italian cultural heritages peacefully coexist there. Inequalitarian pluralism, or segregation, exists when specific ethnic groups are set apart from the dominant group and have unequal access to power and privilege. Segregation is the spatial and social separation of categories of people by race, ethnicity, class, gender, and/or religion (Figure 10.6). Segregation may be enforced by law. De jure segregation refers to laws that systematically enforced the physical and social separation of African Americans in all areas of public life. For example, Jim Crow laws legalized the separation of the races in public accommodations (such as hotels, restaurants, transportation, hospitals, jails, schools, churches, and cemeteries) in the southern United States after the Civil War (Feagin and Feagin, 2012).
Figure 10.6
Segregation exists when specific ethnic groups are set apart from the dominant group and have unequal access to power and privilege. What examples of segregation do you see today?
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Although functionalist explanations provide a description of how some early white ethnic immigrants assimilated into the cultural mainstream, they do not adequately account for the persistent racial segregation and economic inequality experienced by people of color.
10-3cConflict Perspectives
Conflict theorists focus on economic stratification and access to power in their analyses of race and ethnic relations. Some emphasize the caste-like nature of racial stratification, others analyze class-based discrimination, and still others examine internal colonialism and gendered racism.
The Caste Perspective
The caste perspective views racial and ethnic inequality as a permanent feature of U.S. society. According to this approach, the African American experience must be viewed as different from that of other racial or ethnic groups. African Americans were the only group to be subjected to slavery; when slavery was abolished, a caste system was instituted to maintain economic and social inequality between whites and African Americans (Feagin and Feagin, 2012).
The caste system was strengthened by antimiscegenation laws, which prohibited sexual intercourse or marriage between persons of different races. Most states had such laws, which were later expanded to include relationships between whites and Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos.
Class Perspectives
Although the caste perspective points out that racial stratification may be permanent because of structural elements such as the law, it has been criticized for not examining the role of class in perpetuating racial inequality. Class perspectives emphasize the role of the capitalist class in racial exploitation. Based on early theories of race relations by the African American scholar W. E. B. Du Bois, the sociologist Oliver C. Cox (1948) suggested that African Americans were enslaved because they were the cheapest and best workers the owners could find for heavy labor in mines and on plantations. Thus, the profit motive of capitalists, not skin color or racial prejudice, accounts for slavery.
Sociologists have also debated the relative importance of class and race in explaining the unequal life chances of African Americans. Sociologists William Julius Wilson and Richard P. Taub (2007) have suggested that race, cultural factors, social psychological variables, and social class must all be taken into account in examining the life chances of “inner-city residents.” Their analysis focuses on how race, ethnicity, and class tensions are all important in assessing how residents live their lives in four low-income Chicago neighborhoods and why this finding is important for the rest of America as well.
How do conflict theorists view the relationship among race, class, and sports? Simply stated, sports reflects the interests of the wealthy and powerful. At all levels, sports exploits athletes (even highly paid ones) in order to gain high levels of profit and prestige for coaches, managers, and owners. In particular, African American athletes and central-city youths are exploited by the message of rampant consumerism. Many are given the unrealistic expectation that sports can be a ticket out of the ghetto or barrio. If they try hard enough (and wear the right athletic gear), they too can become wealthy and famous.
Internal Colonialism
Why do some racial and ethnic groups continue to experience subjugation after many years? According to the sociologist Robert Blauner (1972), groups that have been subjected to internal colonialism remain in subordinate positions longer than groups that voluntarily migrated to the United States. Internal colonialism occurs when members of a racial or ethnic group are conquered or colonized and forcibly placed under the economic and political control of the dominant group. This idea has been so widely received that it is often referred to as the “Blauner hypothesis” and is still used in research.
In the United States, indigenous populations (including groups known today as Native Americans and Mexican Americans) were colonized by Euro-Americans and others who invaded their lands and conquered them. In the process, indigenous groups lost property, political rights, aspects of their culture, and often their lives. The capitalist class acquired cheap labor and land through this government-sanctioned racial exploitation. The effects of past internal colonialism are reflected today in the number of Native Americans who live on government reservations and in the poverty of Mexican Americans who lost their land and had no right to vote (Figure 10.7).
Figure 10.7
Grinding poverty is a pressing problem for families living along the border between the United States and Mexico. Economic development has been limited in areas where colonias such as this one are located, and the wealthy have derived far more benefit than others from recent changes in the global economy. How might the concept of internal colonialism be used to explain the impoverished conditions shown in this photo?
Paul S. Howell/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
The internal colonialism perspective is rooted in the historical foundations of racial and ethnic inequality in the United States. However, it tends to view all voluntary immigrants as having many more opportunities than do members of colonized groups. Thus, this model does not explain the continued exploitation of some immigrant groups, such as the Chinese, Filipinos, Cubans, Vietnamese, and Haitians, and the greater acceptance of others, primarily those from Northern Europe.
The Split-Labor-Market Theory
Who benefits from the exploitation of people of color? Dual- or split-labor-market theory states that white workers and members of the capitalist class both benefit from the exploitation of people of color. Split labor market refers to the division of the economy into two areas of employment, a primary sector or upper tier, composed of higher-paid (usually dominant-group) workers in more-secure jobs, and a secondary sector or lower tier, composed of lower-paid (often subordinate-group) workers in jobs with little security and hazardous working conditions (Bonacich, 1972, 1976). According to this perspective, white workers in the upper tier may use racial discrimination against nonwhites to protect their positions. These actions most often occur when upper-tier workers feel threatened by lower-tier workers hired by capitalists to reduce labor costs and maximize corporate profits. In the past, immigrants were a source of cheap labor that employers could use to break strikes and keep wages down. Throughout U.S. history, higher-paid workers have responded with racial hostility and joined movements to curtail immigration and thus do away with the source of cheap labor (Marger, 2015).
Proponents of the split-labor-market theory suggest that white workers benefit from racial and ethnic antagonisms. However, these analysts typically do not examine the interactive effects of race, class, and gender in the workplace.
Perspectives on Race and Gender
The term gendered racism refers to the interactive effect of racism and sexism on the exploitation of women of color. According to the social psychologist Philomena Essed (1991), women’s particular position must be explored within each racial or ethnic group because their experiences will not have been the same as men’s in each grouping.
Capitalists do not equally exploit all workers. Gender and race or ethnicity are important in this exploitation. Historically, white men have monopolized the high-paying primary labor market. Many people of color and white women hold lower-tier jobs. Below that tier is the underground sector of the economy, characterized by illegal or quasi-legal activities such as drug trafficking, prostitution, and working in sweatshops that do not meet minimum wage and safety standards. Many undocumented workers and some white women and people of color attempt to earn a living in this sector, as further described in Chapter 13, “The Economy and Work in Global Perspective.”
Concept Quick Review
Sociological Perspectives on Race and Ethnic Relations
|
|
Focus |
Theory/Hypothesis |
|
Symbolic Interactionist |
Microlevel contacts between individuals |
Contact hypothesis |
|
Functionalist |
Macrolevel intergroup processes |
1. Assimilation 1. cultural 2. biological 3. structural 4. psychological 2. Ethnic pluralism 1. equalitarian pluralism 2. inequalitarian pluralism (segregation) |
|
Conflict |
Power/economic differentials between dominant and subordinate groups |
1. Caste perspective 2. Class perspective 3. Internal colonialism 4. Split labor market 5. Gendered racism 6. Racial formation |
|
Critical Race Theory |
Racism as an ingrained feature of society that affects everyone’s daily life |
Laws may remedy overt discrimination but have little effect on subtle racism. Interest convergence is required for social change. |
Racial Formation
The theory of racial formation states that actions of the government substantially define racial and ethnic relations in the United States. Government actions range from race-related legislation to imprisonment of members of groups believed to be a threat to society. Sociologists Michael Omi and Howard Winant (2013) suggest that the U.S. government has shaped the politics of race through actions and policies that cause people to be treated differently because of their race. For example, immigration legislation reflects racial biases. The Naturalization Law of 1790 permitted only white immigrants to qualify for naturalization; the Immigration Act of 1924 favored Northern Europeans and excluded Asians and Southern and Eastern Europeans.
Social protest movements of various racial and ethnic groups periodically challenge the government’s definition of racial realities. When this social rearticulation occurs, people’s understanding about race may be restructured somewhat. For example, the African American protest movements of the 1950s and 1960s helped redefine the rights of people of color in the United States.
10-3dAn Alternative Perspective: Critical Race Theory
Emerging out of scholarly law studies on racial and ethnic inequality, critical race theory derives its foundation from the U.S. civil rights tradition. Critical race theory has several major premises, including the belief that racism is such an ingrained feature of U.S. society that it appears to be ordinary and natural to many people (Delgado, 1995). As a result, civil rights legislation and affirmative action laws (formal equality) may remedy some of the more overt, blatant forms of racial injustice but have little effect on subtle, business-as-usual forms of racism that people of color experience as they go about their everyday lives. Although many minority-group members participate in collegiate and professional sports, studies of sports and media show that overt and covert forms of racism persist in the twenty-first century.
10-4Racial and Ethnic Groups in the United States
How do racial and ethnic groups come into contact with one another? How do they adjust to one another and to the dominant group over time? Sociologists have explored these questions extensively; however, a detailed historical account of the unique experiences of each group is beyond the scope of this chapter. Instead, we will look briefly at intergroup contacts. In the process, sports will be used as an example of how members of some groups have attempted to gain upward mobility and become integrated into society.
10-4aNative Americans and Alaska Natives
LO 5
Discuss the unique historical experiences of Native Americans and WASPs in the United States.
Native Americans and Alaska Natives are believed to have migrated to North America from Asia thousands of years ago, as shown on the time line in Figure 10.8. One of the most widely accepted beliefs about this migration is that the first groups of Mongolians made their way across a natural bridge of land called Beringia into present-day Alaska. From there, they moved to what is now Canada and the northern United States, eventually making their way as far south as the tip of South America.
Figure 10.8Time Line of Racial and Ethnic Groups in the United States
Genocide, Forced Migration, and Forced Assimilation
Native Americans have been the victims of genocide and forced migration. Although the United States never had an official policy that set in motion a pattern of deliberate extermination, many Native Americans were either massacred or died from European diseases (such as typhoid, smallpox, and measles) and starvation. In battle, Native Americans were often no match for the Europeans, who had “modern” weaponry. Europeans justified their aggression by stereotyping the Native Americans as “savages” and “heathens.”
After the Revolutionary War, the federal government offered treaties to the Native Americans so that more of their land could be acquired for the growing white population. Scholars note that the government broke treaty after treaty as it engaged in a policy of wholesale removal of indigenous nations in order to clear the land for settlement by Anglo-Saxon “pioneers.” Entire nations were forced to move in order to accommodate the white settlers. The “Trail of Tears” was one of the most disastrous of the forced migrations. In the coldest part of the winter of 1832, over half of the members of the Cherokee Nation died during or as a result of their forced relocation from the southeastern United States to the Indian Territory in Oklahoma.
Native Americans were subjected to forced assimilation on the reservations after 1871. Native American children were placed in boarding schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to hasten their assimilation into the dominant culture. About 98 percent of native lands had been expropriated by 1920. This process was aided by the Dawes Act (1877), which allowed the federal government to usurp Native American lands for the benefit of corporations and other non-native settlers who sought to turn a profit from oil and gas exploration and grazing.
Native Americans and Alaska Natives Today
Currently, about 6.6 million Native Americans and Alaska Natives, including those of more than one race, live in the United States, including Aleuts, Inuit (Eskimos), Cherokee, Navajo, Choctaw, Chippewa, Sioux, and more than 500 other nations of varying sizes and different locales. There is a wide diversity among the people in this category: Each nation has its own culture, history, and unique identity, and more than 250 Native American languages are spoken today. Slightly more than 20 percent of Native Americans and Alaska Natives ages five and older have reported that they spoke a language other than English at home.
Although Native Americans live in a number of states, they are concentrated in specific regions of the country. About 22 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives reside in federal American Indian reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands or other tribal-designated areas. There are 326 federally recognized American Indian reservations in this country and a total of 630 legal and statistical areas (U.S. Census Bureau, “American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month,” 2016).
Data continue to indicate that Native Americans are the most disadvantaged racial or ethnic group in the United States in terms of income, employment, housing, nutrition, and health. As compared to a median household income of $55,775 for the nation as a whole in 2015, for example, the median household income of American Indian and Alaska Native households was $38,530. In the same year, nearly 27 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives lived in poverty at a time when the national poverty rate was slightly less than 15 percent. American Indians and Alaska Natives have higher rates of infant mortality than white American (non-Hispanic) infants, and American Indian and Alaska Native infants are four times more likely to die from pneumonia and influenza. American Indian and Alaska Native suicide rates are nearly 50 percent higher than those of white Americans (non-Hispanic). Suicide is particularly a concern among American Indian and Alaska Native males and among persons under age 25 (cdc.gov, 2014; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014).
Historically, Native Americans have had very limited educational opportunities and very high rates of unemployment. Educational opportunities have largely been tied to community colleges. Since the introduction of six tribally controlled community colleges in the 1970s, a growing network of tribal colleges and universities now serves over 30,000 students from more than 250 tribal nations (see Figure 10.9). This network has been successful in providing some Native Americans with the necessary education to move into the ranks of the skilled working class and beyond (Figure 10.10). Across the nation, Native Americans own and operate many types of enterprises, such as construction companies, computer-graphic-design firms, grocery stores, and management consulting businesses. Casino gambling operations and cigarette shops on Native American reservations—resulting from a reinterpretation of federal law in the 1990s—have brought more income to some of the tribal nations. However, this change has not been without its critics, who believe that such businesses bring new problems for Native Americans.
Figure 10.9U.S. Tribal Colleges and Universities
Source: American Indian College Fund, 2017.
Figure 10.10
Historically, Native Americans have had a low rate of college attendance. However, the development of a network of tribal colleges has provided them with a local source for upward mobility.
AP Photo/Lawrence Journal-World, Mike Yoder
In 2009 Native Americans received a $3.4 billion settlement from the federal government after the conclusion of Cobell v. Salazar, a thirteen-year-old lawsuit that accused the government of mishandling revenues generated by the extraction of natural resources from American Indian land trusts as a result of the Dawes Act. Although the federal government was responsible for leasing tribal lands for use by mining, lumber, oil, and gas industries and passing on royalty payments to the Native Americans to whom the lands belonged, Native Americans derived little benefit because of the government’s massive abuse of the trust funds.
Native Americans and Sports
Early in the twentieth century, Native Americans such as Jim Thorpe gained national visibility as athletes in football, baseball, and track and field. Teams at boarding schools such as the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania and the Haskell Institute in Kansas were well-known. However, after the first three decades of the twentieth century, Native Americans became less prominent in sports. Native American scholar Joseph B. Oxendine (2003) attributes the lack of athletic participation to these factors:
· (1)
a reduction in opportunities for developing sports skills,
· (2)
restricted opportunities for participation, and
· (3)
a lessening of Native Americans’ interest in competing with and against non–Native Americans.
However, in the twenty-first century, Native Americans slowly began making their mark in a few professional sports. Sam Bradford (Cherokee Nation) has made inroads in professional football. Other notables are in golf (Notah Begay III), lacrosse (Brett Bucktooth), bowling (Mike Edwards), rodeo (Clint Harry), and baseball (Kyle Lohse). More Native American college athletes are also being recognized in the twenty-first century (visit the website for NDNSPORTS.com).
10-4bWhite Anglo-Saxon Protestants (British Americans)
Whereas Native Americans have been among the most disadvantaged peoples in this country, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) have been the most privileged group. Although many English settlers initially came to North America as indentured servants or as prisoners, they quickly emerged as the dominant group, creating a core culture (including language, laws, and holidays) to which all other groups were expected to adapt. Most of the WASP immigrants arriving from Northern Europe were advantaged over later immigrants because they were highly skilled and did not experience high levels of prejudice and discrimination.
Class, Gender, and WASPs
Like members of other racial and ethnic groups, not all WASPs are alike. Social class and gender affect their life chances and opportunities. For example, members of the working class and the poor do not have political and economic power; men in the capitalist class do. WASPs constitute the majority of the upper class and maintain cohesion through listings such as the Social Register and interactions with one another in elite settings such as private schools and country clubs (Kendall, 2002).
Today, the U.S. Census Bureau uses the term “white” to refer to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. In the latest (2010) census, people who indicated that they were Caucasian, white, Irish, German, Polish, Arab, Lebanese, Palestinian, Algerian, Moroccan, and Egyptian, among others, were included in the white racial category (Hixson, Hepler, and Kim, 2011). Seventy-two percent of all persons (at the time nearly 224 million people) included in the census identified as white alone. An additional 7.5 million people (2 percent) reported white in combination with one or more other races. Today, the majority of people in these population categories reside in the South (in states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia) and the Midwest (in states such as Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin). The fastest growth in white population occurred in states in the South and in the West (Hixson, Hepler, and Kim, 2011).
In 2015, for example, the real median income of whites (non-Hispanic) was $62,950, which is second only to that of Asian Americans ($77,166) and significantly above that of Hispanic or Latino/a and African American (black) residents of the United States. Likewise, the poverty rate for whites (non-Hispanic) was 9.1 percent while it was slightly over 24 percent for African Americans (Proctor, Semega, and Kollar, 2016).
WASPs and Sports
Family background, social class, and gender play an important role in the sports participation of WASPs. Contemporary North American football was invented at the Ivy League colleges and was dominated by young, affluent WASPs who had the time and money to attend college and participate in sports activities. Today, whites are more likely than any other racial or ethnic group to become professional athletes in all sports except football and basketball. Although current data are not available to document differences among racial and ethnic categories by types of sports, we know that the probability of competing in athletics beyond the high school interscholastic level is extremely low. For example, only .03 percent of high school men’s basketball players will become professional athletes, as will only .02 percent of women’s basketball players. For football, the percentage of high school players who will become professional athletes is .08 percent; for baseball, .4 percent; for men’s ice hockey, .4 percent; and for men’s soccer, .08 percent. Even the odds of advancing from high school athletics to NCAA college sports remain low: 3.2 percent for men’s basketball, 3.6 percent for women’s basketball, 6.1 percent for football, 6.6 percent for baseball, 10.7 percent for men’s ice hockey, and 5.7 percent for men’s soccer (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2012).
Affluent WASP women participated in intercollegiate women’s basketball in the late 1800s, and various other sporting events were used as a means to break free of restrictive codes of femininity. Until fairly recently, however, most women have had little chance for any involvement in college and professional sports.
10-4cAfrican Americans
LO 6
Describe how slavery, segregation, lynching, and persistent discrimination have uniquely affected the African American experience in this country.
The African American (black) experience has been one uniquely marked by slavery, segregation, and persistent discrimination. There is a lack of consensus about whether African American or black is the most appropriate term to refer to the 45.7 million Americans of African descent who live in the United States today. Those who prefer the term black point out that it incorporates many African-descent groups living in this country that do not use African American as a racial or ethnic self-description. For example, many people who trace their origins to Haiti, Puerto Rico, or Jamaica typically identify themselves as “black” but not as “African American.” Although African Americans reside throughout the United States, eighteen states have an estimated black population of at least one million. About 3.8 million African Americans lived in New York State in 2016, but the District of Columbia had the highest percentage of blacks (51 percent), followed by Mississippi (38.2 percent), in the total population (see Figure 10.11).
Figure 10.11U.S. Racial and Ethnic Distribution
While minority populations do continue to grow, regional differences in racial makeup are still quite pronounced, as this map shows.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011f.
Although the earliest African Americans probably arrived in North America with the Spanish conquerors in the fifteenth century, most historians trace their arrival to about 1619, when the first groups of indentured servants were brought to the colony of Virginia. However, by the 1660s, indentured servanthood had turned into full-fledged slavery because of the enactment of laws that sanctioned the enslavement of African Americans. Although the initial status of persons of African descent in this country may not have been too different from that of the English indentured servants, all of that changed with the passage of laws turning human beings into property and making slavery a status from which neither individuals nor their children could escape (Franklin, 1980).
Between 1619 and the 1860s, about 500,000 Africans were forcibly brought to North America, primarily to work on southern plantations, and these actions were justified by the devaluation and stereotyping of African Americans. Some analysts believe that the central factor associated with the development of slavery in this country was the plantation system, which was heavily reliant on cheap and dependable manual labor. Slavery was primarily beneficial to the wealthy southern plantation owners, but many of the stereotypes used to justify slavery were eventually institutionalized in southern custom and practice (Wilson, 1978). However, some slaves and whites engaged in active resistance against slavery and its barbaric practices, which eventually resulted in slavery being outlawed in the northern states by the late 1700s. Slavery continued in the South until 1863, when it was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation (Takaki, 1993).
Segregation and Lynching
Discrimination
In the twentieth century the lives of many African Americans were changed by industrialization and two world wars. When factories were built in the northern United States, many African American families left the rural South in hopes of finding jobs and a better life.
During World Wars I and II, African Americans were a vital source of labor in war production industries; however, racial discrimination continued both on and off the job. In World War II, many African Americans fought for their country in segregated units in the military; after the war, they sought—and were denied—equal opportunities in the country for which they had risked their lives.
African Americans began to demand sweeping societal changes in the 1950s. Initially, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the civil rights movement used civil disobedience—nonviolent action seeking to change a policy or law by refusing to comply with it—to call attention to racial inequality and to demand greater inclusion of African Americans in all areas of public life. Subsequently, leaders of the Black Power movement, including Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey, advocated black pride and racial awareness among African Americans. Gradually, racial segregation was outlawed by the courts and the federal government. For example, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 sought to do away with discrimination in education, housing, employment, and health care.
Affirmative action programs were instituted in both public-sector and private-sector organizations in an effort to bring about greater opportunities for African Americans and other previously excluded groups. Affirmative action refers to policies or procedures that are intended to promote equal opportunity for categories of people deemed to have been previously excluded from equality in education, employment, and other fields on the basis of characteristics such as race or ethnicity. Critics of affirmative action often assert that these policies amount to reverse discrimination—a person who is better qualified being denied a position because another person received preferential treatment as a result of affirmative action.
African Americans Today
Blacks or African Americans make up about 13.3 percent of the U.S. population. Some are descendants of families that have been in this country for many generations; others are recent immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean. Black Haitians make up the largest group of recent Caribbean immigrants; others come from Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. Recent African immigrants are primarily from Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ghana, and Kenya. They have been simultaneously “pushed” out of their countries of origin by severe economic and political turmoil and “pulled” by perceived opportunities for a better life in the United States. Recent immigrants are often victimized by the same racism that has plagued African Americans as a people for centuries.
Since the 1960s, many African Americans have made significant gains in politics, education, employment, and income. Between 1964 and 2010, the number of African Americans elected to political office (on local, state, and federal levels) increased from about 100 to more than 10,000 nationwide (Hayes, 2011). At the local level, African Americans have won mayoral elections in many major cities that have large African American populations, such as Atlanta, Houston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. At the national level, the top accomplishment of an African American in politics was the election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 and his reelection to a second term of office in 2012 (Figure 10.12).
Figure 10.12
In August 2008, Barack Obama made history by becoming the first African American to receive the presidential nomination of a major political party, and on Election Day he was voted in as the first African American president of the United States. In 2012 Obama was reelected to his second term and is shown here taking the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts on January 21, 2013.
Scott Andrews/Pool via CNP/Newscom
In 2017 there were 52 African Americans serving in the 115th U.S. Congress: 49 were in the House of Representatives and 3 in the U.S. Senate. Over the past five decades, more African Americans have made impressive occupational gains and joined the top socioeconomic classes in terms of earnings. Some of these individuals have become professionals while others have achieved great wealth and fame as entertainers, athletes, and entrepreneurs. But even those who make millions of dollars per year and live in the most-affluent neighborhoods are not exempt from racial prejudice and discrimination. Likewise, although some African Americans have made substantial occupational and educational gains, many more have not. At the time I am writing this in 2017, for example, the African American unemployment rate of 7.9 percent is more than that of white (non-Hispanic) Americans (4.7) and Asian Americans (3.8).
African Americans and Sports
In recent decades many African Americans have seen sports as a possible source of upward mobility because other means have been unavailable. However, their achievements in sports have often been attributed to “natural ability” and not determination and hard work. Sociologists have rejected such biological explanations for African Americans’ success in sports and have focused instead on explanations rooted in the structure of society.
Since Jackie Robinson broke baseball’s “color line,” in 1947, many African American athletes have played collegiate and professional sports. Even now, however, persistent class inequalities between whites and African Americans are reflected in the fact that, until recently, African Americans have primarily excelled in sports (such as basketball or football) that do not require much expensive equipment and specialized facilities in order to develop athletic skills. According to one sports analyst, African Americans typically participate in certain sports and not others because of the sports opportunity structure—the availability of facilities, coaching, and competition in the schools and community recreation programs in their area (Phillips, 1993).
Regardless of the sport in which they participate, African American men athletes continue to experience inequalities in coaching, management, and ownership opportunities in professional sports. In recent years, only five of the thirty-two National Football League teams and fourteen of the teams in the NCAA elite “Football Bowl Subdivision”—postseason bowl-eligible competitors—had African American head coaches. By contrast, 60 percent of the players on the top 25 FBS teams are black. Today, African Americans remain significantly underrepresented in many other sports, including hockey, skiing, figure skating, golf, volleyball, softball, swimming, gymnastics, sailing, soccer, bowling, cycling, and tennis.
10-4dWhite Ethnic Americans
The term white ethnic Americans is applied to a wide diversity of immigrants who trace their origins to Ireland and to Eastern and Southern European countries such as Poland, Italy, Greece, Germany, Yugoslavia, and Russia and other former Soviet republics. Unlike the WASPs, who migrated primarily from Northern Europe and assumed a dominant cultural position in society, white ethnic Americans arrived late in the nineteenth century and early in the twentieth century to find relatively high levels of prejudice and discrimination directed at them by nativist organizations that hoped to curb the entry of non-WASP European immigrants. Because many of the people in white ethnic American categories were not Protestant, they experienced discrimination because they were Catholic, Jewish, or members of other religious bodies, such as the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Discrimination Against White Ethnics
Many white ethnic immigrants entered the United States between 1830 and 1924. Irish Catholics were among the first to arrive, driven out of Ireland by English oppression and famine and seeking jobs in the United States (Feagin and Feagin, 2012). When they arrived, they found that British Americans controlled the major institutions of society. The next arrivals were Italians, who had been recruited for low-wage industrial and construction jobs. British Americans viewed Irish and Italian immigrants as “foreigners”: The Irish were stereotyped as ape-like, filthy, bad-tempered, and heavy drinkers; the Italians were depicted as lawless, knife-wielding thugs looking for a fight, “dagos,” and “wops” (short for “without papers”) (Feagin and Feagin, 2012).
Both Irish Americans and Italian Americans were subjected to institutionalized discrimination in employment. Employment ads read “Help Wanted—No Irish Need Apply” and listed daily wages at $1.30–$1.50 for “whites” and $1.15–$1.25 for “Italians” (Gambino, 1975: 77). In spite of discrimination, white ethnics worked hard to establish themselves in the United States, often founding mutual self-help organizations and becoming politically active (Mangione and Morreale, 1992).
Between 1880 and 1920, a wave of Eastern European Jewish immigrants arrived in the United States and settled in the Northeast. Jewish Americans differ from other white ethnic groups in that some focus their identity primarily on their religion whereas others define their Jewishness in terms of ethnic group membership (Feagin and Feagin, 2012). In any case, Jews continued to be the victims of anti-Semitism—prejudice, hostile attitudes, and discriminatory behavior targeted at Jews. For example, signs in hotels read “No Jews Allowed,” and some “help wanted” ads stated “Christians Only” (Levine, 1992: 55). In spite of persistent discrimination, Jewish Americans achieved substantial success in many areas, including business, education, the arts and sciences, law, and medicine.
However, old biases remain deeply embedded in the fabric of American life and are passed on from one generation to the next. An example of this kind of lingering prejudice surfaced in 2015 when a Jewish student at UCLA who was being considered for the student council’s judicial board was asked the following by another student: “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?” (Nagourney, 2015). Although the vast majority of Jewish American students on college campuses nationwide are not asked questions such as this, the discussion raises concern about the increasing rate of anti-Semitic acts on college campuses, in cemeteries, and other locations nationwide in the aftermath of the election of President Donald J. Trump in 2017.
White Ethnics and Sports
Sports provided a pathway to assimilation for many white ethnics. The earliest collegiate football players who were not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants were of Irish, Italian, and Jewish ancestry. Sports participation provided educational opportunities that some white ethnics would not have had otherwise.
Boxing became a way to make a living for white ethnics who did not participate in collegiate sports (Figure 10.13). Boxing promoters encouraged ethnic rivalries to increase their profits, pitting Italians against Irish or Jews, and whites against African Americans (Levine, 1992; Mangione and Morreale, 1992). Eventually, Italian Americans graduated from boxing into baseball and football. Jewish Americans found that sports lessened the shock of assimilation and gave them an opportunity to refute stereotypes about their physical weaknesses and to counter anti-Semitic charges that they were “unfit to become Americans” (Levine, 1992: 272). Today, assimilation is so complete that little attention is paid to the origins of white ethnic athletes.
Figure 10.13
Early-twentieth-century Jewish American and Italian American boxers not only produced intragroup ethnic pride but also earned a livelihood through boxing matches.
Bettmann/Corbis
10-4eAsian Americans
LO 7
Identify the major categories of Asian Americans and describe their historical and contemporary experiences.
Recent research has found that Asian Americans have the highest income and the most formal education of any racial group in the United States. They are also the fastest-growing racial group in the nation (Pew Research Center Social and Demographic Trends, 2013).
Chinese Americans
Chinese Americans are the largest Asian American group, at 4.5 million (U.S. Census Bureau Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, 2016). The initial wave of Chinese immigration occurred between 1850 and 1880, when more than 200,000 Chinese men were “pushed” from China by harsh economic conditions and “pulled” to the United States by the promise of gold in California and employment opportunities in the construction of transcontinental railroads. Far fewer Chinese women immigrated; however, many were brought to the United States against their will, and some were forced into prostitution.
Chinese Americans were subjected to extreme prejudice and stereotyped as “coolies,” “heathens,” and “Chinks.” Some Asians were attacked and even lynched by working-class whites who feared that they would lose their jobs to these immigrants. Passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 brought Chinese immigration to a halt. The Exclusion Act was not repealed until World War II, when Chinese Americans who were contributing to the war effort by working in defense plants pushed for its repeal. After immigration laws were further relaxed in the 1960s, the second and largest wave of Chinese immigration occurred, with immigrants coming primarily from Hong Kong and Taiwan. These recent immigrants have had more education and workplace skills than earlier arrivals, and they brought families and capital with them to pursue the American Dream.
Today, many Asians of Chinese descent reside in large urban enclaves in California, Texas, New York, and Hawaii. As a group, Asian Americans have enjoyed considerable upward mobility, and Chinese Americans are no exception. Many have become highly successful professionals and business entrepreneurs. However, other Chinese Americans remain in the lower tier of the working class—providing low-wage labor in personal services, repair, and maintenance (Pew Research Center, 2012c).
Japanese Americans
Most of the early Japanese immigrants were men who worked on sugar plantations in the Hawaiian Islands in the 1860s. Like Chinese immigrants, the Japanese American workers were viewed as a threat by white workers, and immigration of Japanese men was curbed in 1908. However, Japanese women were permitted to enter the United States for several years thereafter because of the shortage of women on the West Coast. Although some Japanese women married white men, laws prohibiting interracial marriage stopped this practice.
With the exception of the forced migration and genocide experienced by Native Americans and the enslavement of African Americans, Japanese Americans experienced one of the most vicious forms of discrimination ever sanctioned by U.S. laws. During World War II, when the United States was at war with Japan, nearly 120,000 Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps, where they remained for more than two years despite the total lack of evidence that they posed a security threat to this country (Figure 10.14). This action was a direct violation of the citizenship rights of many Nisei (second-generation Japanese Americans), who were born in the United States. Only Japanese Americans were singled out for such harsh treatment; German Americans avoided this fate even though the United States was also at war with Germany. Four decades later, the U.S. government issued an apology for its actions and eventually paid $20,000 each to some of those who had been placed in internment camps.
Figure 10.14
During World War II, nearly 120,000 Japanese Americans—some of whom are still alive today—were interned in camps such as the Manzanar Relocation Center in California, where this statue memorializes their ordeal.
Joe Sohm/VisionsofAmerica/Photodisc/Getty Images
Since World War II, many Japanese Americans have been very successful. The annual household income of Japanese Americans is between $66,000 and $68,000, as contrasted with approximately $49,800 for the total U.S. population. But, many Japanese Americans (and other Asian Americans as well) reside in states with higher than average incomes and higher costs of living than the national average.
Korean Americans
Male workers primarily made up the first wave of Korean immigrants who arrived in Hawaii between 1903 and 1910. The second wave came to the U.S. mainland following the Korean War in 1954. This cohort was made up primarily of the wives of servicemen and Korean children who had lost their parents during the war. The third wave arrived after the Immigration Act of 1965 permitted well-educated professionals to migrate to the United States. Korean Americans have helped one another open small businesses by pooling money through the kye—an association that grants members money on a rotating basis to gain access to more capital.
Today, an estimated 1.8 million Korean Americans reside in the United States, constituting the fifth-largest category of Asian Americans and about 10 percent of the total adult Asian population in the nation. Many Korean Americans live in California and New York, where there is a concentration of Korean-owned businesses. The median annual household income for Korean Americans is slightly above $50,000, which is lower than for all Asians Americans but slightly higher than for the U.S. population as a whole.
Filipino Americans
Today, Filipino Americans constitute one of the largest categories of Asian Americans, with about 3.8 million U.S. residents reporting that they are Filipino alone or in combination with one or more additional racial–ethnic categories. To understand the status of Filipino Americans, it is important to look at the complex relationship between the Philippine Islands and the U.S. government. After Spain lost the Spanish-American War, the United States established colonial rule over the islands, a rule that lasted from 1898 to 1946. Despite control by the United States, Filipinos were not granted U.S. citizenship, but male Filipinos were allowed to migrate to Hawaii and the U.S. mainland to work in agriculture and in fish canneries in Seattle and Alaska. Like other Asian Americans, Filipino Americans were accused of taking jobs away from white workers and suppressing wages, and Congress restricted Filipino immigration to fifty people per year between the Great Depression and the aftermath of World War II.
The second wave of Filipino immigrants came following the Immigration Act of 1965, when large numbers of physicians, nurses, technical workers, and other professionals moved to the U.S. mainland. Most Filipinos have not had the start-up capital necessary to open their own businesses, and many have been employed in the low-wage sector of the service economy. However, the average household income of Filipino American families is relatively high, at nearly $77,000, because, among other reasons, Filipinos have among the highest level of educational attainment among Asian Americans.
Indochinese Americans
Indochinese Americans include people from Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos. Vietnamese refugees who had the resources to flee at the beginning of the Vietnam War were the first to arrive. The next to arrive were Cambodians and lowland Laotians, referred to as “boat people” by the media. Many who tried to immigrate did not survive at sea; others were turned back when they reached this country or were kept in refugee camps for long periods of time. When they arrived in the United States, inflation was high, the country was in a recession, and many native-born citizens feared that they would lose their jobs to these new refugees, who were willing to work very hard for low wages.
In 2015 it was estimated that about 2.0 million adult Vietnamese Americans resided in the United States, constituting the fourth-largest group of Asian Americans. About 84 percent of Vietnamese Americans were foreign born, but nearly 80 percent possess U.S. citizenship. The median household income of Vietnamese Americans is $55,132.
Like Vietnamese Americans, other Indochinese Americans from Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos are often first-or second-generation residents of the United States; about half live in the western states, especially California. Even though most first-generation Indochinese immigrants spoke no English when they arrived in this country, their children and grandchildren have done very well in school and have been stereotyped as “brains.”
Asian Indian Americans
Asian Indian Americans (also known as Indian Americans or Indo Americans) trace their origins to India and make up about 1 percent of the U.S. population. Slightly more than 3.8 million people count themselves as “Asian Indian alone” in U.S. Census Bureau surveys; however, when counted in combination with one or more races, they account for nearly 3.2 million people. Some earlier Asian Indian immigrants arrived on the West Coast in the 1900s to work in agriculture, but it was not until the 1960s that their population increased significantly.
Initially, Asian Indians were classified as Caucasian and allowed to become citizens, but they were later barred from citizenship. It was not until the 1950s that legislation was passed to lift this restriction, bringing several waves of immigration. Among the first to arrive were well-educated professionals and managers and their families. Later groups were less well educated and found jobs in the service industry, such as driving taxis, working in fast food, or opening small family-owned businesses such as restaurants.
The median household income of Asian Indian Americans ($101,591) is higher than that of Asian Americans as a whole ($72,689) and of the U.S. population as a whole ($49,800). Asian Indian Americans have a higher level of educational attainment than other groups in the United States. Among Asian Indian Americans, 50.6 percent of adults age 25 and older have a bachelor’s degree. Of Asian Americans as a whole, 30 percent hold a bachelor’s degree, as compared to 29 percent of the U.S population as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts, 2016). Similarly, 38 percent of the Asian Indian Americans hold advanced degrees, as compared to 20 percent of Asian Americans as a whole and 10 percent of the U.S. population as a whole (Pew Research Center, 2015) (Figure 10.15).
Figure 10.15
Asian American workers, such as these software engineers, now make up a larger percentage of the high-tech workforce than white Americans and persons in other racial or ethnic categories. This change constitutes a dramatic shift in technology-related jobs and the corresponding distribution of higher wages and benefits provided by this employment sector.
Jim McIsaac/Getty Images
Asian Indian Americans have experienced hostility and discrimination in some areas of the country, at least partly because of their perceived success and the fear that they are taking opportunities away from native-born Americans. In the 1980s, Asian Indian Americans were targeted by the “Dotbusters” in New Jersey because some wore a distinctive dot on their forehead. Others were discriminated against in the workplace because U.S. workers believed that they were losing their jobs to outsourcing in countries such as India. Some Asian Indian American students have taken legal action against a number of Ivy League universities, claiming that they were the victims of discrimination because the schools did not want an overrepresentation of Asian Americans in their student population. One of the most recent tragedies occurred when a white supremacist killed four people and injured others at a Sikh gurdwara, a place of worship, in Wisconsin.
Asian Americans and Sports
Asian American athletes have begun to receive recognition in a variety of sports, in the past winning acclaim in the Olympics and in other major sports: Kyla Ross (gymnastics), Nathan Adrian (swimming), Jeremy Lin (basketball), Nonito Donaire (boxing), Julie Chu (ice hockey), Ed Wang (football), and Ichiro Suzuki and Tim Lincecum (baseball). These and a number of other Asian Americans continue to be recognized as top athletes. Sports analysts have pointed out the importance of having outstanding Asian American athletes because they provide role models for all young people, but especially for their own communities, exemplifying the integrity, discipline, and hard work that are necessary to become a success in sports and in life.
10-4fLatinos/as (Hispanic Americans)
LO 8
Describe the unique experiences of Latinos/as (Hispanics) and Middle Eastern Americans in the United States.
Across all Hispanic categories, more than 40 million persons ages 5 and older in the United States speak Spanish in their household. This is a significant increase between 1990 (17.3 million) and 2015. However, more than half (59 percent) of all Hispanics who speak Spanish indicate in U.S. Census Bureau surveys that they also speak English “very well.” As discussed in Chapter 8, Hispanic households have lower median household incomes and higher rates of poverty (about 25 percent) than white (non-Hispanic) Americans.
Mexican Americans or Chicanos/as
Mexican Americans—including both native-born and foreign-born people of Mexican origin—are the largest segment (64 percent) of the Latino/a population in the United States. Most Mexican Americans live in the southwestern region of the United States, although more have moved throughout the United States in recent years.
Immigration from Mexico is the primary vehicle by which the Mexican American population grew in this country. Initially, Mexican-origin workers came to work in agriculture, where they were viewed as a readily available cheap and seasonal labor force. Many initially entered the United States as undocumented workers (“illegal aliens”); however, they were more vulnerable to deportation than other illegal immigrants because of their visibility and the proximity of their country of origin. For more than a century, there has been a “revolving door” between the United States and Mexico that has been open when workers were needed and closed during periods of economic recession and high rates of U.S. unemployment.
Mexican Americans have long been seen as a source of cheap labor, while at the same time they have been stereotyped as lazy and unwilling to work. As has been true of other groups, when white workers viewed Mexican Americans as a threat to their jobs, they demanded that the “illegal aliens” be sent back to Mexico. Consequently, U.S. citizens who happen to be Mexican American have been asked for proof of their citizenship, especially when anti-immigration sentiments are running high. Many Mexican American families have lived in the United States for five or six generations—they have fought in wars, made educational and political gains, and consider themselves to be solid U.S. citizens. Thus, it is a great source of frustration for them to be viewed as illegal immigrants or to be asked “How long have you been in this country?”
The U.S. recession that began in 2007 and the gradual economic recovery of the second decade of the twenty-first century considerably reduced the flow of immigration from Mexico to the United States. The collapse of the U.S. housing market reduced the number of jobs in the construction industry, and other employment opportunities were also lost as the financial crisis took away positions in manufacturing, personal service, leisure, and other sectors. However, it is clear that Mexican Americans will continue to make a major contribution to the U.S. population because the Mexican-origin population increased by more than 50 percent (from 20.6 million to 32.9 million), with the largest numerical increase of any racial or ethnic category, between 2000 and 2010 (Pew Research Center, 2012a).
Puerto Ricans
Today, the nearly 5 million Puerto Rican Americans residing in the United States make up 9.4 percent of Hispanic-origin people in this country. When Puerto Rico became a territory of the United States in 1917, Puerto Ricans acquired U.S. citizenship and the right to move freely to and from the mainland. In the 1950s, many migrated to the mainland when the Puerto Rican sugar industry collapsed, settling primarily in New York and New Jersey. Today, more than half of all Puerto Rican Americans reside in the Northeast, followed by the South, primarily Florida (Pew Research Center, 2012a).
Although living conditions have improved substantially for some Puerto Ricans, life has been difficult for the many living in poverty in Spanish Harlem and other barrios. Nevertheless, in recent years Puerto Ricans have made dramatic advances in education, the arts, and politics. Puerto Rican Americans have higher levels of educational attainment than the Hispanic population overall: Among Puerto Ricans ages 25 and older, 16 percent have obtained at least a bachelor’s degree, as compared to 13 percent of all U.S. Hispanics (Pew Research Center, 2012a). However, the annual median household income ($36,000) of Puerto Rican Americans is considerably less than that of the U.S. population as a whole.
Cuban Americans
Cuban Americans live primarily in the Southeast, especially Florida. As a group, they have fared somewhat better than other Latinos/as because many Cuban immigrants were affluent professionals and businesspeople who fled Cuba after Fidel Castro’s 1959 Marxist revolution. This early wave of Cuban immigrants has median incomes well above those of other Latinos/as; however, this group is still below the national average. The second wave of Cuban Americans, arriving in the 1970s, has fared worse. Many had been released from prisons and mental hospitals in Cuba, and their arrival fueled an upsurge in prejudice against all Cuban Americans. The more-recent arrivals have developed their own ethnic and economic enclaves in Miami’s Little Havana, and many of the earlier immigrants have become mainstream professionals and entrepreneurs.
Latinos/as and Sports
For more than a century, Latinos have played Major League Baseball in the United States (Figure 10.16). Originally, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Venezuelans were selected for their light skin as well as for their skill as players. Baseball became a major means of assimilation for earlier Latinos in the United States. By 2012, Latinos represented more than 25 percent of Major League Baseball players, and growing numbers also participated in football, hockey, and basketball at all levels of competition. In women’s sports, golf, soccer, and basketball also had rising numbers of Latina athletes.
Figure 10.16
Professional sports, particularly baseball, increasingly reflects the growing racial–ethnic and national diversity of the U.S. population.
Jim West/The Image Works
In addition to baseball, Latinos have made impressive gains in Major League Soccer in the United States and Canada; however, many people in the United States are less enthusiastic fans of soccer as compared to football. Consequently, salaries of professional soccer players are lower than in the high-profile sports, fan bases are smaller, and revenues from sales of team clothing are not as lucrative. However, the sixteen U.S. and three Canadian soccer teams provide opportunities for Latino athletes to be highly visible in professional sports in regions with large Latino/a populations.
10-4gMiddle Eastern Americans
Since 1970, many immigrants have arrived in the United States from countries located in the “Middle East,” which is the geographic region from Afghanistan to Libya and including Arabia, Cyprus, and Asiatic Turkey. Placing people in the “Middle Eastern” American category is somewhat like placing wide diversities of people in the categories of Asian American or Latino/a; some U.S. residents trace their origins to countries such as Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE (United Arab Emirates), and Yemen. Middle Eastern Americans speak a variety of languages and have diverse religious backgrounds: Some are Muslim, some are Coptic Christian, and others are Melkite Catholic. Although some are from working-class families, Lebanese Americans, Syrian Americans, Iranian Americans, and Kuwaiti Americans primarily come from middle- and upper-income family backgrounds. For example, numerous Iranian Americans are scientists, professionals, and entrepreneurs.
Arab Americans
In the twenty-first century, about 3.5 million people in the United States identify their family’s country of origin as being an Arab country. The primary countries of origin are Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Iraq. Although Arab Americans live throughout the United States, nearly half live in California, Michigan, New York, Florida, and New Jersey. One-third of all Arab Americans reside in one of three major metropolitan areas—Detroit, Los Angeles, and New York. Most Arab Americans were born in the United States, and over 80 percent are U.S. citizens.
Since the 2010 U.S. Census, the population of Arab Americans in the United States has become better known because of campaigns promoting the slogan “check it right, you ain’t White” that were launched by various Arab American groups to encourage Arab Americans to check the “Other” box when they filled out the 2010 Census form and then to identify themselves as “Arab” or to indicate their specific country of origin.
Iranian (Persian) Americans
About 1.5 million Iranian Americans live in the United States in the 2010s. However, no official statistics are available because these data are not collected by the Census Bureau. Instead, the annual American Community Survey, a sample survey, asks questions of ancestry that provide this information.
The most extensive immigration of Iranians to the United States began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when early immigrants, particularly college students, left Iran as the Iranian revolution was taking place. When the Islamic Republic was established after the revolution, many Iranian students decided to remain in the United States, and other Iranians also left their country and established a new life in this nation. Today, the United States has the highest number of Iranian residents outside of Iran. More than 80 percent of Iranian Americans are U.S. citizens. Many Iranian Americans have high levels of educational attainment and are employed in professional positions in business, academia, and science.
Discrimination
Despite such high level of achievement, Iranian Americans, like Arab Americans, have experienced persistent discrimination, particularly if they are Muslim (Figure 10.17) or if there has been a recent terrorist scare in the United States. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States by terrorists whose origins were traced to the Middle East, there was an escalation in the number of hate crimes and other types of discrimination against persons assumed to be Arabs, Arab Americans, Iranian Americans, or Muslims. In the aftermath of this terrorist attack, the U.S. Patriot Act was passed. This law gave the federal government greater authority to engage in searches and surveillance of persons suspected of terrorist activity than in the past. The Patriot Act caused heightened concern among many individuals and groups because it was believed that this law might be used to target individuals who appear to be of Middle Eastern origins.
Figure 10.17
Muslims in the United States who wear traditional attire may face prejudice and/or discrimination as they go about their daily lives.
JAGADEESH NV/epa/Corbis
What about the Muslim experience in the United States? In cities across this country, Muslims have established social, economic, and ethnic enclaves for social stability and personal safety. Islamic schools and centers often bring together people from a diversity of countries such as Egypt and Pakistan. Many Muslim leaders and parents focus on how to raise children to be good Muslims and good U.S. citizens. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, some Middle Eastern Americans experience discrimination based on their speech patterns, appearance, and clothing (such as the hijabs, or “head-to-toe covering” that leaves only the face exposed, which many girls and women wear). The idea that Middle Easterners are somehow associated with terrorism has also been difficult to remove from media representations and some people’s thinking, producing ongoing hardship for many upstanding citizens of this nation.
Middle Eastern Americans and Sports
10-5Looking Ahead: The Future of Global Racial and Ethnic Inequality
Throughout the world, many racial and ethnic groups seek self-determination—the right to choose their own way of life. As many nations are currently structured, however, self-determination is impossible.
10-5aWorldwide Racial and Ethnic Struggles
The cost of self-determination is the loss of life and property in ethnic warfare. Ethnic violence has persisted in Mali, Myanmar, Bangladesh, India, China, South Sudan, and many other regions where hundreds of thousands have died from warfare, disease, and refugee migration. Ethnic wars have a high price even for survivors, whose life chances can become bleaker even after the violence subsides.
In the twenty-first century, the struggle between the Israeli government and various Palestinian factions over the future and borders of Palestine continues to make headlines. Discord in this region has heightened tensions among people not only in Israel and Palestine but also in the United States and around the world as deadly clashes continue and political leaders are apparently unable to reach a lasting solution to the decades-long strife.
10-5bGrowing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the United States
Racial and ethnic diversity is increasing in the United States. African Americans, Latinos/as, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and mixed-race individuals constitute more than a third (39 percent) of the U.S. population—up from 30.9 percent in 2000 (Humes, Jones, and Ramirez, 2011). As shown in Figure 10.18, states vary in their percentage of population that are minorities. Today, non-Hispanic white Americans make up 61 percent of the population, in contrast to 80 percent in 1980. It is predicted that by 2056, the roots of the average U.S. resident will be in Africa, Asia, Hispanic countries, the Pacific islands, and the Middle East—not white Europe.
Figure 10.18Minority Populations and Percentages by State, 2010*
* Percentages are rounded to nearest whole number.
Source: Humes, Jones, and Ramirez, 2011.
On the other hand, there is reason for cautious optimism. Throughout U.S. history, members of diverse racial and ethnic groups have struggled to gain the freedom and rights that were previously withheld from them. Today, minority grassroots organizations are pressing for affordable housing, job training, and educational opportunities. As discussed in “You Can Make a Difference,” movements composed of both whites and people of color continue to oppose racism in everyday life, to seek to heal divisions among racial groups, and to teach children about racial tolerance. Many groups hope not only to affect their own microcosm but also to contribute to worldwide efforts to end racism.
You Can Make a Difference
Working for Racial and Gender Harmony on College Campuses
How can you promote racial and gender harmony on your college campus? One student, Morgane Richardson, decided to establish a group called “Refuse the Silence.” The organization collected stories of women of color who were either attending or had graduated from an “elite liberal arts college in the United States” and had experienced problems such as sexual assault. Organizations such as Refuse the Silence seek to identify the unique problems of students of color, particularly women, in regard to racism and sexual assault on elite campuses. However, concerns about racial inequality, discrimination, and assault exist on all campuses. You can help by establishing a similar organization or website at your institution to determine how to best address this pressing problem and bring greater racial and gender harmony on campus.
If you are interested in starting your own organization or developing a blog to look at racism, sexism, or similar issues, consider how the following factors contribute to the problem:
· (1)
divisiveness between different cultural and ethnic communities;
· (2)
persistent lack of trust;
· (3)
the fact that many people never really communicate with one another, despite the omnipresence of social media;
· (4)
the need to bring different voices into the curriculum and college life generally; and
· (5)
the need to learn respect for people from different backgrounds.
Your group could also develop a set of questions to be answered. Consider these topics for developing questions on campus racism:
1. Encouraging inclusion and acceptance. Do members of our group reflect the college’s racial and ethnic diversity? How much do I know about other people’s history and culture? How can I become more tolerant—or accepting—of people who are different from me?
2. Raising consciousness. What is racism? What causes it? Can people participate in racist language and behavior without realizing what they are doing? What is our college or university doing to reduce racism?
3. Becoming more self-aware. How much do I know about my own family roots and ethnic background? How do the families and communities where we grow up affect our perceptions of racial and ethnic relations?
4. Using available resources. What resources are available for learning more about working to reduce racism? Here are some agencies to contact:
· The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
· The Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
· The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
· The National Council of La Raza
What additional items would you add to the list of problem areas on your campus? Would you like to also address Morgane Richardson’s concern about woman of color and sexual violence? What goals would your organization have? How might your objectives be reached? Over time, students like you have changed many colleges and universities as a result of personal involvement in dealing with pressing social issues!
To eliminate racial discrimination, it will be necessary to equalize opportunities in schools and workplaces. According to Michael Omi and Howard Winant (2013), it is important for us to be aware of race, rather than ignoring it, if we wish to challenge the problem of racism. If we are aware that race as a social construction exists and has meaning in everyday life, we will gain the political insights necessary to mobilize ourselves and others against injustice and inequality in our society.
Chapter Review Q & A
· LO1How do race and ethnicity differ?
A race is a category of people who have been singled out as inferior or superior, often on the basis of physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, or eye shape. An ethnic group is a collection of people distinguished primarily by cultural or national characteristics, including unique cultural traits, a sense of community, a feeling of ethnocentrism, ascribed membership, and territoriality.
· LO2How do racial and ethnic classifications continue to change in the United States?
Racial classifications in the United States have changed over the past century. If we look at U.S. Census Bureau classifications, for example, we can see how the meaning of race continues to change. First, race is defined by perceived skin color: white or nonwhite. Census 2000 made it possible—for the first time—for individuals to classify themselves as being of more than one race.
· LO3What are prejudice, stereotypes, racism, scapegoat, and discrimination?
Prejudice is a negative attitude often based on stereotypes, which are overgeneralizations about the appearance, behavior, or other characteristics of all members of a group. Stereotypes are overgeneralizations about the appearance, behavior, or other characteristics of members of particular categories. Racism is a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices that is used to justify the superior treatment of one racial or ethnic group and the inferior treatment of another racial or ethnic group. A scapegoat is a person or group that is incapable of offering resistance to the hostility or aggression of others Discrimination involves actions or practices of dominant-group members that have a harmful effect on members of a subordinate group.
· LO4How do sociologists view racial and ethnic group relations?
Symbolic interactionists claim that intergroup contact may either intensify or reduce racial and ethnic stereotyping and prejudice, depending on the context. In the contact hypothesis, symbolic interactionists point out that contact between people from divergent groups should lead to favorable attitudes and behavior when certain factors are present. Functionalists stress that members of subordinate groups become a part of the mainstream through assimilation, the process by which members of subordinate groups become absorbed into the dominant culture. Conflict theorists focus on economic stratification and access to power in race and ethnic relations. The caste perspective views inequality as a permanent feature of society, whereas class perspectives focus on the link between capitalism and racial exploitation. According to racial formation theory, the actions of the U.S. government substantially define racial and ethnic relations.
· LO5What are the unique historical experiences of Native Americans and WASPs in the United States?
Experts estimate that approximately two million native inhabitants lived in North America in 1492; their numbers had been reduced to fewer than 240,000 by 1900. Native Americans have been the victims of genocide and forced migration. After the Revolutionary War, the federal government broke treaty after treaty as it engaged in a policy of wholesale removal of indigenous nations in order to clear the land for settlement by Anglo-Saxon “pioneers.” Data continue to show that Native Americans are the most disadvantaged racial or ethnic group in the United States in terms of income, employment, housing, nutrition, and health. Whereas Native Americans have been among the most disadvantaged peoples, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) have been the most privileged group in this country. Although many English settlers initially came to North America as indentured servants or as prisoners, they quickly emerged as the dominant group, creating a core culture (including language, laws, and holidays) to which all other groups were expected to adapt.
· LO6How have slavery, segregation, lynching, and persistent discrimination uniquely affected the African American experience in this country?
The African American (black) experience has been one uniquely marked by slavery, segregation, and persistent discrimination. Between 1619 and the 1860s, about 500,000 Africans were forcibly brought to North America, primarily to work on southern plantations, and these actions were justified by the devaluation and stereotyping of African Americans. Following the abolishment of slavery in 1863, African Americans were still subjected to segregation, discrimination, and lynchings. Despite civil rights legislation and economic and political gains by many African Americans, racial prejudice and discrimination continue to exist.
· LO7What are the major categories of Asian Americans, and what are their historical and contemporary experiences?
· LO8What have been the unique experiences of Latinos/as (Hispanics) and Middle Eastern Americans in the United States?
Mexican Americans—including both native-born and foreign-born people of Mexican origin—are the largest segment (approximately two-thirds) of the Latino/a population in the United States. Today, Puerto Rican Americans make up 9 percent of Hispanic-origin people in the United States. Although some Latinos/as have made substantial political, economic, and professional gains in U.S. society, as a group they are nevertheless subjected to anti-immigration sentiments. Since 1970, many immigrants have arrived in the United States from countries located in the “Middle East,” which is the geographic region from Afghanistan to Libya and includes Arabia, Cyprus, and Asiatic Turkey. Middle Eastern immigrants to the United States speak a variety of languages and have diverse religious backgrounds. Because they generally come from middle-class backgrounds, they have made inroads into mainstream U.S. society. However, some Middle Eastern Americans experience discrimination based on their speech patterns, appearance, and clothing. The idea that Middle Easterners are somehow associated with terrorism has also been difficult to remove from media representations and some people’s thinking, which produces ongoing hardship for many upstanding citizens of this nation.
Unit 5.2: Sex, Gender, and Sexuality ch.11
11-1Sex: The Biological Dimension
LO 1
Distinguish between sex and gender.
Whereas the word gender is often used to refer to the distinctive qualities of men and women (masculinity and femininity) that are culturally created, sex refers to the biological and anatomical differences between females and males. At the core of these biological and anatomical differences is the chromosomal information transmitted at the moment a child is conceived. The mother contributes an X chromosome and the father either an X (which produces a female embryo) or a Y (which produces a male embryo). At birth, male and female infants are distinguished by primary sex characteristics : the genitalia used in the reproductive process. At puberty, an increased production of hormones results in the development of secondary sex characteristics : the physical traits (other than reproductive organs) that identify an individual’s sex. For women, these include larger breasts, wider hips, and narrower shoulders; a layer of fatty tissue throughout the body; and menstruation. For men, they include development of enlarged genitals, a deeper voice, greater height, a more muscular build, and more body and facial hair.
11-1aIntersex and Transgender Persons
Sex is not always clear-cut. An intersex person is an individual who is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not correspond to the typical definitions of male or female; in other words, the person’s sexual differentiation is ambiguous. Formerly referred to as hermaphrodites by some in the medical community, intersex persons may appear to be female on the outside at birth but have mostly male-type anatomy on the inside, or they may be born with genitals that appear to be in between the usual male and female types. For example, a chromosomally normal (XY) male may be born with a penis just one centimeter long and a urinary opening similar to that of a female. However, although intersexuality is considered to be an inborn condition, intersex anatomy is not always known or visible at birth. In fact, intersex anatomy sometimes does not become apparent until puberty, when an adult is found to be infertile, or when an autopsy is performed at death. It is possible for some intersex people to live and die with intersexed anatomy but never know that the condition exists. According to the Intersex Society of North America (2015),
Intersex is a socially constructed category that reflects real biological variation. Nature presents us with sex anatomy spectrums [but] nature doesn’t decide where the category of “male” ends and the category of “intersex” begins, or where the category of “intersex” ends and the category of “female” begins. Humans decide. Humans (today, typically doctors) decide how small a penis has to be, or how unusual a combination of parts has to be, before it counts as intersex. Humans decide whether a person with XXY chromosomes and XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity will count as intersex.
Some people may be genetically of one sex but have a gender identity of the other. That is true for a transgender person —an individual whose gender identity (self-identification as woman, man, neither, or both) does not match the person’s assigned sex (identification by others as male, female, or intersex based on physical/genetic sex). Consequently, transgender persons may believe that they have the opposite gender identity from that of their sex organs and may be aware of this conflict between gender identity and physical sex as early as the preschool years. Some transgender individuals choose to take hormone treatments or have a sex change operation to alter their genitalia so that they can have a body congruent with their sense of gender identity (Figure 11.1). Many then go on to lead lives that they view as being compatible with their true gender identity. But the issue of hormonal and surgical sex reassignment remains highly politicized. The “Standards of Care,” a set of guidelines set up by the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, establishes standards by which transgender persons may obtain hormonal and surgical sex reassignment to help ensure that people choosing such options are informed about what is involved in a gender transition.
Figure 11.1
Caitlyn Jenner (formerly known as Bruce Jenner) went through a very public gender transformation from male to female and became a spokesperson for transgender persons. What influence do you think high-profile people like Caitlyn Jenner have on the attitudes and actions of other people in regard to the LGBTQ community?
Featureflash Photo Agency/ Shutterstock.com
Western societies acknowledge the existence of only two sexes; some other societies recognize three—men, women, and berdaches (or hijras or xaniths): biological males who behave, dress, work, and are treated in most respects as women. The closest approximation of a third sex in Western societies is a crossdresser (formerly known as a transvestite), a male who dresses as a woman or a female who dresses as a man but does not alter his or her genitalia. Although crossdressers are not treated as a third sex, they often “pass” for members of that sex because their appearance and mannerisms fall within the range of what is expected from members of the other sex. Most crossdressers are heterosexual men, many of whom are married, but gay men, lesbians, and straight women may also be crossdressers. Crossdressing can occur in conjunction with homosexuality, but this is frequently not the case. Researchers and analysts continue to engage in dialogue about the correct terminology to use when referring to persons in the diverse groups that now make up this segment of the population.
11-1bSexual Orientation
Sexual orientation refers to an individual’s preference for emotional–sexual relationships with members of the different sex (heterosexuality), the same sex (homosexuality), or both (bisexuality). In referring to homosexuality, many organizations representing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer persons have adopted the acronym LGBTQ. The term lesbian refers to females who prefer same-sex relationships; gay refers to males who prefer same-sex relationships. As noted above, bisexual is the term used to describe a person’s physical or romantic attraction to both males and females, whereas transgender is a term applied to persons whose appearance, behavior, and/or gender identity does not match that individual’s assigned sex. The “Q” in LGBTQ variously means “questioning” or “queer,” and sometimes the acronym is written LGBTQQ to include both “questioning” and “queer.” When the “Q” stands for “questioning,” it refers to a person who is uncertain about his or her sexual orientation. When the “Q” stands for “queer,” it is an umbrella term for the Queer Movement to indicate pride in one’s sexual orientation and a rejection of the older, derogatory use of the word queer to disparage a nonheterosexual person’s orientation.
What criteria have social scientists used to study sexual orientation? A definitive study of sexuality conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago established three criteria for identifying people as homosexual or bisexual:
· (1)
sexual attraction to persons of one’s own gender,
· (2)
sexual involvement with one or more persons of one’s own gender, and
· (3)
self-identification as a gay, lesbian, or bisexual (Laumann et al., 1994).
According to these criteria, then, having engaged in a homosexual act does not necessarily classify a person as homosexual. In fact, many respondents in the University of Chicago study indicated that although they had at least one homosexual encounter when they were younger, they were no longer involved in homosexual conduct and never identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
Measuring Sexual Orientation
It is difficult to determine how many people identify as LGBT because of a lack of official statistics. In 2012, for the first time the Gallup survey asked this question: “Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?” (Their questionnaire did not include the “Q” for queer or questioning.) More than 120,000 people responded to this survey, making it the largest study of its kind to date, and about 3.4 percent of U.S. adults answered “yes” to the question, thereby self-identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (Gates and Newport, 2012). Unfortunately, it is not possible to separately consider differences among lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgender individuals because of the way the data were collected.
Gallup researchers emphasize that measuring sexual orientation and gender identity is “challenging since these concepts involve complex social and cultural patterns” (Gates and Newport, 2012: 2). Because of a lingering social stigma attached to the LGBT identity, people are not always forthcoming about their identity when asked to respond to a survey. As a result, an unknown number of individuals remain in what is often referred to as the “closet” and are not included in estimates of the LGBT population.
LGBT Population Estimates
What do we know about the size of the LGBT community? Gallup polls conducted annually have found that about 10 million American adults self-identify as LGBT (their terminology), or 4.1 percent of the U.S. population. Gallup also found that that nonwhites are more likely than whites to identify as LGBT. The portion of African Americans has remained relatively consistent at 4.6 percent, compared to an increase to 4.9 percent of Asian Americans and 5.4 percent of Hispanics in the study. Persons with lower levels of education were more likely to identify as LGBT, including 4.1 percent of those with less than a high school education, 4.1 percent of those who had some college education but not a college degree, 4.1 percent of college graduations, and 3.9 percent respondents with post graduate education (Gates, 2017). A higher proportion of people with lower incomes identify as LGBT: About 5.5 percent of those with incomes of less than $36,000 per year self-identified, as compared with 4.0 percent of those making between $26,000 and $90,000 per year, and 3.7 percent making $90,000 or more. Those who were not religious (7.0 percent) were more likely to self-identify than the highly religious (1.9 percent), with the “moderately religious” in between at 3.5 percent (Gates, 2017).
How valid are these estimates of the LGBT population in the United States? The figures from Gallup are relatively consistent with a previous study by the Williams Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, in which researchers estimated that approximately nine million people (about 3.8 percent of all Americans) identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. According to this report, bisexuals make up 1.8 percent of the U.S. population, with more women than men typically identifying as bisexual. Only a slightly smaller proportion (1.7 percent) identify as being gay or lesbian. Transgender adults make up 0.3 percent of the population (Gates, 2011).
Gallup and other organizations continue to engage in research on the LGBT population. One of the Gallup Organization’s most-recent surveys focused on where LGBTQ Americans live. Based on surveys of more than 374,000 people, the study identified ten metropolitan areas with the largest shares of LGBT people as residents. The highest percentage (6.2 percent) was found in San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, California, followed by Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro, Oregon–Washington (5.4 percent), and then Austin–Round Rock, Texas (5.3 percent). Other areas included in the top ten were New Orleans, Seattle, Boston, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, Denver, and Hartford. The lowest percentages of LGBT populations were found in Birmingham–Hoover, Alabama (2.6 percent), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (3.0 percent), Memphis, San Jose, Raleigh, Cincinnati, Houston, Oklahoma City, Richmond, Nashville, and Milwaukee. However, the study concluded that respondents did not see the issue of openness to and acceptance of the gay population as a major concern when they chose where to live. According to the Gallup researchers, this fact might be an indication that more people in the LGBT community now perceive of this country as being more tolerant of diversity regardless of where you live. Complete results of this study are available on the Gallup Organization website at “San Francisco Metro Area Ranks Highest in LGBT Percentage.”
11-1cDiscrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
LO 2
Discuss prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The United States has numerous forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation. One of the most obvious issues was the fact that, throughout most of U.S. history, LGBTQ couples could not enter into legally recognized marital relationships. Many states passed constitutional amendments that limited marriage to a union between a man and a woman, and in other states, legislators had passed statutes with similar language. Prior to the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage across the United States, thirty-seven states had legalized same-sex marriage as a result of court decisions, state laws passed by legislatures, or popular vote. In 2015 thirteen states still banned same-sex marriage through constitutional amendment and/or state law. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, many other issues pertaining to inequalities based on sexual orientation remain to be resolved. Among these are marital property rights, the ability to adopt children, and equal access to benefits that previously have been provided only to persons in legal heterosexual marriages. Consider, for example, parental rights.
Parental rights remain an issue of grave concern to LGBT couples in a number of states. Among the ways in which persons in the LGBT community become parents are by adoption, foster parenting, donor insemination, surrogacy, and having children from previous heterosexual relationships. Laws governing family relationships vary significantly from state to state. In some states, same-sex partners who want to adopt a child or are raising children together (typically from a previous heterosexual marriage) learn that only one partner is legally recognized as the child’s parent or guardian. The LGBT community has struggled to gain the same parental rights in regard to legal and physical custody of children as heterosexual couples, including the right to physical access or visitation with a child, and various other rights pertaining to the property and well-being of a child. If gay and lesbian couples are denied parental rights by law and in the courts of the land, they have little or no legal recourse and are unable to exert authority over their children’s lives, health care, or property.
Another pressing issue is housing discrimination. Housing discrimination is a problem in the LGBT community because the Fair Housing Act, which affords some redress for some other minority groups, does not apply. According to HUD.gov (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2015), “The Fair Housing Act does not specifically include sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited bases. However, a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) person’s experience with sexual orientation or gender identity housing discrimination may still be covered by the Fair Housing Act.” Sometimes, HUD (Housing and Urban Development) guidelines come into play in ensuring equal access to housing for LGBT persons. Examples of housing discrimination include LGBT persons who have been discriminated against by real estate agents who refuse to show them houses in “family-oriented” apartments, condo buildings, or neighborhoods. Some finance and insurance companies have treated same-sex couples differently from other prospective homebuyers or lessees. Transgender persons have been particularly harmed by discriminatory practices in housing. One study found that transgender respondents were four times more likely to live in extreme poverty, and one in five respondents stated that they had experienced homelessness at some time in the past because of their gender identity (thetaskforce.org, 2011).
Health care is another area of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many in the LGBTQ community believed that progress was being made in this area with the passage of the ACA; however the future of Obamacare is in doubt as the Trump Administration and the U.S. Congress are engaged in a sustained effort to repeal and replace this law. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, many LGBT people were unable to afford the high cost of health insurance coverage, and some were unable to acquire employer-provided health insurance because they were not allowed by their partner’s employer to be counted as a dependent under the partner’s insurance plan. This remains true in some areas, but changes have been made in others as state laws and the political climate in some areas have changed. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, LGBT individuals were denied insurance on the basis of preexisting conditions such as HIV/AIDS. The health care problem remains especially pronounced among transgender people, some of whom report that they have been refused care because of bias. A recent study found that 42 percent of female-to-male transgender adults reported verbal harassment, physical assault, or denial of equal treatment in a doctor’s office or hospital. It is difficult, if not impossible, for many transgender people to identify themselves on medical forms as anything other than male or female (Seaman, 2015). Transgender respondents also have over four times the national average of HIV infection, which contributes to some health care professionals’ lack of desire to provide medical treatment. Further confounding the problem of discrimination is the race, ethnicity, and/or class of LGBT persons.
Occupational discrimination remains a pressing problem for people in the LGBT community. Despite laws prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, openly LGBT people have often experienced bias in hiring, retention, and promotion in employment. However, in recent years, greater inclusion has occurred as there has been greater acceptance in society at large. In the twenty-first century, more Fortune 500 companies have included gender identity in their employee nondiscrimination policies, and other corporations have done likewise. Of course, it remains to be seen the extent to which actual compliance with these policies occurs and the workplace becomes truly more diversified and accepting of the LGBT community.
Historically, one of the most widely publicized forms of discrimination against gays and lesbians has been in the military. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy implemented in 1993 by the Clinton Administration required that commanders not ask a serviceperson about his or her sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians were allowed to serve in the military as long as they did not reveal their orientation. However, various studies showed that this policy led to differential treatment of many gays and lesbians in the military. As many as 13,000 military personnel may have been discharged under this law, and gay rights organizations advocated for its repeal, arguing that the rules were discriminatory and that they kept gay troops from seeking medical care or reporting domestic abuse for fear of being exposed and expelled from their military branch. In 2010 President Barack Obama signed the repeal of the policy, thus allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the armed forces.
Various organizations of gays, lesbians, and transgender persons have been unified in their desire to reduce discrimination and other forms of homophobia —extreme prejudice and sometimes discriminatory actions directed at gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender persons, and others who are perceived as not being heterosexual (Figure 11.2). Homophobia involves an aversion to LGBT people or their lifestyle, and it sometimes includes behavior or an act, such as a hate crime, based on this aversion. Because of violence against LGBT individuals in the past, laws have been passed such as the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act that attempt to prevent such crimes or to bring to justice those individuals who perpetrate such violent acts in the future.
Figure 11.2
For many years, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons, and others who support their cause, have participated in rallies to highlight the problem of homophobia and demand changes in laws that discriminate against LGBT persons. Public opinion and law eventually changed on the issue of same-sex marriage through the efforts of persons in social movements such as the one shown here.
Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Some of the more recently publicized forms of potential discrimination against the LGBT community are the “religious freedom” bills that twenty-one states have passed as of mid-year 2015 and sixteen other states have introduced as new legislation. For example, supporters of the 2015 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana and Arkansas claim that the laws are merely for protection of religious freedom in for-profit corporations. Critics of RFRA view this type of law as a possible vehicle to promote discrimination against members of the LGBT community by allowing conservative Christian vendors to decline to provide various wedding-related services (such as flowers, wedding cakes, ceremony planning, and venues) for same-sex partners. The laws apply religious rights to businesses and corporations, so it is possible that these vendors and service companies could use the laws to refuse to serve partners who are planning same-sex weddings. Because of the increase in the number of states allowing same-sex marriage, the intent of such laws may be to keep businesspeople from having to participate in any way if their religious convictions dictate otherwise. It is unclear what, if any, effect these laws will have on the LGBT community or whether additional states will pass similar legislation in the future. Despite changes in marriage laws in more states in recent years, RFRA laws are an indication that battles among diverse ideological viewpoints and constituencies, as well as the struggle for equal rights for the LGBT community, are far from over. Some analysts believe that until a federal law and/or laws in all fifty states are passed protecting the various classes of sexual orientation and gender identity, LGBT people will not achieve greater equality in the United States (Ford, 2015).
11-2Gender: The Cultural Dimension
LO 3
Define gender role, gender identity, body consciousness, and sexism.
Gender refers to the culturally and socially constructed differences between females and males found in the meanings, beliefs, and practices associated with “femininity” and “masculinity.” Although biological differences between women and men are very important, in reality most “sex differences” are socially constructed “gender differences.” According to sociologists, social and cultural processes, not biological “givens,” are most important in defining what females and males are, what they should do, and what sorts of relations do or should exist between them. In a now-classic statement, the sociologist Judith Lorber (1994: 6) summarized the importance of gender:
Gender is a human invention, like language, kinship, religion, and technology; like them, gender organizes human social life in culturally patterned ways. Gender organizes social relations in everyday life as well as in the major social structures, such as social class and the hierarchies of bureaucratic organizations.
Virtually everything social in our lives is gendered: People continually distinguish between males and females and evaluate them differentially. Gender is an integral part of the daily experiences of both women and men (Kimmell and Messner, 2012).
A microlevel analysis of gender focuses on how individuals learn gender roles and acquire a gender identity. Gender role refers to the attitudes, behavior, and activities that are socially defined as appropriate for each sex and that are learned through the socialization process. For example, in U.S. society males are traditionally expected to demonstrate aggressiveness and toughness, whereas females are expected to be passive and nurturing (Figure 11.3). Gender identity is a person’s perception of the self as female or male. Typically established between eighteen months and three years of age, gender identity is a powerful aspect of our self-concept. Although this identity is an individual perception, it is developed through interaction with others. As a result, most people form a gender identity that matches their biological sex: Most biological females think of themselves as female, and most biological males think of themselves as male. However, some people think of gender as a continuum (a continuous succession or whole) in which biological females perceive of themselves as more female than male, and biological males perceive of themselves as more male than female. Of course, this is a matter for individual consideration, as is the issue of body consciousness, which is also a part of gender identity. Body consciousness is how a person perceives and feels about his or her body; it also includes an awareness of social conditions in society that contribute to this self-knowledge. As we grow up, we become aware that the physical shape of our bodies subjects us to the approval or disapproval of others. Being small and weak may be considered positive attributes for women, but they are considered negative characteristics for “true men.”
Figure 11.3
Which of these pictures contradicts our society’s traditional gender roles for men? Do you see this trend as a positive one? Why or why not?
Photographee.eu/ Shutterstock.com; Dmitry Kalinovsky/ Shutterstock.com
A macrolevel analysis of gender examines structural features, external to the individual, that perpetuate gender inequality. Gender is embedded in the images, ideas, and language of a society and is used as a means to divide up work, allocate resources, and distribute power. For example, every society uses gender to assign certain tasks—ranging from child rearing to warfare—to females and to males, and differentially rewards those who perform these duties. These structures have been referred to as gendered institutions, meaning that gender is one of the major ways by which social life is organized in all sectors of society.
These institutions are reinforced by a gender belief system, which includes all the ideas regarding masculine and feminine attributes that are held to be valid in a society. This belief system is legitimated by religion, science, law, and other societal values. For example, gender belief systems may change over time as gender roles change. Many fathers take care of young children today while women are the primary income earners in the family, and there is a much greater acceptance of this change in roles by both partners. However, popular stereotypes about men and women, as well as cultural norms about gender-appropriate appearance and behavior, still linger and sometimes reinforce gendered institutions in society.
11-2aThe Social Significance of Gender
Gender is a social construction with important consequences in everyday life. Just as stereotypes regarding race/ethnicity have built-in notions of superiority and inferiority, gender stereotypes hold that men and women are inherently different in attributes, behavior, and aspirations. Stereotypes define men as strong, rational, dominant, independent, and less concerned with their appearance. Women are stereotyped as more emotional, nurturing, dependent, and anxious about their appearance.
The social significance of gender stereotypes is illustrated by eating disorders. The three most common eating problems are anorexia, bulimia, and obesity. Some studies estimate that as many as 65 percent of women between the ages of 25 and 45 have disordered eating behaviors (Science-Daily, 2008). With anorexia, a person has an overriding obsession with food and thinness that constantly controls his or her activities and eating patterns, resulting in a body weight of less than 85 percent of the average weight for a person of that individual’s age and height group. With bulimia, a person binges by consuming large quantities of food and then purges the food by induced vomiting, excessive exercise, laxatives, or subsequent fasting. In the past, obesity was defined as being 20 percent or more above a person’s desirable weight, as established by the medical profession. Today, however, medical professionals use the BMI (body mass index) to define obesity. To determine this index, a person’s weight in kilograms is divided by his or her height in meters and squared to yield the BMI. Obesity is defined as a BMI of 30 and above (about 30 pounds overweight for the average person). In the past it was assumed that the individuals most likely to have eating disorders were white, middle-class, heterosexual women; however, such problems also exist among women of color, working-class women, lesbians, and gay men.
Bodybuilding is another gendered experience. Bodybuilding is the process of deliberately cultivating an increase in the mass and strength of the skeletal muscles by means of lifting and pushing weights. In the past, bodybuilding was predominantly a male activity; musculature connoted power, domination, and virility. Today, however, an increasing number of women engage in this activity. As gendered experiences, eating problems and bodybuilding have more in common than we might think. As some women’s studies scholars have pointed out, the anorexic body and the muscled body are not opposites: Both are united against the common enemy of soft, flabby flesh (Figure 11.4). In other words, the body may be objectified both through compulsive dieting and compulsive bodybuilding.
Figure 11.4
Not all anorexics are women, and not all bodybuilders are men. However, some analysts suggest that these two issues are manifestations of the same desire: to avoid having soft, flabby flesh.
Peter Dazeley/Photographer’s Choice/Getty Images; Jasminko Ibrakovic/ Shutterstock.com
In Muscle Boys: Gay Gym Culture, writer and personal trainer Erick Alvarez (2008) describes a globalized subculture of bodybuilding and physical fitness training among gay men that focuses on a “built” muscular body. Drawing from his own experience as a personal trainer in a San Francisco gay gym club, he identifies categories of gay men—including the Muscle Bear, Muscle Boy, Circuit-Boy, and Older Male—that emerge from this subculture, with its distinctive experiences in physical training and bodybuilding. He concludes that many of the men who go to the gym are primarily concerned with body image and the need to look muscular and attractive and to be part of a distinct community. They are extremely vigilant about their workouts, training regimens, and diet schedules because they need to compete with other gay men in the LGBT social marketplace as well as in the world at large.
11-2bSexism
Sexism is the subordination of one sex, usually female, based on the assumed superiority of the other sex. Sexism directed at women has three components:
· (1)
negative attitudes toward women;
· (2)
stereotypical beliefs that reinforce, complement, or justify the prejudice; and
· (3)
discrimination—acts that exclude, distance, or keep women separate.
Can men be victims of sexism? Although women are more often the target of sexist remarks and practices, men can be victims of sexist assumptions. Examples of sexism directed against men are the assumption that men should not be employed in certain female-dominated occupations, such as nurse or elementary school teacher, and the belief that it is somehow more harmful for families when female soldiers are killed in battle than male soldiers.
Sexism is interwoven with patriarchy —a hierarchical system of social organization in which cultural, political, and economic structures are controlled by men. By contrast, matriarchy is a hierarchical system of social organization in which cultural, political, and economic structures are controlled by women; however, few (if any) societies have been organized in this manner. Patriarchy is reflected in the way that men may think of their position as men as a given, whereas women may deliberate on what their position in society should be. As the sociologist Virginia Cyrus (1993: 6) explains, “Under patriarchy, men are seen as ‘natural’ heads of households, Presidential candidates, corporate executives, college presidents, etc. Women, on the other hand, are men’s subordinates, playing such supportive roles as housewife, mother, nurse, and secretary.” Gender inequality and a division of labor based on male dominance are nearly universal, as we will see in the following discussion on the origins of gender-based stratification.
11-3Gender Stratification in Historical and Contemporary Perspective
LO 4
Describe how the division of labor between women and men differs in various kinds of societies.
How do tasks in a society come to be defined as “men’s work” or “women’s work”? Three factors are important in determining the gendered division of labor in a society:
· (1)
the type of subsistence base,
· (2)
the supply of and demand for labor, and
· (3)
the extent to which women’s child-rearing activities are compatible with certain types of work.
Subsistence refers to the means by which a society gains the basic necessities of life, including food, shelter, and clothing. The three factors vary according to a society’s technoeconomic base—the level of technology and the organization of the economy in a given society. Five such bases have been identified: hunting and gathering societies, horticultural and pastoral societies, agrarian societies, industrial societies, and postindustrial societies, as shown in Table 11.2.
Table 11.2
Technoeconomic Bases of Society
|
|
Hunting and Gathering |
Horticultural and Pastoral |
Agrarian |
Industrial |
Postindustrial |
|
Change from Prior Society |
— |
Use of hand tools, such as digging stick and hoe |
Use of animal-drawn plows and equipment |
Invention of steam engine |
Invention of computer and development of “high-tech” society |
|
Economic Characteristics |
Hunting game, gathering roots and berries |
Planting crops, domestication of animals for food |
Labor-intensive farming |
Mechanized production of goods |
Information and service economy |
|
Control of Surplus |
None |
Men begin to control societies |
Men who own land or herds |
Men who own means of production |
Corporate shareholders and high-tech entrepreneurs |
|
Women’s Status |
Relative equality |
Decreasing in move to pastoralism |
Low |
Low |
Varies by class, race, and age |
Source: Adapted from Lorber, 1994: 140.
11-3aHunting and Gathering Societies
The earliest known division of labor between women and men is in hunting and gathering societies. While the men hunt for wild game, women gather roots and berries. A relatively equitable relationship exists because neither sex has the ability to provide all the food necessary for survival. When wild game is nearby, both men and women may hunt. When it is far away, hunting becomes incompatible with child rearing (which women tend to do because they breast-feed their young), and women are placed at a disadvantage in terms of contributing to the food supply (Lorber, 1994). In most hunting and gathering societies, women are full economic partners with men; relations between them tend to be cooperative and relatively egalitarian (Bonvillain, 2001). Little social stratification of any kind is found because people do not acquire a food surplus.
11-3bHorticultural and Pastoral Societies
When inadequate moisture in an area makes planting crops impossible, pastoralism—the domestication of large animals to provide food—develops. Herding is primarily done by men, and women contribute relatively little to subsistence production in such societies. In some herding societies, women have relatively low status; their primary value is their ability to produce male offspring so that the family lineage can be preserved and enough males will exist to protect the group against attack.
In contemporary horticultural societies, women do most of the farming while men hunt game, clear land, work with arts and crafts, make tools, participate in religious and ceremonial activities, and engage in war. A combination of horticultural and pastoral activities is found in some contemporary societies in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South America. These societies are characterized by more gender inequality than in hunting and gathering societies but less gender inequality than in agrarian societies (Bonvillain, 2001).
11-3cAgrarian Societies
In agrarian societies, which first developed about eight to ten thousand years ago, gender inequality and male dominance become institutionalized. The most extreme form of gender inequality developed about five thousand years ago in societies in the Fertile Crescent around the Mediterranean Sea. Agrarian societies rely on agriculture—farming done by animal-drawn or mechanically powered plows and equipment. Because agrarian tasks require more labor and greater physical strength than horticultural ones, men become more involved in food production. It has been suggested that women are excluded from these tasks because they are viewed as too weak for the work and because child-care responsibilities are considered incompatible with the full-time labor that the tasks require.
Why does gender inequality increase in agrarian societies? Scholars cannot agree on an answer; some suggest that it results from private ownership of property. When people no longer have to move continually in search of food, they can acquire a surplus. Men gain control over the disposition of the surplus and the kinship system, and this control serves men’s interests. The importance of producing “legitimate” heirs to inherit the surplus increases significantly, and women’s lives become more secluded and restricted as men attempt to ensure the legitimacy of their children. Premarital virginity and marital fidelity are required; indiscretions are punished. However, some scholars argue that male dominance existed before the private ownership of property (Firestone, 1970; Lerner, 1986).
Male dominance is very strong in agrarian societies. Women are secluded, subordinated, and mutilated as a means of regulating their sexuality and protecting paternity. Most of the world’s population currently lives in agrarian societies in various stages of industrialization.
11-3dIndustrial Societies
An industrial society is one in which factory or mechanized production has replaced agriculture as the major form of economic activity. As societies industrialize, the status of women tends to decline further. Industrialization in the United States created a gap between the unpaid work performed by middle- and upper-class women at home and the paid work that was increasingly performed by men and unmarried girls. Husbands were responsible for being “breadwinners”; wives were seen as “homemakers.”
This gendered division of labor increased the economic and political subordination of women. It also became a source of discrimination against women of color based on both their race and the fact that many of them had to work in order to survive. In the late 1800s and into the 1900s, many African American women were employed as domestic servants in affluent white households.
As people moved from a rural, agricultural lifestyle to an urban existence, body consciousness increased. People who worked in offices often became sedentary and exhibited physical deterioration from their lack of activity. As gymnasiums were built to fight this lack of physical fitness, images of masculinity shifted from the physique of the farmer or factory workman to the middle-class office man who exercised and lifted weights. As industrialization progressed and food became more plentiful, the social symbolism of women’s body weight and size also changed, and middle-class women became more preoccupied with body fitness.
11-3ePostindustrial Societies
As previously defined, postindustrial societies are ones in which technology supports a service- and information-based economy. In such societies the division of labor in paid employment is increasingly based on whether people provide or apply information or are employed in service jobs such as fast-food counter help or health care workers. For both women and men in the labor force, formal education is increasingly crucial for economic and social success. However, although some women have moved into entrepreneurial, managerial, and professional occupations, many others have remained in the low-paying service sector, which affords few opportunities for upward advancement (Figure 11.5).
Figure 11.5
In contemporary societies, women do a wide variety of work and are responsible for many diverse tasks. The women shown here are employed in the industrial, factory sector and the postindustrial, biotechnology sector of the U.S. economy. Do you think issues of gender inequality might be different for these two women? Why or why not?”
Kzenon/ Shutterstock.com; Anyaivanova/ Shutterstock.com
How do new technologies influence gender relations in the workplace? Although some analysts presumed that technological developments would reduce the boundaries between women’s and men’s work, researchers have found that the gender stereotyping associated with specific jobs has remained remarkably stable even when the nature of work and the skills required to perform it have been radically transformed. Today, men and women continue to be segregated into different occupations, and this segregation is particularly visible within individual workplaces (as discussed later in the chapter).
How does the division of labor change in families in postindustrial societies? For a variety of reasons, more households are headed by women with no adult male present. In 2014 nearly 10 million U.S. children lived with their mother only (as contrasted with just 1.9 million who resided with their father only). Among African American children, 50 percent lived with their mother only (Child Trends Data Bank, 2015). This means that women in these households truly have a double burden, both from family responsibilities and from the necessity of holding gainful employment in the labor force.
In postindustrial societies such as the United States, approximately 60 percent of adult women are in the labor force, meaning that finding time to care for children, help aging parents, and meet the demands of the workplace will continue to place a heavy burden on women, despite living in an information- and service-oriented economy.
How people accept new technologies and the effect that these technologies have on gender stratification are related to how people are socialized into gender roles. However, gender-based stratification remains rooted in the larger social structures of society, which individuals have little ability to control.
11-4Gender and Socialization
LO 5
Identify the primary agents of gender socialization and note their role in socializing people throughout life.
We learn gender-appropriate behavior through the socialization process. Our parents, teachers, friends, and the media all serve as gendered institutions that communicate to us our earliest, and often most-lasting, beliefs about the social meanings of being male or female and thinking and behaving in masculine or feminine ways. Some gender roles have changed dramatically in recent years; others have remained largely unchanged over time.
Some parents prefer boys to girls because of stereotypical ideas about the relative importance of males and females to the future of the family and society. Research suggests that social expectations play a major role in this preference. We are socialized to believe that it is important to have a son, especially for a first or only child. For many years it was assumed that only a male child could support his parents in their later years and carry on the family name.
Across cultures, boys are preferred to girls, especially when the number of children that parents can have is limited by law or economic conditions. In China and India, fewer girls are born each year than boys because a disproportionate number of female fetuses are aborted. Starting in the 1970s, China had a one-child-per-family law that favored males over females. However, in 2013 the policy was revised so that couples would be allowed to have two children if one parent was an only child. What effect this will have on the birth of female children remains to be seen. In India a strong cultural belief exists that a boy is an asset to his family while a girl is liability. Beliefs such as this contribute to the selective abortion of female fetuses. As a result of these past practices, nations such as China and India are faced with a shortage of marriageable young women and many other problems that result from an imbalance in the sex ratio. Perhaps seeing the consequences of favoring one sex over the other will produce new ideas among parents regarding sex and gender socialization.
11-4aParents and Gender Socialization
From birth, parents act differently toward children on the basis of the child’s sex. Baby boys are perceived to be less fragile than girls and tend to be treated more roughly by their parents. Girl babies are thought to be “cute, sweet, and cuddly” and receive more-gentle treatment. Parents strongly influence the gender-role development of children by passing on—both overtly and covertly—their own beliefs about gender. Although contemporary parents tend to play more similarly with their male and female children than their own parents or grandparents might have played with them as they were growing up, there remains a difference in how they respond toward their children based on gender even when “roughhousing” with them or engaging in sports events or other activities.
Children’s toys reflect their parents’ gender expectations (Figure 11.6). Gender-appropriate toys for boys include video games, trucks and other vehicles, sports equipment, and war toys such as guns and soldiers. Girls’ toys include stuffed animals and dolls, makeup and dress-up clothing, and homemaking items. Ads for children’s toys appeal to boys and girls differently. Most girl and boy characters are shown in gender-specific toy commercials that target either females or males. These commercials typically show boys playing outdoors and engaging in competitive activities. Girls are more often engaged in cooperative play in the ads, and this is in keeping with gender expectations about their behavior (Kaklenberg and Hein, 2010).
Figure 11.6
Are children’s toys a reflection of their own preferences and choices? How do toys reflect gender socialization by parents and other adults?
Teresa Kasprzycka/ Shutterstock.com; Zurijeta/ Shutterstock.com
When children are old enough to help with household chores, they are often assigned different tasks. Girls often spend more time doing housework than boys (Belkin, 2009). Boys are more likely to be paid for doing chores at home than girls (University of Michigan, 2007). Parents are more likely to assign maintenance chores (such as mowing the lawn) to boys, whereas domestic chores (such as shopping, cooking, clearing the table, and taking care of young siblings) are assigned to girls.
In the past, most studies of gender socialization focused on white, middle-class families and paid little attention to ethnic differences. According to earlier studies, children from middle- and upper-income families are less likely to be assigned gender-linked chores than children from lower-income backgrounds. In addition, gender-linked chore assignments occur less frequently in African American families, where both sons and daughters tend to be socialized toward independence, employment, and child care (McHale et al., 2006). In contrast, gender socialization in Hispanic (Latino/a) families suggests that adolescent females often receive different gender socialization by their parents than do their male siblings. Many Latinas are allowed less interaction with members of the opposite sex than are the adolescent males in their families. Rules for dating, school activities, and part-time jobs are more stringent for the girls because many parents want to protect their daughters and keep them closer to home. Moreover, studies continue to show that many Latinas are primarily socialized by their families to become wives and mothers, while less emphasis is placed on educational attainment and careers (Landale and Oropesa, 2007). Some contemporary Latinas find that they must struggle with both cultural and structural barriers to achieving their academic and professional goals.
Across classes and racial–ethnic categories, mothers typically play a stronger role in gender socialization of daughters, whereas fathers do more to socialize sons than daughters, particularly when it comes to racial and gender socialization (McHale et al., 2006). However, many parents are aware of the effect that gender socialization has on their children and make a conscientious effort to provide gender-neutral experiences for them.
11-4bPeers and Gender Socialization
Peers help children learn prevailing gender-role stereotypes, as well as gender-appropriate and gender-inappropriate behavior. During the preschool years, same-sex peers have a powerful effect on how children see their gender roles. Children are more socially acceptable to their peers when they conform to implicit societal norms governing the “appropriate” ways that girls and boys should act in social situations and what prohibitions exist in such cases.
Male peer groups place more pressure on boys to do “masculine” things than female peer groups place on girls to do “feminine” things. For example, girls wear jeans and other “boy” clothes, play soccer and softball, and engage in other activities traditionally associated with males. By contrast, if a boy wears a dress, plays hopscotch with girls, and engages in other activities associated with being female, he will be ridiculed by his peers. This distinction between the relative value of boys’ and girls’ behaviors strengthens the cultural message that masculine activities and behavior are more important and more acceptable.
During adolescence, peers are often stronger and more-effective agents of gender socialization than adults. Peers are thought to be especially important in boys’ development of gender identity. Male bonding that occurs during adolescence is believed to reinforce masculine identity and to encourage gender-stereotypical attitudes and behavior. For example, male peers have a tendency to ridicule and bully others about their appearance, size, and weight. Because peer acceptance is so important, such actions can have very harmful consequences.
As young adults, men and women still receive many gender-related messages from peers. Among college students, for example, peer groups are organized largely around gender relations and play an important role in career choices and the establishment of long-term intimate relationships. In a study of women college students at two universities (one primarily white, the other predominantly African American), anthropologists Dorothy C. Holland and Margaret A. Eisenhart (1990) found that the peer system propelled women into a world of romance in which their attractiveness to men counted most. Although peers initially did not influence the women’s choices of majors and careers, they did influence whether the women continued to pursue their original goals, changed their course of action, or were “derailed.” Subsequent research has also found that some African American women, as well as women from other racial–ethnic categories, may change their occupational aspirations partly based on peer-group influence and their social environment (Frome et al., 2006).
11-4cTeachers, Schools, and Gender Socialization
From kindergarten through college, schools operate as a gendered institution. Teachers provide important messages about gender through both the formal content of classroom assignments and informal interactions with students. Sometimes, gender-related messages from teachers and other students reinforce gender roles that have been taught at home; however, teachers may also contradict parental socialization. During the early years of a child’s schooling, teachers’ influence is very powerful; many children spend more hours per day with their teachers than they do with their own parents.
According to some researchers, the quantity and quality of teacher–student interactions often vary between the education of girls and that of boys (Sadker and Zittleman, 2009). One of the messages that teachers may communicate to students is that boys are more important than girls. Research spanning the past thirty years shows that unintentional gender bias occurs in virtually all educational settings. Gender bias consists of showing favoritism toward one gender over the other. Researchers consistently find that teachers devote more time, effort, and attention to boys than to girls (Sadker and Zittleman, 2009). Males receive more praise for their contributions and are called on more frequently in class, even when they do not volunteer.
Teacher–student interactions influence not only students’ learning but also their self-esteem (Sadker and Zittleman, 2009). A comprehensive study of gender bias in schools suggested that girls’ self-esteem is undermined in school through such experiences as
· (1)
a relative lack of attention from teachers;
· (2)
sexual harassment by male peers;
· (3)
the stereotyping and invisibility of females in textbooks, especially in science and math texts; and
· (4)
test bias based on assumptions about the relative importance of quantitative and visual–spatial ability, as compared with verbal ability, that restricts some girls’ chances of being admitted to the most-prestigious colleges and being awarded scholarships.
Teachers also influence how students treat one another during school hours. Many teachers use sex segregation as a way to organize students, resulting in unnecessary competition between females and males (Figure 11.7). In addition, teachers may take a “boys will be boys” attitude when girls complain of sexual harassment. Even though sexual harassment is prohibited by law and teachers and administrators are obligated to investigate such incidents, the complaints may be dealt with superficially. If that happens, the school setting can become a hostile environment rather than a site for learning.
Figure 11.7
Teachers often use competition between boys and girls because they hope to make a learning activity more interesting. Here, a middle school girl leads other girls against boys in a Spanish translation contest. What are the advantages and disadvantages of gender-based competition in classroom settings?
Mary Kate Denny/PhotoEdit
11-4dSports and Gender Socialization
Children spend more than half of their nonschool time in play and games, but the type of games played differs with the child’s sex. Studies indicate that boys are socialized to participate in highly competitive, rule-oriented games with a larger number of participants than games played by girls. Young girls have been socialized to play exclusively with others of their own age, in groups of two or three, in activities such as hopscotch and jump rope that involve a minimum of competitiveness. Other research shows that boys express much more favorable attitudes toward physical exertion and exercise than girls do. Some analysts believe this difference in attitude is linked to ideas about what is gender-appropriate behavior for boys and girls. For males, competitive sport becomes a means of “constructing a masculine identity, a legitimated outlet for violence and aggression, and an avenue for upward mobility” (Lorber, 1994: 43). Now more girls play soccer and softball and participate in sports formerly regarded as exclusively “male” activities (Figure 11.8). Girls who go against the grain and participate in masculine play as children are more likely to participate in sports as young women and adults (Giuliano, Popp, and Knight, 2000).
Figure 11.8
NCAA women’s sports such as basketball are popularizing athletics for young women and making it easier for girls to become actively involved in sports at a young age.
Monkey Business Images/ Shutterstock.com
Many women athletes believe that they have to manage the contradictory statuses of being both “women” and “athletes.” An earlier study found that women college basketball players dealt with this contradiction by dividing their lives into segments. On the basketball court, the women “did athlete”: They pushed, shoved, fouled, ran hard, sweated, and cursed. Off the court, they “did woman”: After the game, they showered, dressed, applied makeup, and styled their hair, even if they were only getting in a van for a long ride home (Watson, 1987). A more recent study found that female athletes who played softball, soccer, or basketball engaged in “apologetic behavior” after the game through their efforts to look feminine, their apologies for their aggression during the game, and the ways in which they marked themselves as heterosexual (Davis-Delano, Pollock, and Vose, 2009). According to some social analysts, being able to identify the paradox between “female” and “athlete” and the problems that women in sports experience is the beginning of confronting socially constructed gender norms and polarized views of masculinity and femininity in Western culture (Paloian, 2015).
11-4eMass Media and Gender Socialization
The media—including newspapers, magazines, television, movies, and social media—are powerful sources of gender stereotyping. Although some critics argue that the media simply reflect existing gender roles in society, others point out that the media have a unique ability to shape ideas. Think of the impact that television might have on children if they spend one-third of their waking time watching it, as has been estimated. From children’s cartoons to adult shows, television programs are sex typed, and many are male oriented. More male than female roles are portrayed, and male characters are typically more aggressive and direct. By contrast, females are depicted as either acting deferential toward other people and being manipulated by them or as being overly aggressive, overbearing, and even downright “bitchy.”
In prime-time television, a number of significant changes in the past three decades have reduced gender stereotyping; however, men still outnumber women as leading characters, and they are often “in charge” in any setting where both men’s and women’s roles are portrayed. Recently, retro series on network and cable television have brought back an earlier era when men were dominant in public and family life and women played a subordinate role to them. Having recently concluded its final season and now available on DVD and Netflix, the award-winning series Mad Men (on AMC) is set in a 1960s New York advertising agency, where secretaries were expected to wear tight sweaters and skirts and bring men hot coffee throughout the day, while the men’s wives were supposed to be the perfect companions and hostesses at home. Although many other TV series, such as Modern Family, have changed traditional norms, offering a wide diversity of families, including gay dads with a child, the shift to retro gender roles in some television programming and films in the second decade of the twenty-first century has raised questions about the extent to which change actually occurs in the portrayal of women and men in the media.
Advertising—whether on television and billboards or in magazines and newspapers—can be very persuasive. The intended message is clear to many people: If they embrace traditional notions of masculinity and femininity, their personal and social success is assured; if they purchase the right products and services, they can enhance their appearance and gain power over other people. A study by the sociologist Anthony J. Cortese (2004) found that women—regardless of what they were doing in a particular ad—were frequently shown in advertising as being young, beautiful, and seductive. Other research shows that TV ads such as the ones shown on Super Bowl Sunday are created to sell products but that they also contribute to the sexual objectification of women. For example, chocolate commercials often objectify women, turning them into sexual objects whose seductive behavior is caused by the chocolate being advertised. Although such depictions may sell products, they may also have the effect of influencing how we perceive ourselves and others with regard to issues of power and subordination.
As we all know, social media can be used in both positive and negative ways. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, Flickr, Vine, and other social networking sites are very effective tools for communicating with others, but they also offer prime venues in which to bully others and spread derogatory comments and photos relating to race, gender, and/or sexual orientation (Pew Research Center Internet, Science and Tech, 2015). Today, 91 percent of teens use a mobile device to go online, so they are no longer under the supervision of parents or other adults who might oversee their television-viewing habits or supervise a phone conversation. According to the Pew Research Center Internet, Science and Tech (2015), a typical teenager sends and receives thirty text messages per day. Although this research does not include questions about the content of these texts, data from other sources suggest that the texts often relate to the physical appearance of the sender and others, particularly in regard to sexual appeal, appearance, and behavior that identifies individuals by sexual orientation. Extensive research will be necessary to learn how social networking sites function as agents of socialization in regard to sexuality, weight, and body image, but these sites present a new and relatively unchallenged arena in which one’s own beliefs and biases can be not only projected but also amplified to tens of thousands of other people.
11-4fAdult Gender Socialization
Gender socialization continues as women and men complete their training or education and join the workforce. Men and women are taught the “appropriate” type of conduct for persons of their sex in a particular job or occupation—both by employers and by coworkers. However, men’s socialization usually does not include a measure of whether their work can be successfully combined with having a family; it is often assumed that men can and will do both. Even today, the reason given for women not entering some careers and professions is that this kind of work is not suitable for women because of their physical capabilities or assumed child-care responsibilities.
Different gender socialization may occur as people reach their forties and enter “middle age.” A double standard of aging exists that affects women more than men (Figure 11.9). Often, men are considered to be at the height of their success as their hair turns gray and their face gains a few wrinkles. By contrast, not only do other people in society make middle-age women feel as if they are “over the hill,” but multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns continually call attention to women’s every weakness, every pound gained, and every bit of flabby flesh, wrinkle, or gray hair. Increasingly, both women and men have turned to “miracle” products, and sometimes to cosmetic surgery, to reduce the visible signs of aging. However, the vast majority (90.6 percent) of all cosmetic surgery is performed on female patients. In 2013 more than 10.3 million cosmetic procedures were performed on women in the United States, a 471 percent increase from 1997 (American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2014).
Figure 11.9
Does the double standard of aging for women and men contribute to some women’s desire to have surgical procedures that claim to restore their “youth” as they increase in chronological age?
Robert Daly/Getty Images
Knowledge of how we develop a gender-related self-concept and learn to feel, think, and act in feminine or masculine ways is important for an understanding of ourselves. Examining gender socialization makes us aware of the effect of our parents, siblings, teachers, friends, and the media on our perspectives about gender. However, the gender socialization perspective has been criticized on several accounts. Childhood gender-role socialization may not affect people as much as some analysts have suggested. For example, the types of jobs that people take as adults may have less to do with how they were socialized in childhood than with how they are treated in the workplace. From this perspective, women and men will act in ways that bring them the most rewards and produce the fewest punishments. Also, gender socialization theories can be used to blame women for their own subordination by not taking into account structural barriers that perpetuate gender inequality. We will now examine a few of those structural forces.
11-5Contemporary Gender Inequality
LO 6
Discuss ways in which the contemporary workplace reflects gender stratification.
According to feminist scholars, women experience gender inequality as a result of past and present economic, political, and educational discrimination. Women’s position in the U.S. workforce reflects the years of subordination that women have experienced in society.
11-5aGendered Division of Paid Work in the United States
Where people are located in the occupational structure of the labor market has a major impact on their earnings. The workplace may be a gendered institution if jobs are often segregated by gender and by race/ethnicity (Figure 11.10). In a comprehensive study, sociologists Kevin Stainback and Donald Tomaskovic-Devey (2012) describe how data from five million private-sector workplaces that they examined confirm that white men still dominate the management ranks and that workplace segregation, based on both gender and race, is increasing in many employment sectors. Consider, for example, that white men are 68 percent more likely to be in management positions than to be regular staffers, white women are 28 percent less likely to be in management, African American (black) men are 53 percent less likely to be in leadership positions, and African American (black) women are 73 percent less likely to be in management positions (Stainback and Tomaskovic-Devey, 2012).
Figure 11.10
What stereotypes are associated with men in female-oriented positions? With women in male-oriented occupations? Do you think such stereotypes will change in the near future?
Redsnapper/Alamy; Kevin Foy/Alamy
Although the degree of gender segregation in the professional labor market (including physicians, dentists, lawyers, accountants, and managers) has declined since the 1970s, racial–ethnic segregation has remained deeply embedded in the social structure. Although some change has occurred in recent years, women of color are more likely than their white counterparts to be concentrated in public-sector employment (as public schoolteachers, welfare workers, librarians, public defenders, and faculty members at public colleges, for example) rather than in the private sector (for example, in large corporations, major law firms, and private educational institutions). And it appears that resegregation is occurring in the private sector. According to the study of fifty-eight industries by Stainback and Tomaskovic-Devey (2012), seven had a rise in gender segregation between 2001 and 2005. These include airlines, railroads, and mining. Similarly, the research found an increase in racial segregation in eighteen industries, including transportation and the lumber and leather industries. Across all categories of occupations, white women and all people of color are not evenly represented, as shown in Table 11.3.
Table 11.3
Percentage of the Workforce Represented by Women, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans in Selected Occupations
The U.S. Census Bureau accumulates data that show what percentage of the total workforce is made up of women, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics. As used in this table, women refers to females in all racial–ethnic categories, whereas African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans refer to both women and men.
|
|
|
Women |
African Americans |
Hispanics |
Asian Americans |
|
All occupations |
46.9 |
11.4 |
16.1 |
5.7 |
|
|
|
Managerial, professional, and related occupations |
51.6 |
8.8 |
8.7 |
7.5 |
|
|
Management occupations |
38.6 |
6.7 |
9.1 |
5.4 |
|
|
Professional and related occupations |
57.2 |
9.7 |
8.6 |
8.6 |
|
|
Architecture and engineering |
15.4 |
5.2 |
8.2 |
11.7 |
|
|
Lawyers |
32.9 |
5.7 |
5.6 |
4.4 |
|
|
Physicians and surgeons |
36.7 |
5.5 |
6.3 |
21.0 |
|
Service occupations (all) |
56.7 |
16.2 |
23.4 |
5.4 |
|
|
|
Food preparation and serving |
55.1 |
12.6 |
24.9 |
6.0 |
|
|
Building and grounds cleaning |
40.2 |
14.6 |
36.7 |
3.4 |
|
|
Health care support occupations |
87.6 |
25.7 |
16.2 |
5.2 |
|
|
Grounds maintenance workers |
6.3 |
6.3 |
43.6 |
1.7 |
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015.
Labor market segmentation—the division of jobs into categories with distinct working conditions—results in women having separate and unequal jobs. Why does gender-segregated work matter? Although we look more closely at the issue of the pay gap in the following section, it is important to note here that the pay gap between men and women is the best-documented consequence of gender-segregated work. Most women work in lower-paying, less prestigious jobs, with less opportunity for advancement than their male counterparts.
Occupational gender segregation contributes to stratification in society. Job segregation is structural; it does not occur simply because individual workers have different abilities, motivations, and material needs. As a result of gender and racial segregation, employers are able to pay many men of color and all women less money, promote them less often, and provide fewer benefits.
11-5bPay Equity (Comparable Worth)
Occupational segregation contributes to a pay gap —the disparity between women’s and men’s earnings. The pay gap is calculated by dividing women’s earnings by men’s earnings to yield a percentage, also known as the earnings ratio. When the 1963 Equal Pay Act was passed, women who were classified as “full-time wage and salary workers” earned about 59 cents for every dollar her male counterpart earned. In 2015 women classified the same way earned about 80 percent (or 80 cents for every dollar) of the amount earned by men in the same category. Although some progress has been made, the gender pay gap has been persistent and has basically stalled over the past decade. As Figure 11.11 shows, women in all age categories also receive less pay than men, with the disparity growing wider in the older age brackets.
Figure 11.11The Gender Wage Gap by Age, 2015
Source: AAUW, 2017.
Earnings differences between women and men in various racial–ethnic categories are the widest for white Americans and Asian Americans. White (non-Hispanic) women’s earnings were about 76 percent of their white male counterparts in 2015, while Asian American women earned about 81 percent as much as their male counterparts (see Figure 11.12). By comparison, Hispanic women (Latinas) earned about 92 percent as much as their Hispanic male counterparts, American Indian and Alaska Native women earned 85 percent as much as their male counterparts, and African American women earned about 90 percent as much as African American men (AAUW, 2017). Figure 11.13 shows women’s median earnings as compared to men’s median earnings in each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
Figure 11.12Women’s Annual Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s in Each Racial–Ethnic Category
Source: AAUW, 2017.
Figure 11.13Women’s Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s Earnings by State and Puerto Rico, 2015
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016.
Pay equity or comparable worth is the belief that wages ought to reflect the worth of a job, not the gender or race of the worker. How can the comparable worth of different kinds of jobs be determined? One way is to compare the actual work of women’s and men’s jobs and see if there is a disparity in the salaries paid for each. To do this, analysts break a job into components—such as the education, training, and skills required, the extent of responsibility for others’ work, and the working conditions—and then allocate points for each (Lorber, 2005). For pay equity to exist, men and women in occupations that receive the same number of points should be paid the same. However, pay equity exists for very few jobs. What are the prospects for the future? The Paycheck Fairness Act—proposed by the Obama Administration in 2010, 2012, and 2014—that would have extended pay-equity rules that apply to federal contractors to the entire U.S. workforce, while also making updates to the Equal Pay Act, was blocked from consideration by members of the U.S. Congress. So for the foreseeable future, women will continue to earn considerably less than men, even in similar occupational categories.
11-5cPaid Work and Family Work
As previously discussed, the first big change in the relationship between family and work occurred with the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism. The cult of domesticity kept many middle- and upper-class women out of the workforce during this period. Primarily, working-class and poor women were the ones who had to deal with the work/family conflict. Today, however, the issue spans the entire economic spectrum. The typical married woman in the United States combines paid work in the labor force and family work as a homemaker. Although this change has occurred at the societal level, individual women bear the brunt of the problem.
Even with dramatic changes in women’s workforce participation, the sexual division of labor in the family has remained essentially unchanged for many years. Most married women share responsibility for the breadwinner role, yet some men do not accept their full share of domestic responsibilities. Consequently, women may have a “double day” or “second shift” because of their dual responsibilities for paid and unpaid work (Hochschild, 1989, 2003). Although the original work on the second shift was completed twenty-five years ago, the primary researcher, Arlie Hochschild, announced in 2014 that time-use research continues to show that women still do, on average, about twice the housework and child care as men even when the women are employed full time. According to Hochschild, women now make up half of the workforce, and they are earning more overall than in the past; however, they have found that the workplace does not provide them with the necessary flex time and parental leave to help them deal most effectively with both their work and family life. Some men find it more difficult to find work today because jobs are less certain and there are fewer jobs to be had in some fields, which may be one reason why more men are taking a larger role in maintaining the household and children (Schulte, 2014).
According to studies conducted by the Pew Research Center, the time that mothers and fathers spend with their families has changed significantly, with fathers now performing more housework and child-care activities and women being more involved in paid employment. For both men and women, juggling work and family life constitutes a major concern that may produce stress. Among working mothers, 60 percent reported that they found it difficult to balance work and family life; 50 percent of fathers reported a similar problem (Parker, 2015). According to Pew Researchers, mothers are still spending more time than fathers in childcare and household chores, but some gender convergence has occurred in how they divide their time between work and home. Among dual-income couples, fathers spend about 42 hours each week on paid work, as compared to 31 hours of paid work for mothers. Housework takes up an average of 16 hours per week of mothers’ time, as compared to 9 hours of fathers’ time. Child care accounts for an average of 12 hours per week of mothers’ time, as compared to 7 hours per week of fathers’ time (Pew Social Trends, 2015).
Especially in families with young children, domestic responsibilities consume a great deal of time and energy. Although some kinds of housework can be put off, the needs of children often cannot be ignored or delayed. When children are ill or school events cannot be scheduled around work, parents (especially mothers) may experience stressful role conflicts (“Shall I be a good employee or a good mother?”). Many working women care not only for themselves, their husbands, and their children but also for elderly parents or in-laws. Some analysts refer to these women as the “sandwich generation”—caught between the needs of their young children and their elderly relatives. Many women try to solve their time crunch by forgoing leisure time and sleep. When Arlie Hochschild interviewed working mothers, she found that they talked about sleep “the way a hungry person talks about food” (1989: 9). Perhaps this is one reason that in later research, Hochschild (1997) learned that some married women with children found more fulfillment at work and that they worked longer hours because they liked work better than facing the pressures of home.
11-6Perspectives on Gender Stratification
Sociological perspectives on gender stratification vary in their approach to examining gender roles and power relationships in society. Some focus on the roles of women and men in the domestic sphere; others note the inequalities arising from a gendered division of labor in the workplace. Still others attempt to integrate both the public and private spheres into their analyses.
11-6aFunctionalist and Neoclassical Economic Perspectives
LO 7
Compare functionalist and conflict perspectives on gender inequality.
As seen earlier, functionalist theory views men and women as having distinct roles that are important for the survival of the family and society. The most basic division of labor is biological: Men are physically stronger, and women are the only ones able to bear and nurse children. Gendered belief systems foster assumptions about appropriate behavior for men and women and may have an impact on the types of work that women and men perform.
The Importance of Traditional Gender Roles
According to functional analysts such as Talcott Parsons (1955), women’s roles as nurturers and caregivers are even more pronounced in contemporary industrialized societies. While the husband performs the instrumental tasks of providing economic support and making decisions, the wife assumes the expressive tasks of providing affection and emotional support for the family. This division of family labor ensures that important societal tasks will be fulfilled; it also provides stability for family members.
This view has been adopted by a number of politically conservative analysts who assert that relationships between men and women are damaged when changes in gender roles occur, and family life suffers as a consequence. From this perspective, the traditional division of labor between men and women is the natural order of the universe.
The Human Capital Model
Functionalist explanations of occupational gender segregation are similar to neoclassical economic perspectives, such as the human capital model. According to this model, individuals vary widely in the amount of human capital they bring to the labor market. Human capital is acquired by education and job training; it is the source of a person’s productivity and can be measured in terms of the return on the investment (wages) and the cost (schooling or training).
From this perspective, what individuals earn is the result of their own choices (the kinds of training, education, and experience they accumulate, for example) and of the labor-market need (demand) for and availability (supply) of certain kinds of workers at specific points in time. For example, human capital analysts might argue that women diminish their human capital when they leave the labor force to engage in childbearing and child-care activities (Figure 11.14). While women are out of the labor force, their human capital deteriorates from nonuse. When they return to work, women earn lower wages than men because they have fewer years of work experience and have “atrophied human capital” because their education and training may have become obsolete. One study found that over a fifteen-year period, women compared to men worked fewer years and fewer hours when the women were married and had dependent children. As a result, the women were more likely to work fewer hours in the labor market and be low earners (Rose and Hartman, 2008).
Figure 11.14
According to the human capital model, women may earn less in the labor market because of their child-rearing responsibilities. What other sociological explanations are offered for the lower wages that women receive?
Peter Dazeley/The Image Bank/Getty Images
Evaluation of Functionalist and Neoclassical Economic Perspectives
Although Parsons and other functionalists did not specifically endorse the gendered division of labor, their analysis suggests that it is natural and perhaps inevitable. However, critics argue that problems inherent in traditional gender roles, including the personal role strains of men and women and the social costs to society, are minimized by the functionalist approach. For example, men are assumed to be “money machines” for their families when they might prefer to spend more time in child-rearing activities. Also, the woman’s place is assumed to be in the home, an assumption that ignores the fact that many women hold jobs because of economic necessity.
Critics note that instead of blaming people for their choices, we must acknowledge other realities. Wage discrimination occurs in two ways:
· (1)
the wages are higher in male-dominated jobs, occupations, and segments of the labor market, regardless of whether women take time for family duties, and
· (2)
in any job, women and people of color will be paid less.
11-6bConflict Perspectives
According to many conflict analysts, the gendered division of labor within families and in the workplace results from male control of and dominance over women and resources. Differentials between men and women may exist in terms of economic, political, physical, and/or interpersonal power (Figure 11.15). The importance of a male monopoly in any of these arenas depends on the significance of that type of power in a society. In hunting and gathering and horticultural societies, male dominance over women is limited because all members of the society must work in order to survive. In agrarian societies, however, male sexual dominance is at its peak. Male heads of household gain a monopoly not only on physical power but also on economic power, and women become sexual property.
Figure 11.15
Although the demographic makeup of the U.S. Senate has been gradually changing in recent decades, men still dominate it, a fact that the conflict perspective attributes to a very old pattern in human societies.
Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images
Although men’s ability to use physical power to control women diminishes in industrial societies, men still remain the head of household and control the property. In addition, men gain more power through their predominance in the most highly paid and prestigious occupations and the highest elected offices. By contrast, women have the ability in the marriage market to trade their sexual resources, companionship, and emotional support for men’s financial support and social status. As a result, women as a group remain subordinate to men.
All men are not equally privileged; some analysts argue that women and men in the upper classes are more privileged, because of their economic power, than men in lower-class positions and all people of color. In industrialized societies, persons who occupy elite positions in corporations, universities, the mass media, and government or who have great wealth have the most power. Most of these are men, however.
Conflict theorists in the Marxist tradition assert that gender stratification results from private ownership of the means of production; some men not only gain control over property and the distribution of goods but also gain power over women. According to Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, marriage serves to enforce male dominance. Men of the capitalist class instituted monogamous marriage (a gendered institution) so that they could be certain of the paternity of their offspring, especially sons, whom they wanted to inherit their wealth. Feminist analysts have examined this theory, among others, as they have sought to explain male domination and gender stratification.
11-6cFeminist Perspectives
LO 8
Describe four feminist perspectives on gender inequality.
Feminism —the belief that women and men are equal and should be valued equally and have equal rights—is embraced by many men as well as women. It holds in common with men’s studies the view that gender is a socially constructed concept that has important consequences for the lives of all people. According to sociologists, both women and men can be feminists and propose feminist theories because they have much in common as they seek to gain a better understanding of the causes and consequences of gender inequality (see “You Can Make a Difference”).
You Can Make a Difference
“Love Your Body”: Women’s Activism on Campus and in the Community
Do You Love What You See When You Look in the Mirror?
Every day the beauty industry and media tell women and girls that being admired, envied, and desired based on their looks is a primary function of true womanhood. They provide them with a beauty template that is narrow, unrealistic, and most importantly ingrained into their brains leaving any woman who does not fit this template feeling inadequate. The Love Your Body campaign challenges the message that a woman’s value is best measured through her willingness and ability to embody current beauty standards.
—promotion for “Love Your Body Day,” sponsored by the NOW Foundation (2015)
Although this message appears to be for girls and women only, many boys and men are also concerned about their physical appearance, as well as how girls and women are represented in the media. Both men and women can make a difference by becoming involved in a campus or community organization that helps people gain a better understanding of body-image issues:
· Participate in the national Love Your Body Day, which is a day of action to speak out against ads and images of women that are offensive, dangerous, and disrespectful.
· Discourage sexist ads and media reporting about women (for example, a focus on weight or other physical attributes rather than on their accomplishments) by sending letters to the publications or encouraging journalists to rethink how they frame stories about girls and women.
· Think of on-campus traditions or events that promote negative body-image stereotypes, such as parties where students are encouraged to wear scant clothing. Actively encourage the organizers of such events to rethink “theme party” clothing or other kinds of dress that contribute to body-image problems.
· Promote positive body image on campus by encouraging your club or organization to host a “Friends Don’t Let Friends Fat Talk” day. Have students write down on an index card their negative body-image thoughts such as “I hate my thighs.” Then ask students to wad up the cards and throw those thoughts into trash cans.
Other opportunities for involvement exist through local, state, and national organizations. Here are two places to start:
· The National Organization for Women (NOW). NOW works to end gender bias and seeks greater representation of women in all areas of public life. On the Internet, NOW’s website provides links to other feminist resources.
· The National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS). NOMAS has a profeminist stance that seeks to end sexism and an affirmative stance on the rights of gay men and lesbians.
“Love Your Body Day” and more-frequent use of plus-sized models (shown here) in fashion campaigns are two examples of how people send a positive message to girls and women about loving what they see in the mirror rather than feeling judgmental about their appearance. Are you aware of campus or community organizations that help individuals gain a better understanding of body-image issues?
Lorna Roberts/Alamy
Feminist theory seeks to identify ways in which norms, roles, institutions, and internalized expectations limit women’s behavior. It also seeks to demonstrate how women’s personal control operates even within the constraints of relative lack of power. In the twenty-first century, feminist theory focuses more on global issues such as how “fat stigma” among women has become globalized (see “Sociology in Global Perspective”).
Sociology in Global Perspective
Women’s Body Size and the Globalization of “Fat Stigma”
Of all the things we could be exporting to help people around the world, really negative body image and low self-esteem are not what we hope is going out with public health messaging.
— Alexandra Brewis, lead researcher for a Current Anthropology article on the globalization of fat stigma, describes how perceptions from the United States and the United Kingdom have contributed to negative beliefs about body size in dozens of developing countries (qtd. in Parker-Pope, 2011).
In past sociological and cultural ethnographic studies, people in nations and territories such as Fiji, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa were found to appreciate the “fuller figure” as the norm for women’s body size. According to Professor Brewis and colleagues, “Plump bodies represented success, generosity, fertility, wealth, and beauty” (qtd. in Bates, 2011). In some cultures, weight has traditionally been associated with class position in society. For example, being overweight or obese in India can be considered to be a sign that the person is middle class or wealthy. In Tahiti it was a custom to encourage young women to gain weight and to have rounded faces and bodies that made them more attractive for marriage. However, Professor Brewis’s research team was surprised to discover in their eleven-country study that people in Mexico, Paraguay, American Samoa, and some other areas where people typically have been more favorable toward the fuller-figured norm, respondents had high scores for “fat stigma” based on twenty-three survey questions asked through in-person interviews or Internet surveys. Items included in the study represented socially credited or socially discrediting attributions related to body fat and obesity such as “People are overweight because they are lazy,” “Being fat is prestigious,” “People should be proud of their big bodies,” and “Obese people should be ashamed of their bodies” (Brewis et al., 2011).
Many organizations in the United States and other nations use public health campaigns like the one shown here to encourage individuals to be concerned about health problems that are associated with being overweight or obese. However, some social analysts believe that certain health messages may contain negative moral messages about the worth of people as well. Do you think this is a valid concern? Why or why not?
CHOA/Barcroft USA/Barcoft Media/Getty Images
Although it is important for people to learn the detrimental effects of obesity on the individual’s health and for public officials to view wide-scale obesity as a public health concern, fat stigma has become a troubling side effect of extensive global media and public health campaigns to make everyone more aware of the problems associated with being overweight or obese. Stigmatization of obesity generally often becomes a stigma against fat individuals specifically (Parker-Pope, 2011). Negative body image and self-deprecation follow when individuals are labeled as “lazy,” “unattractive,” and “undesirable.” It is possible that negative health messages also contain negative moral messages about the worth of people as well. So the delicate balance in messaging for the future becomes how to have effective public health campaigns that help curb diabetes and high blood pressure worldwide but do not negatively stigmatize those individuals who are overweight or obese.
Reflect & Analyze
· What signs of fat stigma do you see in the United States or another country with which you are most familiar? How might the media and global health organizations more effectively send the message of the problematic health risks associated with being overweight or obese while, at the same time, encouraging people to be nonjudgmental about the body size of other individuals?
Liberal Feminism
In liberal feminism, gender equality is equated with equality of opportunity. The roots of women’s oppression lie in women’s lack of equal civil rights and educational opportunities. Only when these constraints on women’s participation are removed will women have the same chance for success as men. This approach notes the importance of gender-role socialization and suggests that changes need to be made in what children learn from their families, teachers, and the media about appropriate masculine and feminine attitudes and behavior. Liberal feminists fight for better child-care options, a woman’s right to choose an abortion, and the elimination of sex discrimination in the workplace (Figure 11.16).
Figure 11.16
In recent decades, more women have become doctors and lawyers than in the past. How has this affected the way that people “do gender” in settings that reflect their profession? Do professional women look and act more like their male colleagues, or have men changed their appearance and activities at work as a result of having female colleagues?
Jim Arbogast/Photodisc/Getty Images
Radical Feminism
Socialist Feminism
Socialist feminists argue that the oppression of women results from their dual roles as paid and unpaid workers in a capitalist economy. In the workplace, women are exploited by capitalism; at home, they are exploited by patriarchy. Women are easily exploited in both sectors; they are paid low wages and have few economic resources. According to some feminist scholars, gender-segregated work is a central way in which men remain dominant over women in capitalist economies, primarily because most women have lower wages and fewer opportunities than men. As a result, women must do domestic labor either to gain a better-paid man’s economic support or to stretch their own wages. According to socialist feminists, the only way to achieve gender equality is to eliminate capitalism and develop a socialist economy that would bring equal pay and rights to women.
Multicultural Feminism
Recently, academics and activists have been rethinking the experiences of women of color from a feminist perspective. The experiences of African American women and Latinas/Chicanas have been of particular interest to some social analysts. Building on the civil rights and feminist movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s, some contemporary black feminists have focused on the cultural experiences of African American women. A central assumption of this analysis is that race, class, and gender are forces that simultaneously oppress African American women. The effects of these three statuses cannot be adequately explained as “double” or “triple” jeopardy (race + class + gender = a poor African American woman) because these ascribed characteristics are not simply added to one another. Instead, they are multiplicative in nature (race × class × gender); different characteristics may be more significant in one situation than another. For example, a well-to-do white woman (class) may be in a position of privilege when compared to people of color (race) and men from lower socioeconomic positions (class), yet be in a subordinate position as compared with a white man (gender) from the capitalist class (Andersen and Collins, 2010). In order to analyze the complex relationship among these characteristics, the lived experiences of African American women and other previously “silenced people” must be heard and examined within the context of particular historical and social conditions.
A classic example of multicultural feminist studies is the work of the psychologist Aida Hurtado (1996), who explored the cultural identification of Latina/Chicana women. According to Hurtado, distinct differences exist between the worldviews of the white (non-Latina) women who participate in the women’s movement and many Chicanas, who have a strong sense of identity with their own communities. From this perspective, women of color do not possess the “relational privilege” that white women have because of their proximity to white patriarchy through husbands, fathers, sons, and others. To change this situation, there must be a “politics of inclusion,” which might create social structures that lead to positive behavior and bring more people into a dialogue about how to improve social life and reduce inequalities.
Concept Quick Review
Sociological Perspectives on Gender Stratification
|
Perspective |
Focus |
Theory/Hypothesis |
|
Functionalist |
Macrolevel analysis of women’s and men’s roles |
Traditional gender roles ensure that expressive and instrumental tasks will be performed. Human capital model |
|
Conflict |
Power and economic differentials between men and women |
Unequal political and economic power heightens gender-based social inequalities. |
|
Feminist Approaches |
Feminism should be embraced to reduce sexism and gender inequality. |
1. Liberal feminism 2. Radical feminism 3. Socialist feminism 4. Multicultural feminism |
Evaluation of Conflict and Feminist Perspectives
Conflict and feminist perspectives provide insights into the structural aspects of gender inequality in society. These approaches emphasize factors external to individuals that contribute to the oppression of white women and people of color; however, they have been criticized for emphasizing the differences between men and women without taking into account the commonalities that they share. Feminist approaches have also been criticized for their emphasis on male dominance without a corresponding analysis of the ways in which some men may also be oppressed by patriarchy and capitalism. The Concept Quick Review outlines the key aspects of each sociological perspective on gender socialization.
11-7Looking Ahead: Gender Issues in the Future
Over the past century, women made significant progress in the labor force. Laws were passed to prohibit sexual discrimination in the workplace and school. Affirmative action programs helped make women more visible in education, government, and the professional world. More women entered the political arena as candidates and elected officials instead of as volunteers in the campaign offices of male candidates. And a woman ran for president of the United States in the 2016 election.
Many men joined movements to raise their consciousness, realizing that what is harmful to women may also be harmful to men. For example, women’s lower wages in the labor force suppress men’s wages as well; in a two-paycheck family, women who are paid less contribute less to the family’s finances, thus placing a greater burden on men to earn more money. In the midst of these changes, however, many gender issues remain unresolved in the second decade of the twenty-first century. For example, recent national surveys have shown that the movement toward attitudes of greater gender equality in the United States has slowed and that more people are embracing a new cultural framework of “egalitarian essentialism,” which is a blend of feminism equality and traditional motherhood roles (Hermsen, Cotter, and Vanneman, 2011).
In the labor force, gender segregation and the wage gap are still problems. As the United States attempts to climb out of the worst economic recession in decades, job loss has affected both women and men. However, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) show that the wages of the typical woman who has a job have risen slightly faster than those of the typical man. Rather than this being considered a gain for women, some analysts suggest that it is a situation where everyone is losing but that men are simply losing more because of job insecurity or loss, declining real wages, and the loss of benefits such as health care and pension funds.
In the United States and other nations of the world, gender equity, political opportunities, education, and health care remain pressing problems for women. Gender issues and imbalances can contribute not only to individual problems but also to societal problems, such as the destabilization of nations in the global economy. Gender inequality is also an international problem because it is related to violence against women, sex trafficking, and other crimes against girls and women (see Figure 11.17). To bring about social change for women, it is important for them to be equal players in the economy and the political process (International Foundation for Electoral Systems, 2011). According to Hillary Rodham Clinton (2011), former U.S. secretary of state, and presidential nominee in 2016:
As Clinton suggests, an investment in girls and women, whether in the United States or in other nations of the world, will strengthen other efforts to deal with social problems such as violence against women, inequality, and poverty. However, we must ask this: How will economic problems around the world affect gender inequality in the twenty-first century? What do you think might be done to provide more equal opportunities for girls and women in difficult political, economic, and social times?
Figure 11.17
Latinas have become increasingly involved in social activism for causes that they believe are important. This woman states her belief that we must “Fight Ignorance, Not Immigrants” in establishing policies and laws to protect the U.S. border.
Ken Howard/Alamy
Chapter Review Q & A
· LO1How do sex and gender differ?
Sex refers to the biological categories and manifestations of femaleness and maleness; gender refers to the socially constructed differences between females and males. In short, sex is what we (generally) are born with; gender is what we acquire through socialization.
· LO2What kinds of prejudice and discrimination occur on the basis of sexual orientation?
Homophobia refers to extreme prejudice and sometimes discriminatory actions directed at gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and others who are perceived as not being heterosexual. Discrimination occurs in many forms, including marital and parenting rights, housing, health care, bank lending policies, and other rights and privileges taken for granted by heterosexual persons.
· LO3What are gender role, gender identity, body consciousness, and sexism?
Gender role encompasses the attitudes, behaviors, and activities that are socially assigned to each sex and that are learned through socialization. Gender identity is an individual’s perception of self as either female or male. Body consciousness is how a person perceives and feels about his or her body. Sexism is the subordination of one sex, usually female, based on the assumed superiority of the other sex.
· LO4How does the division of labor between women and men differ in various kinds of societies?
In most hunting and gathering societies, fairly equitable relationships exist between women and men because neither sex has the ability to provide all of the food necessary for survival. In horticultural societies, a fair degree of gender equality exists because neither sex controls the food supply. In agrarian societies, male dominance is overt; agrarian tasks require more labor and physical strength, and females are often excluded from these tasks because they are viewed as too weak or too tied to child-rearing activities. In industrialized societies, a gap exists between nonpaid work performed by women at home and paid work performed by men and women. A wage gap also exists between women and men in the marketplace.
· LO5What are the primary agents of gender socialization, and what is their role in socializing people throughout life?
Parents, peers, teachers and schools, sports, and the media are agents of socialization that tend to reinforce stereotypes of appropriate gender behavior. From birth, parents act differently toward children on the basis of the child’s sex. Peers help children learn gender-role stereotypes, as well as gender-appropriate and gender-inappropriate behavior. Schools operate as gendered institutions, and teachers provide messages about gender through the formal content of assignments and informal interactions. In terms of sports, boys are socialized to participate in highly competitive, rule-oriented games, whereas girls have traditionally been socialized to participate in activities that involve less competitiveness. Recently, however, more girls have started to participate in sports formerly regarded as “male” activities.
· LO6In what ways does the contemporary workplace reflect gender stratification?
Many women work in lower-paying, less prestigious jobs than men. This occupational segregation leads to a disparity, or pay gap, between women’s and men’s earnings. Even when women are employed in the same job as men, on average they do not receive the same, or comparable, pay.
· LO7How do functionalists and conflict theorists differ in their perspectives on gender inequality?
According to functionalist analysts, women’s roles as caregivers in contemporary industrialized societies are crucial in ensuring that key societal tasks are fulfilled. While the husband performs the instrumental tasks of economic support and decision making, the wife assumes the expressive tasks of providing affection and emotional support for the family. According to conflict analysts, the gendered division of labor within families and the workplace—particularly in agrarian and industrial societies—results from male control and dominance over women and resources.
· LO8What are the feminist perspectives on gender inequality?
Feminist perspectives provide insights into the structural aspects of gender inequality in society. In liberal feminism, gender equality is equated with equality of opportunity. Radical feminists often trace the roots of patriarchy to women’s childbearing and child-rearing responsibilities, which make them dependent on men. Socialist feminists argue that the oppression of women results from their dual roles as paid and unpaid workers in a capitalist economy. Academics and activists have been rethinking the experiences of women of color from a feminist perspective. The experiences of African American women and Latinas/Chicanas have been of particular interest to some social analysts.
