social sciences

Module 5:  Principles of Sociology II – The phenomenon of social inequality

View this week's PPT lecture:  SOSC_101_M5_PP.pptx  Download SOSC_101_M5_PP.pptx 

The Phenomenon of Social Inequality

Societies function by distributing wealth and opportunities in uneven ways. This is hard to understand sometimes. But the social structures of our societies are rooted in ways that perpetuate inequality. In social inequality, we have an uneven distribution of resources. It is not necessarily that there are no resources available, but they are distributed in ways that most of the population cannot benefit from it. Societies perpetuate these conditions through norms and culture. An example of a norm could be teaching someone that “we are here on earth to serve”. If we turn this norm into a strong idea, we will put it at a higher hierarchy when we make choices in life. If we find ourselves in a situation in which we might be oppressed there is a possibility that we justify the oppression by rationalizing that, since we are here to serve, it is more important to serve than to free ourselves from oppression.

That is why many societies have socially defined categories to justify stratification. According to the film “Social Class: Theories, Stratification, and Mobility - An Introduction (2019), access to social goods might depend on power, religion, kinship, prestige, race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, and class. 

If we have access to power, be it through political position or wealth, we could influence society more effectively by communicating our ideas and making most people think that those are the right ideas. This is a way in which morality is formed in society. If we control religion through a high-level position, we have in our hands how people interpret their relationship with supernatural power. If we are born wealthy there is a high possibility that we will always stay wealthy since we will have the means to attend the best schools, obtain the best health care, among other things. 

If we belong to a specific racial classification, such as white, society offers certain accommodations and privileges that make it easier to access benefits than if you were non-white. Women are not paid equally in most societies, even though they can do the same workmen do. Sometimes sexual orientation, homosexuality, for example, is not openly accepted in many societies. Individuals who are are homosexuals will have bigger challenges to acquire what other members of society have easier access to. 

  Historical Background of Social Stratification

If we look at the mosaic called The Royal Standard of Ur from 2500 BC we will notice how the different levels of the piece of art reflect the social stratification of the civilization already formed in Mesopotamia over 4,000 years ago. 

When king Hammurabi placed his code in different cities in Mesopotamia, around 1750 B.C., he made sure that people from different levels, or strata in their societies, understood that the individual members of such a society were valued in different ways. “203. If a man of gentle birth has struck a man of gentle birth who is his equal, he shall pay one mina of silver (Tierny & Scott, 1984).” Hammurabi’s code is a vivid example that is more than 3,000 years old. We divide society into levels that provide different needs for that specific social structure.

We might need to start asking among other things if this is a fair arrangement. In this module, we will study some reasons social inequality seems to be the norm. Many theorists are willing to accept social inequality as a fact that cannot be changed. Functionalist theories by Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton, for example, approach the study of sociology as a way of understanding how society functions (Osbourne, 2000, p. 88). If society is structured in certain ways, it is because it is natural for societies to be this way. All institutions have a purpose in society. We just need to understand them.

But maybe as sociologists and critical thinkers, we need to go further and ask ourselves if society is “naturally” structured that way. This is what conflict theorists asked. For conflict theory, certain groups within society are oppressed by a small dominant group that owns the means of production. Since they own the means of production, what is left for us to do is offer our energy, skills, and time in exchange for wages. Societies are not fairly constituted, and they do not have to be this way “by nature”. The oppressed within society need to fight for the liberation of the means of production to create a classless society. 

An ironic historical fact is that democracy was born in Athens around 2,600 years ago. But at that moment in history, only males over eighteen years old who owned land and were citizens of Athens could fully participate in political aspects and have rights. That excluded most of the people that lived in Athens including non-citizens, women, children, and slaves. Thus, the birthplace of democracy gave only a minority of the members of society full access to its benefits. 

In medieval times, access to education was limited to members of the clergy. The church controlled access to knowledge. Only the priests were able to read and write. The sons of kings eventually were educated by the clergy since the nobility could afford the fees. That meant that opportunities for self-development through education were in the hands of those who own property and wealth. 

Is it possible to have a classless society when we have had social stratification since we formed civilizations? 

Models of Social Stratification

Slavery

In slavery, a group of people is seen as less than the rest of the people. Many civilizations if not all have had some type of slavery. Slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865. But his did not stop the unequal treatment of people of African heritage. There is no justification for some people to be enslaved by others. However, through history, we see that slaves were produced by conquering groups of people and turning them into slaves. They became property. In Roman times those who had acquired debt and could not pay for it could offer themselves as slaves until their debt was paid or even for the rest of their lives. Slavery was a successful economic enterprise for landowners because it provided a cheap labor force that did not require human treatment. Owners of slaves saved on pay and offered their slaves accommodation that would be dignified. 

Castes

Although the castes system in India became illegal in 1955, most of the people in their society still believe that there are differences based on castes. Certain groups in this country cannot mix with the rest of society. Although for most of us this might seem like something outrageous, we do have social stratification in other ways. The Indian castes system was based on religious beliefs. 

Estates

There was a system that is no longer legal, but we might still find some remnants of it in our current social structure. In the Estate System, there was a clear division of social classes and power. There were the nobles who owned the lands and did not have to work. They have leisure time in their hands and could enjoy and sponsor works of art and culture. Primogeniture gave the first son born all the inheritance of the father, and they kept their power because they convinced the rest of the people that they had the Divine Right of Kings (Kagan, 2004). There was also the clergy. These were many sons of nobles who were not firstborn but wanted comfortable living and power. The church offered these two things. At the lowest tier were the commoners, who were the majority of society who did not own land, did not have any power and had to work for either the nobles or the clergy. This is the mass of people who with their work produced the riches of the higher levels.

  Implications of Social Stratification

By now we shall realize that if our place in the social strata is the lowest, it will determine the limitations of opportunities we will have. Although we might have the skills to progress in life, there is a possibility that we won’t get an opportunity to demonstrate them. Not only that, but some of us in society will end up stigmatized. 

  Social Mobility: Closed vs Open Systems

In terms of social mobility, there are two types of systems. One of them is closed systems. In closed systems like the one in India which has castes, there is an extreme rigidity for social mobility, if there is any mobility at all. The social position is based on ascribed status. In India, for example, this idea is originated in culture and religion.

In open systems, there is space for mobility. People can go from one level of social stratification to the other with more ease. Another fact is that in open societies there is a movement upward and downward. The open systems are not perfect, there is still some level of rigidity, but there are more possibilities for movement to be achieved, instead of ascribed. The United States, for example, is considered an open system. There is this idea that with hard work and commitment you could achieve “the American dream”. This is based on meritocracy, the idea that if you work hard, you get back merits that accommodate you little by little into a better place in society. 

Theoretical Perspectives on Social Stratification

When we study social inequality and social stratification it will depend on what theoretical framework we choose. For structural functionalists, for example, we have stratification because it is a necessity for society to function. Social inequality, poverty, injustice, among other things, are justified based on this approach.

Social conflict theory, we might guess by now, argues that these differences in society are not necessary and that there is a need for those who are being oppressed to revolt against injustice. For social conflict theory capitalism as a system does not take into consideration humanity first, but capital. Therefore, it is a system that goes against the people that make it work. Ideology keeps people thinking that this system is best for them. Marxist theorists argue that this ideology is created by those who benefit from it, the owners of the means of production. 

Symbolic interactionism looks at how we create meaning and symbols related to our interaction with them. The values we perpetuate are based on the symbols we keep placing in a high hierarchy and we go in a kind of loop.

References:

Britannica. (n.d.).  The Sociology of Slavery. Recovered from:  https://www.britannica.com/topic/slavery-sociology/The-sociology-of-slaveryLinks to an external site.

Cole, N.L. (2020, January 1)  Visualizing social stratification in the United States. Recovered from:  https://www.thoughtco.com/visualizing-social-stratification-in-the-us-3026378Links to an external site.

Crossman, Ashley. (2020, January 28)  The sociology of social inequality. ThoughtCo. Recovered from:  https://www.thoughtco.com/sociology-of-social-inequality-3026287Links to an external site.

Kagan, D. F.M., Turner, & S. Ozment. (2004)  The western heritage: Vol I: To 1740 (8th ed.). Pearson Education.

Sociology Saves the World with Dr. Dan. (2020, Jul. 11)  Sociological Theories on Poverty [video]. Recovered from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70f4IXxPuF4 

Sparknotes. (n.d.).  The Sociology of Slavery. Recovered from: https://www.sparknotes.com/sociology/social-stratification-and-inequality/section2/page/2/ 

The British Museum (n.d.).  The Standard of Ur. Recovered from: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1928-1010-3    Tierny, B. & Scott, J., Ed. (1984)  Western societies: A documentary history: Vol I. McGraw Hill, Inc.

Module 5:  Inequality by Gender, Race and Age

Review this week's lecture slides:  SOSC_101_M5_PP-2.pptx  Download SOSC_101_M5_PP-2.pptx 

Gender We need to think beyond gender. In Module 3 of this course, we discussed principles of anthropology. We studied how different thinkers have been trying to define humanity. In this module, we face the question of gender. This topic is hotly debated in the media as we speak. Why is it that we have a problem with gender? Society establishes the rules of the game. Who does what, who is supposed to act in certain ways, what kinds of toys are boys supposed to play with, what are girls supposed to look like? “One is not born, but rather, becomes a woman (Cited in Henghold 2017).” Although we mostly think about gender as a physiological concept, we now see that the norms, customs, and rules attached to gender, or gender roles, are learned. Individuals started to realize that although society has established certain specific ways of being for each gender, they felt different. They could not fit the social expectations related to their gender. The combination of family structure with religion or faith could end up in some cases being lethal as shown in Just Gender (2013), when the mother of a transgender person says to her, “Either you commit suicide, or I’m going to, because I can’t have a gay child (2013).” Family and parents influence our gender roles. Parents make choices with their children that affect the outcomes and definitions given to gender roles. Linda Edington (2005) suggests that even the games and sports that boys and girls play are determined by the opportunities offered at schools and social organizations and they define the expectations of our genders. It seems like, beyond gender, there is the human essence. Maybe that is the main point of reference that should be used to develop any sort of expectations for the individual.   

Gender is the concern of the one who is going to be intimate with the other. There seems to be no need for us to declare a gender. As we migrate to foreign countries or cultures, we face new challenges. One specific challenge for women is to comply with cultures that have assigned roles for them that violate what we would call in the West, human rights. Although feminist theory keeps fighting strong, there are countries in the world that would not recognize women as equal to men in terms of rights.

We have many lessons to learn from our recent past. We need to revise how our social structures might be set in ways that violate the rights of people to define themselves and identify the obstacles we have placed in our society for those who do not fit within the norm in terms of gender.  

Race Another way we create social inequality is racism. In the United States, we live in a predominant white culture. This group creates and approves the laws of the land that must be respected by all of those who live in it, no matter the color of our skin. If the predominant culture is the one controlling access to education, economic opportunities, and other advantages of living in this society, then that access is going to be blocked for those who do not belong to that majority group. 

In sociology, American sociologist W.E. Dubois represents the African-American side of conflict theory. Dubois was able to demonstrate that Black people in the United States were treated as inferior. If the society is structured in a way that keeps certain groups marginalized, that society is accepting racism and injustice as normal. As we have mentioned before in this course, one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, to study sociology is to demonstrate if the society we live in treats everyone fairly and gives everyone a chance to develop their potential.   

Age The last form of inequality we will mention in this module is age. It would be interesting to look around in the messages we get from the media and try to determine how age plays a role in what products and services are sold to us. Does age necessarily determine cognitive ability? We might need to start viewing age beyond numbers. Do we respect people or age? Some cultures have emphasized the idea that we need to respect people because they are old. There might be a challenge here. How about if that “old” person does not respect us? Can we take any action against this person, or do we limit ourselves in that situation because the person is “old”, and old people deserve respect? What type of image represents the old in our social structure? Are they seen as wise and worthy of admiration? Or do we just hide the “old” in nursing homes and forget about them? 

References:

Hengehold, L. (2017).  Simone de beauvoir’s philosophy of individuation: The problem of the second sex. EUP.

Module 5:  Principles of Sociology II – The phenomenon of social inequality

View this week's PPT lecture:  SOSC_101_M5_PP.pptx  Download SOSC_101_M5_PP.pptx 

The Phenomenon of Social Inequality

Societies function by distributing wealth and opportunities in uneven ways. This is hard to understand sometimes. But the social structures of our societies are rooted in ways that perpetuate inequality. In social inequality, we have an uneven distribution of resources. It is not necessarily that there are no resources available, but they are distributed in ways that most of the population cannot benefit from it. Societies perpetuate these conditions through norms and culture. An example of a norm could be teaching someone that “we are here on earth to serve”. If we turn this norm into a strong idea, we will put it at a higher hierarchy when we make choices in life. If we find ourselves in a situation in which we might be oppressed there is a possibility that we justify the oppression by rationalizing that, since we are here to serve, it is more important to serve than to free ourselves from oppression.

That is why many societies have socially defined categories to justify stratification. According to the film “Social Class: Theories, Stratification, and Mobility - An Introduction (2019), access to social goods might depend on power, religion, kinship, prestige, race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, and class. 

If we have access to power, be it through political position or wealth, we could influence society more effectively by communicating our ideas and making most people think that those are the right ideas. This is a way in which morality is formed in society. If we control religion through a high-level position, we have in our hands how people interpret their relationship with supernatural power. If we are born wealthy there is a high possibility that we will always stay wealthy since we will have the means to attend the best schools, obtain the best health care, among other things. 

If we belong to a specific racial classification, such as white, society offers certain accommodations and privileges that make it easier to access benefits than if you were non-white. Women are not paid equally in most societies, even though they can do the same workmen do. Sometimes sexual orientation, homosexuality, for example, is not openly accepted in many societies. Individuals who are are homosexuals will have bigger challenges to acquire what other members of society have easier access to. 

  Historical Background of Social Stratification

If we look at the mosaic called The Royal Standard of Ur from 2500 BC we will notice how the different levels of the piece of art reflect the social stratification of the civilization already formed in Mesopotamia over 4,000 years ago. 

When king Hammurabi placed his code in different cities in Mesopotamia, around 1750 B.C., he made sure that people from different levels, or strata in their societies, understood that the individual members of such a society were valued in different ways. “203. If a man of gentle birth has struck a man of gentle birth who is his equal, he shall pay one mina of silver (Tierny & Scott, 1984).” Hammurabi’s code is a vivid example that is more than 3,000 years old. We divide society into levels that provide different needs for that specific social structure.

We might need to start asking among other things if this is a fair arrangement. In this module, we will study some reasons social inequality seems to be the norm. Many theorists are willing to accept social inequality as a fact that cannot be changed. Functionalist theories by Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton, for example, approach the study of sociology as a way of understanding how society functions (Osbourne, 2000, p. 88). If society is structured in certain ways, it is because it is natural for societies to be this way. All institutions have a purpose in society. We just need to understand them.

But maybe as sociologists and critical thinkers, we need to go further and ask ourselves if society is “naturally” structured that way. This is what conflict theorists asked. For conflict theory, certain groups within society are oppressed by a small dominant group that owns the means of production. Since they own the means of production, what is left for us to do is offer our energy, skills, and time in exchange for wages. Societies are not fairly constituted, and they do not have to be this way “by nature”. The oppressed within society need to fight for the liberation of the means of production to create a classless society. 

An ironic historical fact is that democracy was born in Athens around 2,600 years ago. But at that moment in history, only males over eighteen years old who owned land and were citizens of Athens could fully participate in political aspects and have rights. That excluded most of the people that lived in Athens including non-citizens, women, children, and slaves. Thus, the birthplace of democracy gave only a minority of the members of society full access to its benefits. 

In medieval times, access to education was limited to members of the clergy. The church controlled access to knowledge. Only the priests were able to read and write. The sons of kings eventually were educated by the clergy since the nobility could afford the fees. That meant that opportunities for self-development through education were in the hands of those who own property and wealth. 

Is it possible to have a classless society when we have had social stratification since we formed civilizations? 

Models of Social Stratification

Slavery

In slavery, a group of people is seen as less than the rest of the people. Many civilizations if not all have had some type of slavery. Slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865. But his did not stop the unequal treatment of people of African heritage. There is no justification for some people to be enslaved by others. However, through history, we see that slaves were produced by conquering groups of people and turning them into slaves. They became property. In Roman times those who had acquired debt and could not pay for it could offer themselves as slaves until their debt was paid or even for the rest of their lives. Slavery was a successful economic enterprise for landowners because it provided a cheap labor force that did not require human treatment. Owners of slaves saved on pay and offered their slaves accommodation that would be dignified. 

Castes

Although the castes system in India became illegal in 1955, most of the people in their society still believe that there are differences based on castes. Certain groups in this country cannot mix with the rest of society. Although for most of us this might seem like something outrageous, we do have social stratification in other ways. The Indian castes system was based on religious beliefs. 

Estates

There was a system that is no longer legal, but we might still find some remnants of it in our current social structure. In the Estate System, there was a clear division of social classes and power. There were the nobles who owned the lands and did not have to work. They have leisure time in their hands and could enjoy and sponsor works of art and culture. Primogeniture gave the first son born all the inheritance of the father, and they kept their power because they convinced the rest of the people that they had the Divine Right of Kings (Kagan, 2004). There was also the clergy. These were many sons of nobles who were not firstborn but wanted comfortable living and power. The church offered these two things. At the lowest tier were the commoners, who were the majority of society who did not own land, did not have any power and had to work for either the nobles or the clergy. This is the mass of people who with their work produced the riches of the higher levels.

  Implications of Social Stratification

By now we shall realize that if our place in the social strata is the lowest, it will determine the limitations of opportunities we will have. Although we might have the skills to progress in life, there is a possibility that we won’t get an opportunity to demonstrate them. Not only that, but some of us in society will end up stigmatized. 

  Social Mobility: Closed vs Open Systems

In terms of social mobility, there are two types of systems. One of them is closed systems. In closed systems like the one in India which has castes, there is an extreme rigidity for social mobility, if there is any mobility at all. The social position is based on ascribed status. In India, for example, this idea is originated in culture and religion.

In open systems, there is space for mobility. People can go from one level of social stratification to the other with more ease. Another fact is that in open societies there is a movement upward and downward. The open systems are not perfect, there is still some level of rigidity, but there are more possibilities for movement to be achieved, instead of ascribed. The United States, for example, is considered an open system. There is this idea that with hard work and commitment you could achieve “the American dream”. This is based on meritocracy, the idea that if you work hard, you get back merits that accommodate you little by little into a better place in society. 

Theoretical Perspectives on Social Stratification

When we study social inequality and social stratification it will depend on what theoretical framework we choose. For structural functionalists, for example, we have stratification because it is a necessity for society to function. Social inequality, poverty, injustice, among other things, are justified based on this approach.

Social conflict theory, we might guess by now, argues that these differences in society are not necessary and that there is a need for those who are being oppressed to revolt against injustice. For social conflict theory capitalism as a system does not take into consideration humanity first, but capital. Therefore, it is a system that goes against the people that make it work. Ideology keeps people thinking that this system is best for them. Marxist theorists argue that this ideology is created by those who benefit from it, the owners of the means of production. 

Symbolic interactionism looks at how we create meaning and symbols related to our interaction with them. The values we perpetuate are based on the symbols we keep placing in a high hierarchy and we go in a kind of loop.

References:

Britannica. (n.d.).  The Sociology of Slavery. Recovered from:  https://www.britannica.com/topic/slavery-sociology/The-sociology-of-slaveryLinks to an external site.

Cole, N.L. (2020, January 1)  Visualizing social stratification in the United States. Recovered from:  https://www.thoughtco.com/visualizing-social-stratification-in-the-us-3026378Links to an external site.

Crossman, Ashley. (2020, January 28)  The sociology of social inequality. ThoughtCo. Recovered from:  https://www.thoughtco.com/sociology-of-social-inequality-3026287Links to an external site.

Kagan, D. F.M., Turner, & S. Ozment. (2004)  The western heritage: Vol I: To 1740 (8th ed.). Pearson Education.

Sociology Saves the World with Dr. Dan. (2020, Jul. 11)  Sociological Theories on Poverty [video]. Recovered from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70f4IXxPuF4 

Sparknotes. (n.d.).  The Sociology of Slavery. Recovered from: https://www.sparknotes.com/sociology/social-stratification-and-inequality/section2/page/2/ 

The British Museum (n.d.).  The Standard of Ur. Recovered from: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1928-1010-3    Tierny, B. & Scott, J., Ed. (1984)  Western societies: A documentary history: Vol I. McGraw Hill, Inc.