Unit 12 Summary.docx

Unit 12 Summary This text discusses social inequalities and stratification systems: Social Inequality: It’s a macro-level concept focusing on differences among people. It’s not about individual differences but societal characteristics. Status and role are key concepts in understanding this. Status is your position in society, and role is the behavior expected of that status. Status can be ascribed (given at birth) or achieved (based on effort and ability). Stratification Systems: These are societal hierarchies. They include: Slavery: This system is characterized by one human being owning another. Racism was not the sole factor in the institution of slavery. Historically, slavery has been based on a variety of legal factors. For instance, it could be a result of debt that could not be paid back, leading to bonded labor. It could also be a consequence of being conquered in a war. In some cases, individuals chose slavery to avoid harsher penalties, such as the death penalty. It was legal in most societies historically until the last 200 years. Movement within this system was limited, but some slaves could escape and free themselves. Caste: The caste system, particularly known from India, is based on birth and is lifelong. It’s divided into four main castes with the Brahmins on top and the Dalits or untouchables at the very bottom. It’s based on the Hindu belief in reincarnation, where one’s actions in a life determine their caste in the next life. The caste system was abolished in India in 1949 but it’s still evident in its society. It's important to note that its basis is not in law, but religion. While individual movement up and down the hierarchy is generally not possible, there can be block movement, where an entire caste can rise or fall in status within a society. This is a unique aspect of the caste system that distinguishes it from other forms of social stratification. Clans/Aristocracies: These systems are based on family and inheritance. There may be some movement possible, but it is rare. Social Class: This system is based on wealth. Unlike the other systems, it is not based on law & order and there is great room for movement in social class. You can go from rags to riches or go bankrupt. All these systems are sustained by ideologies that justify the stratification. Despite the abolition of formal systems like the caste system, their influence can still be seen in society. The text discusses the relationship between modernization and social stratification, the concept of inequality, and the principles of distributive justice. Modernization and Stratification: As societies modernize, they tend to move from ascribed status (based on birth or family) to achieved status (based on merit). This shift leads to meritocracies, where status is earned, not inherited, or assigned. Inequality: Despite modernization, stratification remains a form of inequality. Opinions on inequality vary, with some viewing it as natural or even desirable, and others seeing it as unjust. Value judgments play a crucial role in determining the desirability of inequality. They are subjective evaluations based on one’s personal beliefs, ethics, and values. Here’s how they apply to the three principles of distributive justice mentioned in the text: Equality: The value judgment here is that everyone should receive the same rewards, regardless of their contribution to society. This principle values fairness and equal distribution above all. Equity: This principle values fairness in terms of proportional distribution. The value judgment is that those who contribute more to society should receive more rewards. It’s seen as fair because it’s based on individual effort and contribution. Relative Needs: This principle values the distribution of rewards based on individual needs. The value judgment here is that those with greater needs should receive more, regardless of their contribution to society. These value judgments reflect different notions of what’s considered fair and just in society. They can influence societal norms, policies, and practices related to the distribution of wealth, privilege, and status. However, these judgments can vary greatly among individuals, societies, and cultures, leading to ongoing debates about the desirability of inequality. It’s important to note that striving for one principle (e.g., equality or equity) might inadvertently lead to another, depending on the specific context and circumstances. For example, striving for equity might lead to equality if everyone contributes equally. Similarly, aiming for equality could result in equity if everyone’s needs are the same. Application of Principles: The principle of equality is often applied at the macro level (e.g., national healthcare, human rights), while equity is more common at the meso level (e.g., business, education). Relative needs are used at a micro level in families and among friends. For example, if a sibling has a disability that requires extra time and patience, they should get it because it’s fair. This concept is based on individual needs. Interestingly, Karl Marx’s quote “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” aligns with this idea, suggesting a societal shift from equity to relative needs. The text also suggests that equality is not always synonymous with social justice, and relative needs might better fit notions of social justice. Self-interest: People often disagree about inequality based on their interests. Individuals tend to prioritize their wants over the group or the common good, leading to judgments based on self-interest rather than collective interest. However, this does not apply to everyone. The text discusses three ideologies and their views on social inequality and societal organization: Conservative ideology advocates for preserving past inequalities, arguing that a well-structured society provides everyone with a secure sense of place, which is essential for happiness and health. Here, society takes precedence over the individual. Liberal ideology prioritizes the individual over society. It argues for maximum freedom and self-determination, suggesting that what’s best for the individual is also best for society. Liberals advocate for replacing hereditary social inequality with achieved inequality, allowing natural abilities to determine stratification. This view has dominated modern societies for the last 200 years. Socialist ideology calls for a fundamental restructuring of society for the common good, especially for those oppressed or exploited by the system. It advocates for radical, not gradual, societal reformation. In extreme cases, socialist systems have argued against the family, opposing the inheritance of wealth. Theoretical Perspectives The text discusses two theoretical perspectives within sociology - structural functionalism and conflict theory - and their views on social class. Structural Functionalism: It supports social inequality, arguing it’s universal, necessary, and beneficial. Society assigns different people to do different tasks for efficiency. Some tasks are more important or difficult than others. To motivate people to perform these tasks, society increases rewards (money, prestige, power). The stratification system is like a market system, giving the highest rewards to the most important jobs and competent people. Rewards are also based on the scarcity of skills and the number of people available to do the task. Sociobiology and Stratification: Sociobiology posits that societal phenomena can be explained biologically. It observes that all living systems, including animals, exhibit inequalities (territorial, sexual, hierarchical). The argument is that if such stratification is natural in animals, it should also be natural in humans. However, there are criticisms of this perspective: It doesn’t account for inherited wealth, where people earn prestige and wealth based on their background without having to achieve anything. It doesn’t consider barriers to competition, such as social barriers and categories that people face in trying to be successful. So, even if it is a competition, it is not an open one. It doesn’t explain why society rewards some people (like movie stars and athletes) so much more than others. The magnitude of rewards is questionable. Are movie stars and athletes so key to society’s functioning that they warrant being paid millions? People with wealth and status can use these resources to perpetuate their wealth and status, regardless of whether it’s deserved. Structural functionalism, a sociological perspective, tends to overlook this power dynamic in its explanation of social stratification. Conflict theory, which has gained more acceptance among sociologists than functionalism, opposes the idea that social stratification is necessary. It argues that stratification is optional and results from domination, exploitation, coercion, and manipulation. Marxist economic concepts are central to conflict theory. Marx discussed the mode of production, which combines the means and relations of production. He argued that the mode of production forms the base or infrastructure of society, shaping its superstructure, which includes education, family systems, religion, politics, and mass media. Marx also discussed social class, stating that all modes of production have social classes and that the history of society is a history of class struggle. He introduced the concepts of the bourgeoisie, who own capital and employ others, and the proletariat, the working class who do not own capital and work for others. He also mentioned subcategories: the petite bourgeoisie, who own capital but do not necessarily employ others, and the lumpen proletariat, the unemployed underclass. Marx predicted that the middle class would eventually be crushed, leading to a polarization between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He foresaw the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie, leading to the eradication of private property and the establishment of a utopian, classless, socialist society. Marx’s philosophy was not based on meritocracy, but on equality. The text discusses the middle ground between capitalism and communism, represented by social democratic parties or welfare state parties. In socialism, the proletariat, or working class, gains control of countries and governments. This represents a shift in power dynamics and a move towards greater equality and social justice. These parties, like Canada's New Democratic Party, advocate for a slow, gradual transformation of the system rather than a radical upheaval. Sweden is identified as the leading social democratic state in the world, embodying the middle ground between capitalism and socialism. The Occupy movement is mentioned as an example of class warfare initiated by the middle class against the upper class. This movement is significant as it represents a form of class warfare initiated by the middle class against the upper class. Its slogan, “They only call it class warfare when we fight back,” underscores the ongoing nature of class struggle, which often goes unnoticed until large-scale protests occur. The Weberian perspective is introduced as a synthesis of functionalism and conflict theory. Max Weber critiqued Marx's overemphasis on the economic realm of society, arguing for a more complex and accurate description of reality. Unlike Marx, Weber was less optimistic about the future and did not believe that systems like capitalism and phenomena like class conflict could be fundamentally changed. Weber expanded on Marx's understanding of the economy and agreed with the concept of class conflict. However, he also identified other conflicts, such as those between creditors and debtors, producers and consumers, and proponents of fair trade and free trade. The text discusses the theories of Marx and Weber on social hierarchy: Marx focused on economic wealth, considering property and money as the basis of social class. This is an objective measure, not just based on income but also wealth and assets. Weber agreed with Marx’s view on economic class but added two more dimensions: prestige and power. Prestige: Weber viewed this as a subjective form of social class, a symbolic resource of social honor. It’s not necessarily tied to wealth and can be positive or negative. For instance, intellectuals, Olympic champions, and politicians may not be wealthy but hold social honor. Conversely, certain groups may be prohibited from certain occupations due to their perceived prestige or status. This is referred to as cultural class. Power: Weber argued that some individuals may not have much property or prestige, but they wield significant power to make decisions that impact others. This is seen in roles like civil servants and bureaucrats, who may not have much property or prestige but can make decisions affecting many. This is referred to as political class. Weber’s theory acknowledges that these dimensions can overlap and influence each other, leading to status inconsistency when an individual has more of one dimension than the others. For example, high education may lead to high prestige but average income and little property, resulting in high prestige but little power. In conclusion, while Marx’s concept of class focused on property or wealth, Weber expanded this to include prestige and power, offering a more nuanced understanding of social class. Characteristics of the Social Classes The text provides a detailed breakdown of socio-economic status (SES), which sociologists define using education, income, and occupation. Here’s a summary: Upper-upper class (“old money”): This group, less than 1% of the population, has inherited wealth and is accustomed to affluence. They often engage in philanthropy and have significant societal influence. Lower-upper class (newly rich): These individuals have amassed wealth through various means such as business or social media. They tend to flaunt their status and are also less than 1% of the population. Upper-middle class: Comprising professionals and business managers, this group is highly educated and often the target class for most Canadians. Lower-middle class: This group includes technical workers and lower management who follow orders from upper-middle-class professionals. They live comfortably and securely. Upper-working class: This group may earn as much as the middle class but through manual labor. Their jobs are often routine, supervised, and vulnerable to economic changes. Lower-working class (working poor): These individuals have low-paying, unskilled, and often temporary jobs. Many are high school dropouts. Underclass: This group, often living on welfare, lacks literacy and may have disabilities or mental illnesses that hinder employment or education. Their lives are unstable and insecure. The homeless: increasingly referred to as the houseless due to rising living costs, are not accounted for in the standard socio-economic categories. Despite potentially having social standing, these individuals cannot afford housing. Homelessness is a consequence of industrialization and post-industrial societies. In contrast, in pre-industrial societies, even without a house or family, individuals were part of a community that had an obligation to care for them, often in exchange for labor such as tending to horses or shoveling coal. Correlates of Social Class The text discusses how social class, a pervasive variable in sociology, influences various aspects of life: Technology: It favors the rich by increasing productivity and profits, exacerbating inequalities. For the lower class, technology brings uncertainty, job loss, and increased scrutiny. Physical and Mental Health: Lower classes have shorter life expectancies and poorer mental health due to less control over their lives and constant uncertainty. Family Life: Wealthy individuals tend to marry within their class, often with parental involvement due to inheritance stakes. Divorce rates are higher among lower classes due to instability and stress, leading to higher rates of domestic abuse. Socialization: Middle-class parents socialize their children into attitudinal internalization, where norms and values are accepted through understanding. In contrast, lower-class parents socialize their children into behavioral compliance, where norms are followed without necessarily being agreed with. Politics: Upper classes tend to be economically conservative but socially liberal, aiming to preserve their wealth. Historically, the lower class has been more liberal and socialistic, desiring government support. However, political participation among the lower class is lower due to feelings of alienation and lack of control. Crime: White-collar crime, often committed in corporate settings, contrasts with blue-collar crime that occurs on the streets. Street crime is prosecuted more due to its visibility, while white-collar crime is more sophisticated and often goes unpunished due to the perpetrators’ wealth and influence. This raises questions about the actual crime rates among different social classes. These factors illustrate how each social class forms a distinct subculture with unique approaches to life and experiences. Mechanisms of Social Stratification The text discusses the mechanisms of social class in Canada, focusing on two key concepts: Equality of Opportunity: This is the belief that everyone has an equal chance to obtain goods/rewards. It’s an ideology suggesting that anyone can achieve what they want if they work hard. However, the reality may not align with this ideal. Inequality of Condition: This refers to the existing distribution of goods/rewards in society. Not everyone starts from the same place due to differences in quality of public resources like schools and libraries across the country. This material social fact, as established by Durkheim, Marx, and Weber, is more formative than ideology in determining our social chances. Two analogies illustrate these concepts: 100m Dash: In a race, all runners start from the same line and run the same distance under the same conditions. However, in life, some people start further back due to inequality of condition. President Big Boss/Little Boss Game: This game starts with structural inequality, where the most advantaged person often wins and maintains their position due to systematic advantages. These situations highlight the reality of inequality of opportunity in society. The text discusses the general awareness of inequality and the concepts of equality of opportunity and condition: Most people agree that meritocracy is justified and that current conditions are unequal. However, they often disagree that opportunities are not equal, creating a contradiction. Equality of opportunity lacks grounding without equality of condition. The text uses an analogy of a man and a woman having access to stairs of the same length but different designs. The man’s stairs are easier to climb, symbolizing better conditions for success. The man’s comment, “What’s the matter? It’s the same distance!”, reflects a lack of acknowledgment of the barriers the woman faces, as he does not have to face them himself. Everyone has the chance to become a prime minister, but not everyone has equal conditions to develop the necessary skills and abilities. Constraints such as social support and access to education can affect one’s chances. Promoting equality without considering the conditions affecting someone’s life chances is insufficient. This is seen as a form of false consciousness resulting from a neoliberal capitalist democratic society focusing only on equality of opportunity. The text discusses the ideological preferences of Canadians regarding social inequality, focusing on two main perspectives: Socialists: They believe in equality of condition, wanting to keep rewards equal. They advocate for a welfare state that ensures equal access to education, clean air, and healthcare. Sweden is often cited as an example of a social welfare state. Conservatives: They prioritize equality of opportunity over equality of condition. They believe in keeping rewards unequal, advocating for fair and open competition where winners are rewarded more. They believe in equity, not equality, and argue that it’s fair for roles with more responsibility, like surgeons, to be paid more than others, like nurses. They support equal opportunity, provided individuals are not disadvantaged by factors like race, gender, or age. Inequality of Condition and Opportunity Inequality of Condition The text provides a detailed analysis of inequality of condition, focusing on income and wealth: Income: The average household income in Canada as of 2022 was $75,000, with the median being $84,000. Sociologists often divide populations into quintiles (20% each) for income analysis. The richest quintile has 41% of the family income, while the poorest has 6%. This distribution has remained relatively stable over the years, with the highest quintile seeing an increase. Wealth vs Income: Wealth, which is accumulated, can eclipse annual income for some people. When comparing family wealth to income in 2017, the richest quintile jumps from 41% to 61%, while the poorest drops from 6% to 1%. Global Perspective: The top 1% of the world holds a significant portion of wealth, sometimes referred to as the “wine glass effect”. The wealthiest people in Canada in 2022 include David Thomson and family, worth almost $50 billion. Poverty: There are two types of poverty - absolute and relative. Absolute poverty refers to a lack of basic necessities, such as food, shelter, and clothing. The absence of a phone, for example, can negatively impact job prospects and social connections. Relative poverty is determined by society’s standard of living. It could include not owning items like a phone, car, or laptop. Poverty Line: Also known as the “low-income cutoff,” it’s calculated based on the percentage of after-tax income spent on food, shelter, and clothing. If this percentage is 20% higher than the Canadian average, a family is considered below the line. As of 2020, 27% of Canadians were below this line, with higher rates among Indigenous, immigrant, disabled, uneducated people, and single female parents. Subjective Dimensions: This refers to class consciousness, or the awareness and acceptance of one’s social class. Most Canadians do not think in terms of social class, possibly because they interact mainly with people from their own class and because Canada does not have a history of aristocracy. However, when asked to self-identify their class, people’s responses vary based on income or wealth. Some people may be reluctant to identify as working class due to embarrassment. Occupational prestige is a key aspect of Weber’s three forms of socioeconomic class: property, prestige, and power. Prestige, often attached to one’s occupation or career, can sometimes be a better measure of socioeconomic status than wealth and power. The level of prestige associated with a job can give an idea of the income, education, authority, and prestige that comes with the position. The most prestige is generally given to political leaders, professionals, business owners, and managers, with prestige decreasing for roles like clerical workers, farmers, manual laborers, down to welfare recipients. There is a government-generated list that rates almost every job in Canada by its occupational prestige. More prestigious jobs typically pay more, require more education, involve more abstract thought, and offer greater autonomy. The text discusses the complexities of social mobility in Canada, focusing on the following aspects: Social Mobility: There is a fair amount of social mobility in Canada, with the most movement occurring in short ranges. The classes with the least mobility are the very top and bottom. Education is a key factor in upward mobility, while factors like divorce and job loss can lead to downward mobility. Intergenerational vs Intra-generational Mobility: Intergenerational mobility refers to changes in social class across generations, while intra-generational mobility refers to changes within an individual’s lifetime. Under-employment: Future generations, particularly Gen Z and millennials, are likely to face more underemployment than previous generations. Structural vs Circulation Mobility: Structural mobility refers to society-wide changes in class status due to the creation or disappearance of job categories. Circulation mobility, on the other hand, refers to individual movements up or down the social ladder, with no overall societal movement. In summary, social class is a powerful variable that significantly impacts nearly every dimension of life, and it’s crucial to acknowledge and understand it.

Unit 12 Summary.docx

Related

Transcript

Upgrade to continue