Unit 12.docx

Unit 12 Social Stratification Now we’re going to talk more on a macro level about different aspects of social structure itself and the focus on this unit is on social inequalities. People are different from each other. There are three types of social inequalities: Social class inequality is often ca...

Unit 12 Social Stratification Now we’re going to talk more on a macro level about different aspects of social structure itself and the focus on this unit is on social inequalities. People are different from each other. There are three types of social inequalities: Social class inequality is often called social stratification, which is a system by which a society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. It is not a function of individual difference. It is a characteristic of society as whole. Earlier we talked about the difference between status and role, how we all have a different status and every status has a bunch of roles. These concepts form the basis of the understanding of the sociological understanding of stratification as well. Remember that status is the position you occupy in society and role is all the behavioral expectations to that status, that role. We said you hold a status, but perform a role. You are not always free to choose your status and role. Sometimes status is imposed involuntarily; didnt choose or earn them. Happen at birth like ethnicity, religion, social class, or sex. Achieved status is what you achieve based on ability and effort. E.g., occupation, career, marital status, friends. This is the basis of stratification. There are many types of stratification systems: -Slavery: slaves and owners. Has basis in law. It used to be legal in most societies historically until last 200 years. Was there movement possible in terms of not becoming a slave? Not really but some slaves could escape and free themselves. But otherwise, once a slave always a slave. -Caste: their basis is not law, it′s religion. There is some movement possible, not necessarily individual movement up and down the hierarchy, but block movement of one entire caste rising or falling in status in a society. -Clans/Aristocracies: nobles and peasants. Its based on family and inheritance. There may be some movement possible but it is rare. -Social class: not based on law & order and unlike the last ones, it is based mostly on wealth. There is great room for movement in social class, you can go from rags to riches or go bankrupt All stratifications are sustained by ideology, which we′ve already defined and they justify beliefs and actions. In this case, it justifies social stratification. All societies view stratification as natural. It is just human nature and it cannot be chosen. Going back to slavery, we think of it as based on slavery or racism. This is not entirely historically accurate. It was based on debt that could not be paid back. So bonded labor because of indebtedness. Or slavery due to being conquered in a war or even a criminal trying to avoid death penalty and would settle for slavery rather than death. So slavery is not just racist and it can be based on other factors historically. Now, the caste system. You may know that India has been famous for its caste system based on the religion of Hinduism. So caste is based on birth; its ascribed. You cannot move up or down. Its lifelong. There are four main castes with the brahmins on top and the dalits or untouchables at the very bottom. And it is based on the Hindu belief in reincarnation. So you′re born into one cast in one life but after death you will come back and be reincarnated into a second life. And if you played your role in whatever caste you were born into then you could move up in the next life or move down in the next life. So you can see how stratification can be based on religious beliefs. The caste system was abolished in India in 1949 when India regained its independence from Britain but it′s still evident in its society. Its one of those informal, unspoken aspects of society. One more observation on stratification. It depends on modernization. As the world modernizes, it stratifies. It moves status from ascribed to achieved. Modernization can be characterized generally as a change from a closed social system to an open social system. It relies less on acribed factors like family and friends. Someone does not get to do heart surgery because of who their uncle is. You must earn it by demonstrating competency or merit. So modernity gives rise to meritocracies which are not based on race, family, or class. Everyone must earn their status in a modern stratification system. That said, stratification is still a form of inequality. There are many disagreements on inequality. Questions revolve around on why it exists and if we should do something about it. Is it good or bad? Here are sources of disagreements: Value judgements: determining the desirability of inequality is a value judgement. It is based on moral and ethical judgements that determine whether inequality is good or bad. Some people do not see anything wrong with it. Whereas other people, societies, cultures find it unjust. Some cultures want to simply reduce it rather than eliminate it. Others try to do so completely. An example is Maoist China in the middle of the 20th century when everybody had to have the same haircut and clothes. Everyone was as identical and equal as possible. This was very extreme social experiment. Value judgements are based on competing notions of whats fair and just. Let′s call it distributive justice, the distribution of wealth, privilege, and status. How do they get distributed in a society? How do we judge whats fair in society. There are three different ways to determine this. The first one is equality. Everyone should receive exactly the same thing regardless of their contribution to society. The second notion is equity. The way this term is used here is different than the way everyday society uses the term. Sociologically, equity is rewards based on one′s contributions. If you contributed more to the well-being of the group you deserve more rewards. The third notion is relative needs. Here are rewards distributed according to the individual needs of the members regardless of their contribution to the group or society. It’s important to note that in some contexts, equality and equity can collapse into one another. This means that in trying to achieve one, we may inadvertently achieve the other. For example, in striving for equity (rewards based on contribution), we might end up creating a system that is essentially equal (everyone ends up with the same rewards) because everyone contributes equally to the group. Conversely, in striving for equality, we might end up with an equitable system if everyone’s needs are the same. Therefore, it’s crucial to consider the nuances of these concepts when applying them in real-world scenarios. We deem these notions to be fair at different levels of society. To state it simply, the principle of equality is used more at the macro level of society, at the national level, considering collectivity. E.g., in Canada we all have equal healthcare regardless of how much taxes we contribute to pay for healthcare. Or internationally, the notion of human rights. It does not matter how much you have contributed to politics you have the same human rights as the next person. Equity is used more at the meso level of society. It is used in secondary groups, work groups. E.g., in business if you contribute more to the success of the business then you should get a higher wage or salary because of your effort. Or in schools, the more you achieve and work hard, the more you should be rewarded. Relative needs then are used at the micro level in families and among friends. So, if you have a sibling that has a disability that requires extra time and patience, they should get it because that’s fair. Its based on the individual needs. Thus, all these notions of fairness are valid in their own level of society. It is interesting to note that Karl Marx said "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Marx was arguing for a societal shift from equity to relative needs even though he did not use that particular language. So one basis for disagreement about inequality is one′s ethical system. What you think is fair. Based on the image above, one should realize that equality is not always social justice whereas relative needs better fits notions of social justice. Here is the second source of disagreement: self-interest. People disagree about inequality based on their interests. Everybody wants to benefit from every situation and so they will judge situations based on self-interest rather than collective interest. My wants are more important than the group or the common good. Of course, this does not apply to everyone. Another source of disagreement is ideology. For example, when Medieval Europe was falling apart, and historical aristocracies are losing control and their power. So, when one form of social inequality is falling apart how should society be organized next? This is influenced in part by ideologies such as conservatives who want to conserve the inequality of the past. They believe this is important because this is how people know where they belong. A well-structured society gives everyone a secure sense of place. People need that to be healthy and happy. Society takes precedence over the individual. Liberal ideology on the other hand, the individual takes precedence over society. Whatever the best for the individual they argue is also best for society. So, we should have as much freedom and be self-determining as possible. So, the best way to replace social hereditary inequality is to open society for achieved inequalities instead of ascribed inequalities. Let the natural inequalities of ability determine stratification, not the inherited. This has become the dominant view in modern societies in the last 200 years. The third type of ideology is socialist, society must be fundamentally restructured for the common good. They are concerned with the advancement of the common good, especially for the oppressed or exploited by the system. So, they’re calling for a radical reformation of society. Not a gradual one. So socialist systems in the extreme have argued against the family in the sense that the are against inheriting wealth and family. So that’s an explanation of social stratification and why there’s disagreement about it. Theoretical Perspectives Were going to turn now to look at how the theoretical perspectives within the sociology examine the issue of social class. Social interactionism does not have much to say about social class so Ill review what structural functionalism says about social class compared to what conflict theory says about social class. You will note soon enough that these theoretical perspectives are not value neutral. They are value judgements about social class. Structural functionalism is not just about social class but almost every aspect of society is conservative. They want to preserve the status quo. So, functionalism supports social inequality. They would argue it is universal, necessary, and beneficial to all societies. If we humans have gone through social evolution towards division of labor and stratification. This stratification is a sign of progress they would argue and use various points to justify this. The first is that they note that society has differing tasks. Society requires various needs to be met. Recall that various parts of the machine contribute to its overall functioning. Thus, society assigns different ppl to do different things because specialization in society makes it efficient. However, some tasks are more dangerous, difficult, important, and distasteful than others. So, the question is how can societies motivate the most competent people to undergo the most rigorous training to do the most important jobs? The second is that to motivate people we need to increase rewards. Give them more money, prestige, power. Otherwise, there is no reason to do the dangerous and the difficult or even the distasteful. How do rewards differ? Well, according to the importance of the task, is open heart surgery more important than cleaning toilets? In an immediate situation yes. So, the stratification system is like a market system. You give the highest rewards to the most important jobs and competent people. Its also based on supply and demand, economics, scarce skills, sell for the highest price. That is only fair and reasonable. Rewards are also offered based on the number of people available to do the task. Anybody can clean toilets whereas not everyone can do a precise heart surgery. So, we have a scarcity of the skilled and an abundance of the unskilled so we′re going to reward what is skilled more than what is common. So that’s how functionalists explain stratification. So how do we evaluate this explanation and legitimation of social stratification? How well does it explain it? Well, what about inherited wealth. What about people who earn their prestige, wealth, and status based on their background without ever having to do anything to earn it or achieve it? This happens lots. So, the functionalist explanation does not account for inheritance. It also does not consider barriers to competition. If social stratification is a competition, it′s not an open one. There are lots of social barriers and categories that people face in trying to be successful. Consider women historically have been systematically excluded from education and occupations. So, it′s not an accessible competition. Third, why does society reward some people so much more than others? Like movie stars and professional athletes. Are they as important as their wealth suggests they are? Why do we pay them so much money? Are they more important than open heart surgeons? Some questions to ponder. How can we meaningfully compare the importance of different tasks performed in society? Also, even if a task is more important than another, does it justify paying someone like 10 or 20 times more for that task to motivate them to do it? So, the sheer magnitude of rewards is questionable. Are movie stars and athletes so key to society’s functioning that they warrant being paid millions? And there’s the problem of power. People with wealth and status can use these to continue propagating wealth and status, whether deserved or not. The structural functionalist explanation for social stratification ignores the power factor in society. Recall that we talked about sociobiology, the notion that we can explain societal phenomenons based on biology. When it comes to stratification, sociobiologists know that all living systems have inequalities. It is present in animals-territorial, sexual, and hierarchal. If it′s natural for them, shouldn't it be natural for humans is the argument. Now let’s turn to conflict theory. They have the complete opposite perspective on social stratification. They are opposed to inequalities. They are radical in their assessment. They accuse functionalists as pretending that stratification is necessary when it′s not. Its optional. Instead of focusing on structure, they will focus on conflict of interest in coercion and manipulation. They would argue that stratification is the result of domination and exploitation, as a neat and tidy requirement for society. Conflict theory is now embraced by more sociologists than functionalism is. Functionalism dominated the 20th century and by the beginning of the 21st century, conflict theory had taken over. So here are ways that conflict theory explains stratification. Yes, its Marxist. Here are some Marxist economic concepts. Marx talked about the mode of production in a society which is a combination of the means and relations of production. Who controls the tools and the organization. In combination this is the mode of production in a society. Historically, each society has some kind of mode of production. Ancient and medieval civilizations had their own mode. He also argued that the mode of production constitutes the infrastructure, or the base compared to the superstructure of society. Here is the orange base or infrastructure of society. Its all about the economy. The base shapes the superstructure. So, Marx said, show me your economic system and I will reliably predict its education, family systems, its religion, politics, and its mass media. These are the superstructure, which maintains and legitimizes the base which is how society keeps going. Marx also discussed social class. All modes of production ancient, feudal, capitalistic have social class. He famously said in the opening line of the communist manifesto that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. It just looks different; classes are different in very era of society. He never actually gave a definition of class and died as he was about to in the third volume of capital in 1883. But he did give us these two concepts. The bourgeoisie, this is the class that owns the capital and employs others. So, ownership and employing others. This capitalist class extracts surplus value from others. Surplus value is the difference between the cost of production and price of selling it. That’s the profit margin. Who gets this? The owners do, not the workers. He had a subcategory of petite bourgeoisie which are self-employed people who own capital, but they don’t necessarily employ other people. So, think of small businessperson or farmers who own but don’t employ. The bourgeoisie are contrasted with the proletariat. The working class, the laborers who do not own capital and don’t employ others. In fact, they only way they gain money is through working for others. They sell themselves, their own time, effort, and skills. Again, Marx had a subcategory of the lumpen proletariat, which is the underclass, they are unemployed. Marx predicted in the long run that the middle class would be crushed, and we would have this polarization of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. His definition of capitalism was the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie which is self-explanatory. And yes, he predicted that in the future the proletariat would rise and overthrow the bourgeoisie. Then, there would be eradication of private property and we would have a utopian, classless society, a socialist society. These were his projections of the collapse of capitalism. Remember to each his own ability to each his own need. It was anti-meritocracy, it’s a belief not in merit but in equality. That’s what he was arguing for. Now there’s a middle between capitalism and socialism. It is possible for the proletariat to gain control of countries, governments, and we call them social democratic parties, welfare state parties. Yes, slow, gradual transformation of the system is possible instead of radically upending the entire system. So social democrats are moderate Marxists. In Canada they are represented by the New Democratic Party. As a nation state, Sweden is the leading social democratic state in the world. I will mention the occupy movement which occurred over ten years ago where middle class Americans did rise in class warfare against the upper class. Their slogan was "They only call it class warfare when we fight back." In other words, its ongoing constantly and lack of conflict does not mean it doesn’t exist. Its just that nobody notices until we have a big protest. Here’s a comparison between functionalism and conflict theory: Let’s conclude with the Weberian perspective. Max Weber elaborated on Marx’s perspective, and he was in many ways attempting a synthesis between functionalism and conflict theory. He argued Marx overemphasized the economic realm of society that he was guilty of economic determinism. Weber saw a more complex and accurate description of reality than what Marx gave. He was also less optimistic about the future than Marx. Whereas Marx envisioned a utopia Weber believed that these systems like capitalism and phenomenons like class conflict could not be changed. Weber elaborated in many ways such as giving an expanded understanding of the economy. He did agree with Marx on class conflict, between workers and owners. However, this is not the only conflict. What about bank loans? The relationship between creditor and debtor. What is fair interest on money borrowed. So, housing loans, what’s fair? Third, there is conflict between producer and consumer. What’s a fair price in a market selling goods? Or more globally, the conflict between fair trade and free trade. He also expanded on hierarchy. Marx focused on money, wealth, and property. Weber added two more dimensions of hierarchy that exists independently of wealth, but they do overlap somewhat. Weber did agree on the first point: property based on economic wealth. Yes, this is part of social class. Its objective, you can’t count the money and quantify the wealth. Its not just based on income but assets, which is what wealth is compared to income. So, he did agree that there was an economic class. Weber added the idea of prestige, which he believed was a subjective form of social class. Prestige is a symbolic resource of social honour. So, who has social honor in society? They are not necessarily wealthy, but they do have social honor (e.g., intellectuals, Olympic champions, politicians). This is in line with the conventional notion of status as a social hierarchy, not just a position you occupy. Prestige and wealth can occur separately from each other. For example, you can win the lottery but that does not give you prestige. So, it functions separately from wealth. Prestige is based on factors like lifestyle, do you go bowling or do you ballet? Prestige can also be negative. For example, throughout European history, Jews were often prohibited from certain occupations and political offices due to their perceived prestige or status. We call this cultural class, not economic class. Third, Weber argued for power, some people don’t have much property or prestige, but they have a lot of power to make decisions that impact other people. So, authority like civil servants and bureaucrats may not have a lot of property or prestige but this is overridden to make decisions that affect many. We call this political class. These do overlap and influence each other. So, think of athletes or superstars who start with a lot of ability which brings them prestige, then brings them money, and brings them power. And sometimes people have a lot more of one than the other and we call that status inconsistency. E.g., high education translates to high prestige but may come with average income and little property which then means high prestige and little power. In sum, Marx gave us the concept of class, which is focused on property or wealth, but Weber added to class and identified that there were other types of class as well. So, its not just about property, it is also about prestige and power. Characteristics of the Social Classes Let’s get down to more practical discussions of social class. Categories of social class Sometimes social class is described as socio-economic status (SES), sociologists refer to combination of education, income, and occupation when they use it. These are the three factors that influence socio-economic status. We usually talk about upper, middle, and lower classes but sociologists break these 3 into 6. Upper-upper, sometimes called "old money" because they’ve been rich for generations. They’ve inherited their money. Sometimes called blue bloods of society. They are less than 1% of the population but they’re worth more than the other 90%. Since they’ve been rich for generations, they’re accustomed to it, and they don’t draw much attention to themselves. They probably engage in a lot of philanthropy because they can. One description of this class is that their power is so great that their decisions will affect thousands of people. Lower-upper sometimes called the newly rich or the novadish because they’ve not inherited wealth. They have gone from rags to riches. They’ve made fortunes through business, social media, stock markets, inventions, and so on. These individuals tend to flaunt their money and status. They haven’t learned the decorum and the reservedness of the intergenerationally rich. However, because of their pride and hard work they can’t help showing it off. This is called conspicuous consumption and there was a sociologist who studied this at the start of the 20th century. Again, this is less than 1% of all Canadians. Upper middle consists of professionals and business managers. Most of them are highly educated with university degrees. They have what we might call white collar jobs. They have the means to travel. This is a target class for most Canadians. Most Canadians have a reasonable shot at becoming upper middle. Lower middle is described as the technical and lower management of the business world. This may include shopkeepers, clerical jobs. They follow the orders given to them by upper middle-class professionals. This tends to be the career trajectory for this class. They tend to live comfortably and securely. Most of them will own their home in their own lifetime. Upper working. The interesting thing here regarding income and wealth is that the working class may earn as much as the middle class, but they do it through menial labor. These are laborers, wage laborers, or trades versus people with annual salaries. That’s the dividing line; blue collar. These jobs tend to be routine and supervised. Often less intrinsic job satisfaction: its physical labor that is not very rewarding. They are vulnerable to work shortages, layoffs in recessions in contrast to salaried jobs that tend to be stable regardless. This is the class most affected by economic changes. Usually no more than high school education. Lower-working or called the working poor is. That is, they have a job but its unskilled, low pay, seasonal, and temporary. Constant layoffs. This is jobs like McDonalds. Many are high school dropouts just fighting to stay off the streets. And then there’s the underclass. Most of these people are living on welfare, living in dismal areas in the inner city. Many of them are not just unemployed but they’re unemployable because they lack literacy. They may have a disability or mental illness that makes it difficult to gain employment or an education. Their life is very unstable and insecure. Note that the homeless are not even in the above categories. They’re off the charts completely. We increasingly call them houseless because of the rising cost of living including housing. They may have social standing but cannot afford a place to live. Homelessness is a fallout of industrialization. It’s a product of industrial society, post-industrial society because in pre-industrial society nobody was homeless. Even if you didn’t have a house or a family, you were still part of a community that had an obligation to look after you. You did your dues like tend to the horses, shovel the coal, or dig ditches. And these are the constructs created by society. Correlates of Social Class In many ways, each social class is a subculture in and of itself that has a distinct approach to life and experience of it. The social class variable is pervasive in sociology. It does not matter what you are studying in social life, social class inevitably crops up. So here are different ways that social classes experience the world: Technology-favors the rich and disadvantages the poor. It helps the rich get richer and makes the poor poorer. It exacerbates inequalities. Because for the rich it increases productivity, profits. But for the lower class, technology makes their life more uncertain. It takes their jobs. It deskills jobs. It makes them obsolete because a machine can replace them. It enables managers to monitor and supervise the lower class. So, they are more scrutinized. Physical and mental health-the lower the class, the lower the life expectancy. Among the upper 25% of income earners, men can expect to live 6 years longer than men in the lower 75% of the population. Men can expect to live disability-free for 14 years longer than manual laborers or trades. So, it impacts length and quality of life. Indigenous peoples have a life expectancy seven years less than non-Indigenous persons in Canada. Infant mortality is twice as high among the poor. Mental health is poor. They have less control over their life. This can create higher stress since they must live with constant uncertainty and insecurity. Family life-if you’re rich, you will probably marry somebody rich which will reduce your dating pool and your parents may be more involved in matchmaking because they have high stakes in giving off their inheritance. It should go to someone "worthy." So, family life among the super rich is very different than in poor families. On the other hand, divorce is much higher among the lower classes because their situations are less stable and more stressful which translates into the family. There are higher rates of domestic abuse. They have much less to lose because if they get divorced, they have little money anyways. Even socialization differs. Middle class parents tend to socialize their children into attitudinal internalization, the process by which an individual accepts a set of norms and values established by others through socialization. This process starts with learning what the norms are, then understanding why they are valuable or make sense, until finally the individual accepts the norm as their own viewpoint. They’re parents may tell them it’s the right thing to do to set them up for success. In contrast, lower class parents socialize their children into behavioral compliance. They don’t care of their children agree with it or believe it; they just must go along with it. They learn to do this the rest of their lives since they learn that they’ll be controlled by other people anyways. Just behave properly. So, the parenting patterns are so different between classes. Politics-upper classes tend to be conservative on economic issues because they want to preserve their economic wealth but liberal on social issues. Lower class tend to be historically though not in the last 10-20 years given the evolution of politics in the global north, but historically more liberal and socialistic. They want the government to take care of them and improve their quality of life overall. However, lower classes tend to vote and participate less because they may be alienated by the whole process in part due to lack of education and the sense that they cannot control any aspects of their life anyways. Crime-the basic difference is white collar crime that occurs in boardrooms compared to blue collar crime that occurs in the street. Suite crime vs street crime. However, street crime gets prosecuted more because its more obvious whereas white collar crime tends to be more sophisticated with a web of actors in companies and the impunity that comes with wealth. Does this mean there may be more criminality amongst the upper class than the lower class? Can you believe actual crime rates? Overall, then social classes are different worlds in almost every aspect. I had a student in class who came from a poor, dysfunctional, and disadvantaged background. Once who once he understood the impact of social class, he broke out in tears, saying, "It′s not my fault. I never understood that who I am is not my fault." It was very moving. Mechanisms of Social Stratification Let’s look at the mechanisms of social class. There are mainly two questions about wealth in Canada. How much wealth do Canadians have. Well, we have one of the highest standards of living in the world. Second question, how is it distributed? The answer is not equally. So how do we decide or how does our system decide who gets these rewards? Theres two concepts here that must be understood: Equality of Opportunity=the equal chance available to each member of society to obtain goods/rewards. This concept raises questions about whether everyone has the same opportunity/chance? Recall that in a modern meritocracy this is supposed to mean that society is free and open for anyone to achieve what they want. However, this is not that simple. Equality of Opportunity is based on ideology. It’s a cultural value that organizes our form of social life. On a bare bones level, it’s the belief that anyone can gain whatever they want if they work hard. Apparently, someone can go from rags to riches. Anybody can become prime minister. Inequality of Condition=existing distribution of goods/rewards in society. This means that not everyone starts from the same place. E.g., while everyone has access to public schooling and libraries for example, those chances are not made equal. Educational institutions and libraries differ vastly in quality across the country, thus impacting someone’s schooling and life chances. This is a material social fact as established by Durkheim, Marx, and Weber. It’s a material social fact that is more formative than ideology that determines our social chances in the real world. Here are two analogies to establish the difference: 100 m dash-there are eight runners who start at the same starting line. They all are going the run the same distance. They all run under the same conditions. That seems fair, right? However, this does not always work this way in life. In the real world, this starting line is not equal. Some of us must go back 10 m than other people. This is inequality of condition. Sure, we all could win but some of us start further back. President Big Boss or Big President/Little Boss-in this four-player game, you start with structural inequality. You start with a president or a big boss or whatever the most advantaged person is. Someone else is the most disadvantaged. And then you play out the hand, and most often the big boss wins and maintains his position. He has been systematically advantaged all along by having been dealt the best two cards from the scum or whatever the bottom person is called. If you have played the game, you know what the chances are of you moving up from the bottom. Both situations indicate inequality of opportunity. Think about it, what if real life is like that? What is the general awareness of this inequality? Most people agree that meritocracy is justified, that equity is a fair distribution, reward proportional to your contribution. And most people agree that current conditions are not equal. However, most people disagree that opportunity is not equal. However, it seems contradictory to believe that conditions are not equal, but opportunities are. There is no connection made between conditions and opportunity. In fact, equality of opportunity has no grounding without equality of condition. In this image, the man and the woman have access to the same length stairs but the design of the stairs is not the same. The man′s stairs are designed in a way that are much more conducive to success than her conditions of having to leap up the stairs. So yes, everyone has the chance to become prime minister but we do not all have equal conditions that allow us to develop skills and abilities to be prime ministers. And even if we have the ability we may be constrained by our conditions such as how supportive our social groups like family and friends are and access to education. So, its not enough to promote equality without being aware of conditions that affect someone′s life chances. This is considered a form of false consciousness of reality that is the result of a neo-liberal capitalist democratic society that we live in that focuses only on equality of opportunity. The man in the bottom right is saying to the lady, "What′s the matter it’s the same distance!" You know, stop complaining. That said, he is not acknowleding the barriers she has to face since he does not have to do so himself. So, what do Canadians prefer? Recall the value judgements about social inequality. Thus: Socialists believe in equality of condition. These people want to keep rewards equal. They believe in equality of condition. And if you believe in equality, you will believe a welfare state that will ensure equality of access to education, clean air, and healthcare. And as I mentioned earlier, Sweden is the epitome of a social welfare state. So, socialists believe in equality. Some think quality of opportunity is more important than equality of condition. The want to keep rewards unequal. They think it is fair to make people work for and compete for rewards. It should be a fair and open competition, but the winners ought to be rewarded more. They believe in equity, not in equality. They would say it′s fair that surgeons get paid more than nurses do. They favor equal opportunity if individuals are not disadvantaged by race, gender, age, etc. These are conservatives who believe in equity. Inequality of Condition and Opportunity Let’s add more detail to inequality of condition and opportunity. Inequality of Condition Material Conditions, such as numbers like income and wealth Income, the average household income in Canada as of 2022 was $75,000. The median household income was $84,000. Now, when sociologists want to divide a population for income and other measures, but mostly income, they divide the population into quintiles. So, parts of five, 20% each. Here is the family distribution of family income in Canada in the last 75 years: So, the richest quintile would be 80%-100 compared to the poorest 0-20%. You’ll note the differences, particularly the stable distribution throughout the years. It hasn’t really changed much. The richest quintile has 41% of the family income whereas the poorest has the 6% of family income and everything in between. So, it has changed little. The only line that has changed much in the diagram is the top line. The highest quintile has gone up. Is this relatively equal or unequal? Unequal is the right answer. How does this compare to other countries? For example, the richest quintile in Brazil has 67% of the wealth! So, the inequality is much greater there. Whereas in Sweden the richest quintile has 37%. We are closer to Sweden than Brazil. But there’s a big difference between income and wealth. Wealth is accumulated. For some people, income is irrelevant since they have saved so much wealth throughout the years and it eclipses their annual income. So we need to look at wealth compared to income. Income vs Wealth: So, family wealth compared to family income in 2017. Theres a big difference. Richest quintile jumps from 41% to 61%. Poorest drops from 6% to 1%. If you look at global numbers, its sometimes called the wine glass effect. Basically, the top 1% of the world is held is by a small percentage. Who are the richest people on earth? The wealthiest people in Canada in 2022 are David Thomson and family. Gained their wealth in the newspaper, the Thomson Newspaper Chain. He also happens to be owner of the Winnipeg Jets, is almost worth $50 billion. Which is more than twice than the next closest, Changpeng Zhao worth $17.4 million and Jim Pattison worth $10.7 million. On the other end of the spectrum, poverty, there are a couple of concepts that are helpful to understand this level. Theres a difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty. Absolute poverty means that you do not have enough for the essentials. It is life threatening; you cannot afford food, shelter, and clothing. Your life is at risk. We are talking about inequality of conditions. So, whether you have a phone or not defines the conditions of your life. So, what happens if you don’t have a phone and are looking for a job. Well, you cannot list the phone number on your job application. You cannot be reached by your employer. You cannot be notified if your kids are sick at home. Lots of negatives impacting job eligibility. So, inequality of condition of not owing a phone is it reduces your chances of getting a job. There are also other uses for a phone, and it enables social connections or use in emergencies. Relative poverty is relative to society′s "standard of living." Whatever that is. Not owing a phone, car, laptop is that relative poverty? As a standard that is relative is that if it would double overnight it would not change the numbers. A harder, more defined measure of poverty is the poverty line. Aka as the "low-income cutoff." This is how it′s calculated, when percent of after-tax income that goes toward food, shelter, and clothing is 20% higher than the Canadian average. So, let’s arbitrarily say the average Canadian spends 50% of their after-tax income that on food, shelter, and clothing but if your family must spend 75% well then, they are under the LCO line. And it varies with family size, region such as urban and suburban. So, it′s not a hard number but this is how the cutoff is calculated. As of 2020, 27% of Canadians were below the low cutoff line, highest rates being in Indigenous, immigrant, people with disabilities, uneducated people, single female parents’ groups. These are all material dimensions. What about subjective dimensions? Do people think of themselves in terms of social class. Class consciousness, awareness and acceptance of similar attitudes, beliefs, and lifestyles of others in one′s social class. But most Canadians do not think in terms of social class. Some deny its existence. Why do we not think in such terms? Likely, because we only hang out with our own social class. Our friends and coworkers are likely the same class as us, so we don’t notice the differences that much. And secondly, we have no history of aristocracy in Canada like in Europe who are much more class conscious due to that history. But when Canadians self-identify in terms of their class, here are the numbers: When you measure these by income or wealth, note the difference between middle and working. It′s almost reversed. This could be because people are reluctant to identify as working class. They’re embarrassed. Or if you could use the term lower class, they’re much more willing to identify as working class. So, when we are identifying our classes, we are talking about class consciousness. Occupational prestige And a further way of talking about this is in terms of prestige. Now, remember Weber′s 3 forms of socioeconomic class, right? Property, prestige, and power. So, were talking about prestige, how is it attached to your occupation, career? Sometimes that is the best measure of socioeconomic status, not wealth and power. But the subjective dimension of prestige is huge in forming social class. For example, someone can be an elementary school principal. This gives you an idea of how much income, education, authority, and prestige comes with the position. Based on the job, you can estimate quite accurately the level of prestige. Generally, we give the most prestige to political leaders, professionals, business owners, and managers. Then we go down to clerical workers, farmers, manual labourers all the way down to welfare recipients. There is actually a very calculated government generated list of SES attached to several types of jobs. There are 20 examples here, but it forms part of a huge, thick book. In this book, almost every job in Canada is rated by its occupational prestige. The general pattern is that more prestigipus jobs pay more, require more education, entail more abstract thought, and offer greater autonomy. These are some aspects of inequality of condition, let′s talk about the actual inequality of opportunity. As much as our ideology says we have equality of opportunity in Canada. This is just not true. Amount of opportunity. How open is our stratification system? Social mobility There is a fair amount of social mobility. You can move up the scale and you can move down. In terms of movement, we have one of highest in the world. Classes with the least mobility are the very top and the very bottom. Most mobility when there is mobility is very short range. You can move up one or down one but you’re not going to get all the way to the top and likely not go all the way down to the bottom. Recall the difference between working and lower middle? The difference was manual labor. There is very little movement across this line. Once you’re a manual labourer, there is a good chance you will stay one. Education is a key factor here in upward social mobility. Factors influencing downward social mobility are divorce leading to single parenting, usually affecting women. Middle-aged, mid-size managers who lose jobs due to organizational restructuring or right sizing, chances are they won′t get that job again. Downward mobility. Intergenerational versus intra-generational mobility Another factor sociologists analyze. So, what is your social class compared to your parents and grandparents? That’s intergenerational. Intra means within and inter means between. Intra sees how much you move up or down in your lifetime compared to inter which compares your social class with your parents and ancestors. Under-employment It′s unlikely that future generations will be as fortunate in its upward mobility as previous generations. Gen Z and millennials are suffering more from underemployment than previous generations (e.g., working fewer hours than desired, less pay, below qualifications) Structural vs circulation mobility=zero sum Structural mobility means when everybody in society moves up or down. So, the creation of whole new jobs, IT jobs and the disappearance of whole categories such as jobs like farm laborers because now we have machines that can do what farm labor is used to do so that category has disappeared. Compared to circular mobility, for very time you move up, somebody else moves down. It’s a zero-sum circulation. So, there’s no overall movement upward or downward, its just a replacement on the ladder. In summary, I will repeat that social class is one of the most consistent and powerful variables affecting someone’s life. It impacts nearly every dimension of life. We must acknowledge it and understand it.