Introduction to Sociology/Print version

Note: current version of this book can be found at

Remember to click "refresh" to view this version.

  • Authors
  • Introduction
  • Sociological Methods
  • General Sociological Theory
  • Social Life
  • Society
  • Culture
  • Socialization
  • Groups
  • Demography
  • Deviance and Norms
  • Social Inequality
  • Race and Ethnicity
  • Gender
  • Stratification
  • Family
  • Religion
  • Education
  • Health and Medicine
  • Social Change
  • Collective Behavior
  • Social Movements
  • Sociological Practice

Authors edit

  • Rcragun Ryan T. Cragun, Associate Professor of Sociology, The University of Tampa
    • Contribution: Initial book layout and the development of most of the chapters
  • Jsumerau J. Edward Sumerau, Assistant Professor of Sociology, The University of Tampa
    • Contribution: Significant editing of the content; primary author of chapter on sexuality; co-author of chapter on Sociological Practice.
  • Norma Winston, Professor of Sociology, The University of Tampa
    • Contribution: Primary author of chapter on Sociological Practice.
  • bruce20fl Bruce Friesen, Associate Professor of Sociology, The University of Tampa
    • Contribution: Primary author of chapter on Human Rights
  • Jane Skaife, Assistant Professor of Sociology, The University of Tampa
    • Contribution: Contributed a number of introductions and conclusions to various chapters.
  • Katherine Carter, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Kurdistan-Hawler
    • Contribution: Primary author of chapter on stratification.
  • Deborahcragun Deborah Cragun, Ph.D. Public Health
    • Contribution: Developed the chapters on health care and medicine and race and ethnicity.
  • Piotrus Piotr Konieczny, PhD student in sociology, University of Pittsburgh
    • Contributions: various small changes, videos, slides and downloadable tools

Introduction edit

Sociology is the study of human social life. Sociology has many sub-sections of study, ranging from the analysis of conversations to the development of theories to try to understand how the entire world works. This chapter will introduce you to sociology and explain why it is important, how it can change your perspective of the world around you, and give a brief history of the discipline.

What is Sociology? edit

Emile Durkheim, one of the founders of Sociology.

Sociology is a branch of the social sciences that uses systematic methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop and refine a body of knowledge about human social structure and activity, sometimes with the goal of applying such knowledge to the pursuit of government policies designed to benefit the general social welfare. Its subject matter ranges from the micro level to the macro level. Micro-sociology involves the study of people in face-to-face interactions. Macro-sociology involves the study of widespread social processes.

Sociology is a broad discipline in terms of both methodology and subject matter. Its traditional focuses have included social relations, social stratification, social interaction, culture and deviance, and its approaches have included both qualitative and quantitative research techniques. As much of what humans do fits under the category of social structure or social activity, sociology has gradually expanded its focus to such far-flung subjects as the study of economic activity, health disparities, and even the role of social activity in the creation of scientific knowledge.[1] The range of social scientific methods has also been broadly expanded. The "cultural turn" of the 1970s and 1980s brought more humanistic interpretive approaches to the study of culture in sociology. Conversely, the same decades saw the rise of new mathematically rigorous approaches, such as social network analysis.

The social world is changing. Some argue that it is growing; others say it is shrinking.[2] The important point to grasp is: society does not remain unchanged over time. As will be discussed in more detail below, sociology has its roots in significant societal changes (e.g., the industrial revolution, the creation of empires, and the age of enlightenment of scientific reasoning). Early practitioners developed the discipline as an attempt to understand societal changes.

Some early sociological theorists (e.g., Marx, Weber, and Durkheim) were disturbed by the social processes they believed to be driving the change, such as the quest for solidarity, the attainment of social goals, and the rise and fall of classes, to name a few examples. The founders of sociology were some of the earliest individuals to employ what C. Wright Mills (a prominent mid-20th century American sociologist) labeled the sociological imagination: the ability to situate personal troubles within an informed framework of social issues.[3] Mills proposed that:

"What people need... is a quality of mind that will help them to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves. The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals."[3]

As Mills saw it, the sociological imagination could help individuals cope with the social world by helping them to step outside of their personal, self-centric view of the world. In employing the sociological imagination, people are able to see the events and social structures that influence behavior, attitudes, and culture.

The sociological imagination goes beyond armchair sociology or common sense. Many people believe they understand the world and the events taking place within it, even though they have not actually engaged in a systematic attempt to understanding the social world, as sociologists do. Humans like to attribute causes to events and attempt to understand what is taking place around them.[4] This is why individuals have been using religious ceremonies for centuries to invoke the will of the gods - because they believed the gods controlled certain elements of the natural world (e.g., the weather). Just as sacrificing two goats to ensure the safe operation of a Boeing 757 (and propitiate Akash Bhairab, the Hindu sky god) is an attempt to influence the natural world without first trying to understand how it works,[5] armchair sociology is an attempt to understand how the social world works without employing scientific methods.

It would be inaccurate to say sociologists never sit around (even sometimes in comfy armchairs) trying to figure out how the world works. But induction is just a first step in understanding the social world. In order to test their theories, sociologists get up from their armchairs and enter the social world. They gather data and evaluate their theories in light of the data they collect (a.k.a. deduction). Sociologists do not just propose theories about how the social world works. Sociologists test their theories about how the world works using the scientific method.

Sociologists, like all humans, have values, beliefs, and even preconceived notions of what they might find in doing their research. But, as Peter Berger, a well-known sociologist, has argued, what distinguishes the sociologist from non-scientific researchers is that "[the] sociologist tries to see what is there. He may have hopes or fears concerning what he may find. But he will try to see, regardless of his hopes or fears. It is thus an act of pure perception..."[6]

Sociology, then, is an attempt to understand the social world by situating social events in their corresponding environment (i.e., social structure, culture, history) and trying to understand social phenomena by collecting and analyzing empirical data.

History edit

Sociology is a relatively new academic discipline. It emerged in the early 19th century in response to the challenges of modernity. Increasing mobility and technological advances resulted in the increasing exposure of people to cultures and societies different from their own. The impact of this exposure was varied, but for some people included the breakdown of traditional norms and customs and warranted a revised understanding of how the world works. Sociologists responded to these changes by trying to understand what holds social groups together and also exploring possible solutions to the breakdown of social solidarity.

Auguste Comte and Other Founders edit

The term sociology was coined by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) in 1838 from the Latin term socius (companion, associate) and the Greek term logia (study of, speech). Comte hoped to unify all the sciences under sociology; he believed sociology held the potential to improve society and direct human activity, including the other sciences.

While it is no longer a theory employed in Sociology, Comte argued for an understanding of society he labeled The Law of Three Stages. Comte, not unlike other enlightenment thinkers, believed society developed in stages. The first was the theological stage where people took a religious view of society. The second was the metaphysical stage where people understood society as natural (not supernatural). Comte's final stage was the scientific or positivist stage, which he believed to be the pinnacle of social development. In the scientific stage, society would be governed by reliable knowledge and would be understood in light of the knowledge produced by science, primarily sociology.

As a descendant of the French Enlightenment, Comte was impressed, as were many of the philosophes, with the Newtonian revolution. Comte argued for a particular view of sociological theory: All phenomena are subject to invariable natural laws, and sociologists must use their observations to uncover the laws governing the social universe, in much the same way as Newton had formulated the law of gravity. Comte emphasized this agenda in the opening pages of Positive Philosophy:

The first characteristic of Positive Philosophy is that it regards all phenomena as subject to invariable natural Laws. Our business is—seeing how vain is any research into what are called Causes, whether first or final—to pursue an accurate discovery of these Laws, with a view to reducing them to the smallest possible number. By speculating upon causes, we could solve no difficulty about origin and purpose. Our real business is to analyze accurately the circumstances of phenomena, and to connect them by the natural relations of succession and resemblance. The best illustration of this is in the case of the doctrine of gravitation. Several points are important in this view of sociological theory. First, sociological theory is not to be concerned with causes per se but, rather, with the laws that describe the basic and fundamental relations of properties in the social world. Second, sociological theory must reject arguments by “final causes”—that is, analysis of the results of a particular phenomenon for the social whole.

This disavowal is ironic because Comte’s more substantive work helped found sociological functionalism, a mode of analysis that often examines the functions or final causes of phenomena.

Comte felt that philosophy had done as much as possible in terms of understanding the human condition. He believed that it was time for a "positivistic" approach. That meant studying things that were of an empirical (testable) nature. He thought that sociology must be based on observation, not intuition or speculation. Comte thus held a vision of sociological theory as based on the model of the natural sciences, particularly the physics of his time. For this reason, he preferred the term social physics to sociology.

While vague connections between Comte's Law and human history can be seen, it is generally understood in Sociology today that Comte's approach is a highly simplified and ill-founded approach to understanding social development.

Other classical theorists of sociology from the late 19th and early 20th centuries include W. E. B. Du Bois, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Karl Marx, Dorothy Swaine Thomas, W. I. Thomas, Ferdinand Toennies, Emile Durkheim, Vilfredo Pareto, Virginia Woolf, George Herbert Mead, and Max Weber. As pioneers in Sociology, most of the early sociological thinkers were trained in other academic disciplines, including history, philosophy, and economics. The diversity of their trainings is reflected in the topics they researched, including religion, education, economics, psychology, ethics, philosophy, and theology. Perhaps with the exception of Marx, Stanton, and Woolf, their most enduring influence has been on sociology, and it is in this field that their theories are still considered most applicable.

The Development of the Discipline edit

The first book with the word sociology in its title was assembled in the 19th century by the English philosopher Herbert Spencer. In the United States, the first Sociology course was taught at the University of Kansas, Lawrence in 1890 under the title Elements of Sociology (the oldest continuing sociology course in America). The first full fledged university department of sociology in the United States was established in 1892 at the University of Chicago by Albion W. Small, who in 1895 founded the American Journal of Sociology. The first European department of sociology was founded in 1895 at the University of Bordeaux by Emile Durkheim, founder of L'Année Sociologique (1896). In 1919 a sociology department was established in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich by Max Weber and in 1920 in Poland by Florian Znaniecki. The first sociology departments in the United Kingdom were founded after the Second World War.

International cooperation in sociology began in 1893 when Rene Worms founded the small Institut International de Sociologie that was eclipsed by the much larger International Sociologist Association starting in 1949. In 1905 the American Sociological Association, the world's largest association of professional sociologists, was founded.

Karl Marx

Early Sociological Studies edit

Early sociological studies considered the field to be similar to the natural sciences, like physics or biology. As a result, many researchers argued that the methodology used in the natural sciences was perfectly suited for use in the social sciences. The effect of employing the scientific method and stressing empiricism was the distinction of sociology from theology, philosophy, and metaphysics. This also resulted in sociology being recognized as an empirical science. This early sociological approach, supported by August Comte, led to positivism, a methodological approach based on sociological naturalism. The goal of positivism, like the natural sciences, is prediction. But in the case of sociology, it is prediction of human behavior, which is a complicated proposition.

The goal of predicting human behavior was quickly realized to be a bit lofty. Scientists like Wilhelm Dilthey and Heinrich Rickert argued that the natural world differs from the social world, as human society has culture, unlike the societies of most other animals (e.g., the behavior of ants, wolves, etc. is primarily based on genetic instructions and is not passed from generation to generation through socialization). As a result, an additional goal was proposed for sociology. Max Weber[7] and Wilhelm Dilthey[8] introduced the concept of verstehen.[9] The goal of verstehen is less to predict behavior than it is to understand behavior. Outside observers of a culture relate to an indigenous people on both the observer's and the observeds' own terms in order to comprehend the cultural conditions. While arriving at a verstehen-like insight into a culture employs systematic methodologies like the positivistic approach of predicting human behavior, it is often a more subjective process.

The inability of sociology and other social sciences to perfectly predict the behavior of humans or to fully comprehend a different culture has led to the social sciences being labeled "soft sciences." While some might consider this label derogatory, in a sense it can be seen as an admission of the remarkable complexity of humans as social animals. Any animal as complex as humans is bound to be difficult to fully comprehend. What's more, humans, human society, and human culture are all constantly changing, which means the social sciences will constantly be works in progress.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Sociology edit

The contrast between positivist sociology and the verstehen approach has been reformulated in modern sociology as a distinction between quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches, respectively. Quantitative sociology is generally a numerical approach to understanding human behavior. Surveys with large numbers of participants are aggregated into data sets and analyzed using statistics, allowing researchers to discern patterns in human behavior. Qualitative sociology generally opts for depth over breadth. The qualitative approach uses in-depth interviews, focus groups, or analysis of content sources (books, magazines, journals, TV shows, etc.) as the data source. These sources are then analyzed systematically to discern patterns and to arrive at a better understanding of human behavior.

Drawing a hard and fast distinction between quantitative and qualitative sociology is a bit misleading. The first step in all sciences is the development of a set of questions and ideas that may be empirically examined. After this initial stage, however, researchers typically take one of two paths, which may be seen to varying degrees in both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. While most qualitative researchers begin analyzing data in hopes of generating theories that could later be tested in other studies, [10] most quantitative researchers begin by elaborating testable hypotheses from existing theories. While this initial step demonstrates nuanced variations in methodology, the approaches really begin to differ in relation to the second step - data collection. Quantitative sociology mostly focuses on numerical representations of the research subjects (e.g., Do conservative Christian fathers spend more time in child care than secular fathers, when measured in hours?[11]). Qualitative sociology generally focuses on the ideas found within the discourse, rhetoric, and activities of the research subjects (e.g., What is the narrative gay men's groups use in their official publications to explain their continued participation in religions that condemn their sexual orientation?[12]). The goal of both approaches is to answer a question and/or test a theory in ways that ultimately further scientific understanding of the broader social world.

Sociology and Other Social Sciences edit

The social sciences comprise the application of scientific methods to the study of the human aspects of the world. A common belief is that the disciplines can be defined by the area of study: Psychology studies the human mind and micro-level (or individual) behavior; sociology examines human society; political science studies the governing of groups and countries; communication studies the flow of discourse via various media; economics concerns itself with the production and allocation of wealth in society; and social work is the application of social scientific knowledge in society. However, in practice this is not entirely correct. There are sociologists and political scientists who study the economy. And there are economists who study elections. What distinguishes the disciplines are their methods and the core literature referenced.

Social sciences diverge from the humanities in that many in the social sciences emphasize the scientific method or other rigorous standards of evidence in the study of humanity.

The Development of Social Science edit

In ancient philosophy, there was no difference between the liberal arts of mathematics and the study of history, poetry or politics. Only with the development of mathematical proof did there gradually arise a perceived difference between scientific disciplines and the humanities or liberal arts. Thus, Aristotle studied planetary motion and poetry with the same methods; Plato mixed geometrical proofs with his demonstration on the state of intrinsic knowledge.

This unity of science as descriptive remained, for example, in the time of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that deductive reasoning from axioms created a scientific framework. His book, Leviathan, was a scientific description of a political commonwealth. Within decades of Hobbes' work a revolution took place in what constituted science, particularly with the work of Isaac Newton in physics. Newton, by revolutionizing what was then called natural philosophy, changed the basic framework by which individuals understood what was scientific.

While Newton was merely the archetype of an accelerating trend, the important distinction is that for Newton the mathematical flowed from a presumed reality independent of the observer and it worked by its own rules. For philosophers of the same period, mathematical expression of philosophical ideals were taken to be symbolic of natural human relationships as well: the same laws moved physical and spiritual reality. For examples see Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Leibniz and Johannes Kepler, each of whom took mathematical examples as models for human behavior directly. In Pascal's case, the famous wager; for Leibniz, the invention of binary computation; and for Kepler, the intervention of angels to guide the planets.

In the realm of other disciplines, this created a pressure to express ideas in the form of mathematical relationships. Such relationships, called Laws after the usage of the time (see philosophy of science) became the model that other disciplines would emulate. In the late 19th century, attempts to apply equations to statements about human behavior became increasingly common. Among the first were the Laws of philology, which attempted to map the change overtime of sounds in a language. In the early 20th century, a wave of change came to science. Statistics and probability theory were sufficiently developed to be considered "scientific", resulting in the widespread use of statistics in the social sciences (they are also widely used in most other sciences as well, including biology).

The first thinkers to attempt to combine scientific inquiry with the exploration of human relationships were Emile Durkheim in France and William James in the United States. Durkheim's sociological theories and James' work on experimental psychology had an enormous impact on those who followed.

One of the most persuasive advocates for the view of scientific treatment of philosophy is John Dewey (1859-1952). He began, as Marx did, in an attempt to weld Hegelian idealism and logic to experimental science, for example in his Psychology of 1887. However, it is when he abandoned Hegelian constructs and joined the movement in America called Pragmatism that he began to formulate his basic doctrine on the three phases of the process of inquiry:

  1. problematic situation, where the typical response is inadequate
  2. isolation of data or subject matter
  3. reflective, which is tested empirically

With the rise of the idea of quantitative measurement in the physical sciences (see, for example Lord Rutherford's famous maxim that any knowledge that one cannot measure numerically "is a poor sort of knowledge"), the stage was set for the division of the study of humanity into the humanities and the social sciences. Alongside these developments, Pragmatism facilitated the emergence of qualitative social science via the ethnographic and community-based endeavors of the Chicago School in the 1920's and 1930's. The combination of these quantitative and qualitative advancements thus established social science as an empirical endeavor distinct from the humanities.

Sociology in Today's world edit

Although sociology emerged from Auguste Comte's vision of a discipline that would subsume all other areas of scientific inquiry, that was not to be the future of sociology. Far from replacing the other sciences, sociology has taken its place as a particular perspective for investigating human social life. Sociology has been a multi-disciplinary subject since its founding.

In the past, sociological research focused on the organization of complex, industrial societies and their influence on individuals. Today, sociologists study a broad range of topics. For instance, some sociologists research macro-structures that organize society, such as race or ethnicity, social class, gender, and institutions such as the family. Other sociologists study social processes that represent the breakdown of macro-structures, including deviance, crime, and divorce. Additionally, some sociologists study micro-processes such as interpersonal interactions and the socialization of individuals. It should also be noted that recent sociologists, taking cues from anthropologists, have realized the Western emphasis of the discipline. In response, many sociology departments around the world are now encouraging multi-cultural research.

The next two chapters in this book will introduce the reader to more extensive discussions of the methods and theory employed in sociology. The remaining chapters are examinations of current areas of research in the discipline.

Additional Reading edit

Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berger, Peter. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective.

Berger, Peter. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor.

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Ed. by Charles W. Morris. University of Chicago Press.

House, James S. 1977. “The Three Faces of Social Psychology.” Sociometry 2: 161-177.

American Sociological Association

Discussion Questions edit

  • If "sociology is the study of human social life," what are some strange, interesting, or mysterious things that humans do together that sociology might help you understand?
  • In what ways might the insights and methods of sociology help you in your future career?
  • In what ways might the insights and methods of sociology help you in life?

References edit

  1. Moore, Kelly. 2008. Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945-1975. Princeton University Press.
  2. Putnam, Robert D. 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. 1st ed. Simon & Schuster.
  3. a b Mills, C. Wright. 2000. The Sociological Imagination. 40th ed. Oxford University Press, USA.
  4. Boyer, Pascal. 2002. Religion Explained. Basic Books.
  5. Tierney, John. 2008. “Appeasing the Gods, With Insurance.” The International Herald Tribune, May 7 (Accessed August 17, 2008).
  6. Berger, Peter L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. 1st ed. Anchor. ISBN 0385065299
  7. Weber, Max. 1997. The Theory Of Social And Economic Organization. Free Press.
  8. Dilthey, W. 1978. Descriptive Psychology and Historical Understanding. 1st ed. Springer.
  9. Glass, John E. 2005. “Visceral Verstehen.” Electronic Journal of Sociology.
  10. Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2007. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Third Edition. Sage Publications, Inc.
  11. Civettini, Nicole H. W., and Jennifer Glass. 2008. “The Impact of Religious Conservativism on Men's Work and Family Involvement.” Gender & Society 22:172-193.
  12. Loseke, Donileen R., and James C. Cavendish. 2001. “Producing Institutional Selves: Rhetorically Constructing the Dignity of Sexually Marginalized Catholics..” Social Psychology Quarterly 64:347-362.

External links edit

Sociological methods edit

Pat was confused. Choosing a college to attend was an important decision with life-long implications, but it was difficult to know which school was the right one to attend. They had applied to and been accepted by several schools, but now was the time to make a commitment. They sought out information from various sources to help make the choice but received different answers. Pat’s parents thought the best choice was to attend the school closest to their home. It was inexpensive and Pat could save money by living at home. Their best friend wanted both of them to attend the same school where they could be roommates, while Pat’s grandparents thought attending college at all was pretty much a waste of time and money.

In spite of these conflicts, Pat continued to think about the recommendations mentioned in an article written by a social scientist, who had carefully examined the life trajectories of large numbers of people who had graduated from various colleges across the U.S. Those recommendations were completely different from those made by friends and family. With all this different information, how could Pat make the right choice?

Introduction edit

The goal of this chapter is to introduce the methods employed by sociologists in their study of social life. This is not a chapter on statistics nor does it detail specific methods in sociological investigation. The primary aim is to illustrate how sociologists go beyond common sense understandings in trying to explain or understand social phenomena. Sociologists do not see the world as many people normally do; they question and analyze why things happen and if there is a way to stop a problem before it happens.

At issue in this chapter are the methods used by sociologists to claim to speak authoritatively about social life. There are dozens of different ways that human beings claim to acquire knowledge. A few common examples are:

Authority: Choosing to trust a source for information makes that source an authority in your life. Parents, friends, the media, religious leaders, your professor, books, or web pages are all examples of secondary sources of information that some people trust for information.

Experience: People often claim to have learned something through an experience, such as a car accident or using some type of drug. Some physical skills, such as water skiing or playing basketball, are acquired primarily through experience. On the other hand, some experiences are subjective and are not generalizable to all.

Logic: Simple deduction is often used to discern truth from falsity and is the primary way of knowing used in philosophy. Someone might suggest that if Person A falls into a swimming pool full of water, Person A will get wet. If that premise is true and Person A falls into a swimming pool, we can deduce that Person A got wet.

Tradition: Many people who live in societies that have not experienced industrialization decide what to do in the future by repeating what was done in the past. Even in modern societies, many people get satisfaction out of celebrating holidays the same way year after year. Fast-paced change in modern societies, however, makes traditional knowledge less and less helpful in making good choices.

Revelation: Some people claim to acquire knowledge believed to be valid by consulting religious texts and believing what is written in them, such as the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon. Others claim to receive revelations from a higher power in the form of voices or a general intuitive sense of what one should do.

Science: he scientific method combines the use of logic with controlled experience, creating a novel way of discovery that marries sensory input with careful thinking. By adopting a model of cause and effect, scientists produce knowledge that can explain certain phenomena and even predict various outcomes before they occur.

These methods of claiming to know certain things are referred to as epistemologies. An epistemology is simply a way of knowing. In Sociology, information gathered through science is privileged over all others. That is, information gleaned using other epistemologies will be rejected if it is not supported by evidence gathered using the scientific method.

The Scientific Method edit

A scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon verifiable evidence. In addition to employing the scientific method in research, sociologists explore the social world with several different purposes in mind. Like the natural sciences (i.e., chemistry, physics, etc.), sociologists can be and often are interested in predicting outcomes given knowledge of the variables and relationships involved. This approach to doing science is often termed positivism (though perhaps more accurately should be called empiricism). The positivist approach to social science seeks to explain and predict social phenomena, often employing a quantitative approach where aspects of social life are assigned numerical codes and subjected to in-depth analyses to uncover trends often missed by a casual observer. This approach most often makes use of deductive reasoning, which initially forms a theory and hypothesis, that are then subjected to empirical testing.

Unlike the physical sciences, sociology (and other social sciences, like anthropology) also often seek simply to understand social phenomena. Max Weber labeled this approach Verstehen, which is German for understanding. This approach, called qualitative sociology, aims to understand a culture or phenomenon on its own terms rather than trying to develop a theory that allows for prediction. Qualitative sociologists more frequently use inductive reasoning where an investigator will take time to make repeated observations of the phenomena under study, with the hope of coming to a thorough and grounded understanding of what is really going on.

Both approaches employ a scientific method as they make observations and gather data, propose hypotheses, and test or refine their hypotheses in the formulation of theories. These steps are outlined in more detail below.

Sociologists use observations, hypotheses, deductions, and inductions to understand and ultimately develop explanations for social phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. If not, the theory is modified or discarded. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. Science is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our natural and social worlds.

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations and recursions of the following four steps:

  1. Characterization (operationalization or quantification, observation and / or measurement)
  2. Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation of the observations and / or measurements)
  3. Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis or logical induction from the data)
  4. Testing (informing the validity of the hypothesis by comparing it against carefully gathered, meaningful sensory input)

Characterization edit

Scientific methods depend upon a careful characterization of the subject of the investigation. While seeking the pertinent properties of the subject, this careful thought may also entail some definitions and observations. The observation often demands careful categorization, measurement and/or counting.

The systematic, careful collection of measurements, counts or categorical distinctions of relevant quantities or qualities is often the critical difference between pseudo-sciences, such as alchemy, and a science, such as chemistry. Scientific measurements are usually tabulated, graphed, or mapped, and statistical manipulations, such as correlation and regression, performed on them. The measurements might be made in a controlled setting, such as a laboratory, or made on more or less inaccessible or non-manipulable objects such as human populations. The measurements often require specialized scientific instruments such as thermometers, spectroscopes, or voltmeters, and the progress of a scientific field is usually intimately tied to their invention and development. In the social sciences, these often take the form of scales or other measures (e.g., HDI, GDP, etc.) that can then be used by other scholars. In a similar fashion, categorical distinctions are often outlined, graphed and / or arranged in relation to the variation of qualities found within and between natural settings (mostly) free of manipulation. These categorical distinctions generally require specialized coding or sorting protocols that allow differential qualities to be sorted into distinct categories, which may be compared and contrasted over time, and the progress of scientific fields in this vein are generally tied to the accumulation of systematic categories and observations across multiple natural sites. In both cases, scientific progress relies upon ongoing intermingling between measurement and categorical approaches to data analysis.

Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of relevant quantities (a.k.a. operationalization). That is, a scientific concept is described or defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague, inexact or idealized definition. To operationalize a variable means creating a working definition for a concept someone intends to measure. The scientific definition of a term sometimes differs substantially from its natural language usage. For example, sex and gender are often used interchangeably in common discourse, but have distinct meanings in sociology. Scientific quantities are often characterized by their units of measure which can later be described in terms of conventional units when communicating the work while scientific categorizations are generally characterized by their shared qualities which can later be described in terms of conventional linguistic patterns of communication.

Measurements and categorizations in scientific work are also usually accompanied by estimates of their uncertainty or disclaimers concerning the scope of initial observations. The uncertainty is often estimated by making repeated measurements of the desired quantity. Uncertainties may also be calculated by consideration of the uncertainties of the individual underlying quantities that are used. Counts of things, such as the number of people in a nation at a particular time, may also have an uncertainty due to limitations of the method used. Counts may only represent a sample of desired quantities, with an uncertainty that depends upon the sampling method used and the number of samples taken (see the central limit theorem).

Hypothesis Development edit

A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of some phenomenon of interest, typically in a way that is testable. In quantitative work, it will generally provide a causal explanation or propose some association between two variables. If the hypothesis is a causal explanation, it will involve at least one dependent variable and one independent variable. In qualitative work, hypotheses generally involve potential assumptions built into existing causal statements.

Variables are measurable phenomena whose values or qualities can change (e.g., class status can range from lower- to upper-class). A dependent variable is a variable whose values or qualities are presumed to change as a result of the independent variable. In other words, the value or quality of a dependent variable depends on the value of the independent variable. Of course, this assumes that there is an actual relationship between the two variables. If there is no relationship, then the value or quality of the dependent variable does not depend on the value of the independent variable. An independent variable is a variable whose value or quality is manipulated by the experimenter (or, in the case of non-experimental analysis, changes in the society and is measured or observed systematically). An example may help clarify. In a study of the influence of gender (as a value) on promotion, the independent variable would be gender. Promotion would be the dependent variable. Change in promotion is hypothesized to be dependent on gender. Similarly, in a study of gender's relation to promotion, the independent variables are gender and promotion, and the dependent variable is the way people use, discuss, and / or make sense of both gender and promotion in their ongoing activities or narratives.

Scientists use whatever they can — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, deduction, systematic guessing, etc. — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. There are no definitive guidelines for the production of new hypotheses. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a flash of inspiration, or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support, refute, or refine their idea or develop an entirely new framework.

Prediction edit

A useful quantitative hypothesis will enable predictions, by deductive reasoning, that can be experimentally assessed. If results contradict the predictions, then the hypothesis under examination is incorrect or incomplete and requires either revision or abandonment. If results confirm the predictions, then the hypothesis might be correct but is still subject to further testing. Predictions refer to experimental designs with a currently unknown outcome. A prediction (of an unknown) differs from a consequence (which can already be known). On the other hand, a useful qualitative hypothesis will enable question or critique, by inductive reasoning, of existing and / or taken-for-granted beliefs, assumptions, and theories developed within or beyond scientific settings.

Testing edit

Once a prediction is made, a method is designed to test or critique it. The investigator may seek either confirmation or falsification of the hypothesis, and refinement or understanding of the data. Though a variety of methods are used by both natural and social scientists, laboratory experiments remain one of the most respected methods by which to test hypotheses.

Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and providing evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing the experimental results.

This is a diagram of the famous Milgram Experiment which explored obedience and authority in light of the crimes committed by the Nazis in World War II.

The experiment's integrity should be ascertained by the introduction of a control or by observation of existing controls in natural settings. In experiments where controls are observed rather than introduced, researchers take into account potential variables (e.g., the demographics of the sample and researchers as well as the behaviors of both groups) that could influence the findings without intention. On the other hand, in experiments where a control is introduced, two virtually identical experiments are run, in only one of which the factor being tested is varied. This serves to further isolate any causal phenomena. For example in testing a drug it is important to carefully test that the supposed effect of the drug is produced only by the drug. Doctors may do this with a double-blind study: two virtually identical groups of patients are compared, one of which receives the drug and one of which receives a placebo. Neither the patients nor the doctor know who is getting the real drug, isolating its effects. This type of experiment is often referred to as a true experiment because of its design. It is contrasted with alternative forms below.

Once an experiment is complete, a researcher determines whether the results (or data) gathered are what was predicted or assumed in the literature beforehand. If the experimental conclusions fail to match the predictions/hypothesis and / or existing scientific arguments, then one returns to the failed hypothesis and re-iterates the process - modifying one's theory or developing a new one - or attempts to publish the results as a suggestion for gaps in existing theories or findings. If the experiment appears successful (i.e. fits the hypothesis and existing scientific arguments) the experimenter often will attempt to publish the results so that others may reproduce the same experimental results, verifying the findings.

Of course, experiments are just one method. In observation-based fields of science, actual experiments must be designed differently than for the classical laboratory based sciences. Sociologists are more likely to employ quasi-experimental designs where data are collected from people by surveys or interviews, but statistical means are used to create groups that can be compared. For instance, in examining the effects of gender on promotions, sociologists may control for the effects of social class as this variable will likely influence the relationship. Unlike a true experiment where these variables are held constant in a laboratory setting, quantitative sociologists use statistical methods to hold constant social class (or, better stated, partial out the variance accounted for by social class) so they can see the relationship between gender and promotions without the interference of social class.

The four components of research described above are integrated into the following steps of the research process.

  1. Define the topic/problem: Identify your topic of interest and develop a research question in the form of a cause-and-effect or correlational association.
  2. Conduct a review of the literature: Access studies that have already been performed by other researchers and published in peer-reviewed journals. You'll find out what is already known about the topic and where more research is needed.
  3. Formulate a hypothesis: Refine your research question in a way that will add new information to the existing research literature, expressing it in the form of a testable research hypothesis. This includes identifying two or more variables and articulating how one variable is thought to influence the other.
  4. Design the research: Decide on a way to approach data collection that will provide a meaningful test of the hypothesis. Some designs include data collection at only one point in time, but more complex questions require data gathering over time and with different groups of people.
  5. Select a research method: Once a design has been established, one or more actual data gathering strategies will need to be identified. Each method comes with its own strengths and weaknesses, so sociologists are increasingly incorporating mixed-methods approaches in their research designs to enrich their knowledge of the topic. Some of the more popular research methods used by sociologists are: surveys or interviews, experiments, unobtrusive measures, and participant observation or field research
  6. Operationalize variables: Operationalizing means deciding exactly how each variable of interest will be measured. In survey research, this means deciding on the exact wording of the question or questions used to measure each variable, a listing of all possible responses to closed-ended questions, and a decision as to how to compute variables using multiple indicators.
  7. Identify the population and draw a sample: A population is the group a researcher is interested in learning about. Is it all students at one particular University? All residents of the United States? All nonprofit organizations in a particular city? Because it is frequently too expensive to try to collect data from all units in a population, a sample of those units is often selected. Samples that use principles of random selection, where every unit in the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample, have the best chance of reflecting the views and behaviors of the entire population of focus.
  8. Collect the data: Data collection must be systematic and rigorous so that procedural mistakes do not create artificial results.
  9. Analyze the results: Powerful statistical packages today make data analysis easier than it has ever been. Still, great care needs to be taken to accurately code the data (i.e. transpose responses into numbers), enter it into the computer, and to choose the appropriate statistics to be calculated for analysis.
  10. Reporting the Results: Research results are shared with the larger community through presentations, reports, and publications in peer-reviewed journals. This allows others to consider the findings, the methods used, and any limitations of the study.

Qualitative sociologists generally employ observational and analytic techniques that allow them to contextualize observed patterns in relation to existing hierarchies or assumptions within natural settings. Using an earlier example, qualitative sociologists examining the experience of gender and promotion may ascertain the existing beliefs about gender and about promotion by the people being studied, official documentation outlining the rules of promotion, or policies concerning gender within the setting, and variations in the ways people occupying different racial, classed, gendered, sexual, religious, or aged social locations interpret and make sense of both gender and promotion. Since variables (such as social class) cannot be "held constant" or "controlled for" in natural settings, qualitative sociologists explore the potential influence of these factors on actual behaviors in order to refine existing mathematical or experimental theories containing assumptions and controls unavailable beyond the laboratory or mathematical software. While the true experiment is ideally suited for the performance of quantitative science, especially because it is the best quantitative method for deriving causal relationships, other methods of hypothesis testing are commonly employed in the social sciences, and qualitative methods of critique and analysis are utilized to fact check the assumptions and theories created upon the basis of "controlled" (rather than natural) circumstances.

Evaluation and Iteration edit

The scientific process is iterative. At any stage it is possible that some consideration will lead the scientist to repeat an earlier part of the process. For instance, failure of a hypothesis to produce interesting and testable predictions may lead to reconsideration of the hypothesis or of the definition of the subject. Similarly, advances in qualitative research generally lead to reformulation of quantitative and experimental techniques and assumptions (this relationship also occurs regularly in the other direction where findings from quantitative studies direct qualitative attention to new areas and / or potential relationships).

It is also important to note that science is a social enterprise, and scientific work will become accepted by the community only if it can be verified and it "makes sense" within existing scientific beliefs and assumptions about the world. When new findings complicate these assumptions and beliefs, we generally witness paradigm shifts in science[1]. Crucially, experimental and quantitative results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community while qualitative studies are designed to complicate, advance, or call into question these results. All scientific knowledge is in a state of flux, for at any time new evidence could be presented that contradicts a long-held hypothesis, and new perspectives (e.g., the entrance of minority communities into the academy in the past 50 years) may emerge that call existing scientific techniques, assumptions, and beliefs into question. For this reason, scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists' manuscripts are submitted by editors of scientific journals to (usually one to three) fellow (usually anonymous) scientists familiar with the field for evaluation. The referees may or may not recommend publication, publication with suggested modifications, or, sometimes, publication in another journal. This serves to keep the scientific literature free of unscientific work, helps to cut down on obvious errors, and generally otherwise improves the quality and consistency of the scientific literature, but may also lead to the silencing or delay of new or controversial scientific findings.[2] Work announced in the popular press before going through this process is generally frowned upon. Sometimes peer review inhibits the circulation of unorthodox work, and at other times may be too permissive. The peer review process is not always successful, but has been very widely adopted by the scientific community.

The reproducibility or replication of quantitative scientific observations, while usually described as being very important in a scientific method, is actually seldom reported, and is in reality often not done. Referees and editors often reject papers purporting only to reproduce some observations as being unoriginal and not containing anything new. Occasionally reports of a failure to reproduce results are published - mostly in cases where controversy exists or a suspicion of fraud develops.[3] The threat of failure to replicate by others (as well as the ongoing qualitative enterprise designed to explore the veracity of quantitative findings in non-controlled settings), however, serves as a very effective deterrent for most quantitative scientists, who will usually replicate their own data several times before attempting to publish.

Sometimes useful observations or phenomena themselves cannot be reproduced (in fact, this is almost always the case in qualitative science spanning physical and social science disciplines). They may be rare, or even unique events. Reproducibility of quantitative observations and replication of experiments is not a guarantee that they are correct or properly understood. Errors can all too often creep into more than one laboratory or pattern of interpretation (mathematical or qualitative) utilized by scientists. As a result, science itself is an ongoing dialogue and debate wherein each finding (new or old) is continuously subject to new testing and / or critique.

Correlation and Causation edit

This diagram illustrates the difference between correlation and causation, as ice cream consumption is correlated with crime, but both are dependent on temperature. Thus, the correlation between ice cream consumption and crime is spurious.

In the scientific pursuit of quantitative prediction and explanation, two relationships between variables are often confused: correlation and causation. While these terms are rarely used in qualitative science, they lie at the heart of quantitative methods, and thus constitute a cornerstone of scientific practice. Correlation refers to a linear association between two (or more) variables in which they change together. A correlation can be positive/direct or negative/inverse. A positive correlation means that as one variable increases (e.g., ice cream consumption) the other variable also increases (e.g., crime). A negative correlation is just the opposite; as one variable increases (e.g., socioeconomic status), the other variable decreases (e.g., infant mortality rates).

Causation refers to a relationship between two (or more) variables where one variable causes the other. In order for a variable to cause another, it must meet the following three criteria:

  • the variables must be correlated
  • change in the independent variable must precede change in the dependent variable in time
  • it must be shown that a different (third) variable is not causing the change in the two variables of interest (a.k.a., spurious correlation)

An example may help explain the difference. Ice cream consumption is positively correlated with incidents of crime.

Employing the quantitative method outlined above, the reader should immediately question this relationship and attempt to discover an explanation. It is at this point that a simple yet noteworthy phrase should be introduced: correlation is not causation. If you look back at the three criteria of causation above, you will notice that the relationship between ice cream consumption and crime meets only one of the three criteria (they change together). The real explanation of this relationship is the introduction of a third variable: temperature. Ice cream consumption and crime increase during the summer months. Thus, while these two variables are correlated, ice cream consumption does not cause crime or vice versa. Both variables increase due to the increasing temperatures during the summer months.

It is important to not confound a correlation with a cause/effect relationship. It is often the case that correlations between variables are found but the relationship turns out to be spurious. Clearly understanding the relationship between variables is an important element of the quantitative scientific process.

Quantitative and Qualitative edit

Like the distinction drawn between positivist sociology and Verstehen sociology, there is - as noted above in the elaboration of general scientific methods - often a distinction drawn between two types of sociological investigation: quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative methods of sociological research approach social phenomena from the perspective that they can be measured and/or quantified. For instance, social class, following the quantitative approach, can be divided into different groups - upper-, middle-, and lower-class - and can be measured using any of a number of variables or a combination thereof: income, educational attainment, prestige, power, etc. Quantitative sociologists also utilize mathematical models capable of organizing social experiences into a rational order that may provide a necessary foundation for more in depth analyses of the natural world. Quantitative sociologists tend to use specific methods of data collection and hypothesis testing, including: experimental designs, surveys, secondary data analysis, and statistical analysis. Further, quantitative sociologists typically believe in the possibility of scientifically demonstrating causation, and typically utilize analytic deduction (e.g., explore existing findings and deduce potential hypotheses that may be tested in new data). Finally, quantitative sociologists generally attempt to utilize mathematical realities (i.e., assumptions embedded within statistical practices) to make sense of natural (i.e., the experiences of people) realities.

Qualitative methods of sociological research tend to approach social phenomena from the Verstehen perspective. Rather than attempting to measure or quantify reality via mathematical rules, qualitative sociologists explore variation in the natural world people may see, touch, and experience during their lives. These methods are primarily used to (a) develop a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon, (b) explore the accuracy or inaccuracy of mathematical models in the world people experience, (c) critique and question the existing assumptions and beliefs of both scientists and other social beings, and (d) refine measurements and controls used by quantitative scientists via insights gleaned from the experiences of people. While qualitative methods may be used to propose or explore relationships between variables, these studies typically focus on explicating the realities people experience that lie at the heart or foundation of such relationships rather than focusing on the relationships themselves. Qualitatively oriented sociologists tend to employ different methods of data collection and analysis, including: participant observation, interviews, focus groups, content analysis, visual sociology, and historical comparison. Some qualitative sociologists reject measurement or quantities and the notion of causality. Finally, qualitative sociologists generally attempt to utilize the perspectives of people to make sense of the social world.

While there are sociologists who employ and encourage the use of only one or the other method, many sociologists see benefits in combining the approaches. They view quantitative and qualitative approaches as complementary. Results from one approach can fill gaps in the other approach. For example, quantitative methods could describe large or general patterns in society while qualitative approaches could help to explain how individuals understand those patterns. Similarly, qualitative patterns in society can reveal missing pieces in the mathematical models of quantitative research while quantitative patterns in society can guide more in-depth analysis of actual patterns in natural settings. In fact, it is useful to note that many of the major advancements in social science have emerged in response to the combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques that collectively created a more systematic picture of probable and actual social conditions and experiences.

Objective vs. Critical vs. Subjective edit

Sociologists, like all humans, have values, beliefs, and even pre-conceived notions of what they might find in doing their research. Because sociologists are not immune to the desire to change the world, two approaches to sociological investigation have emerged. By far the most common is the objective approach advocated by Max Weber. Weber recognized that social scientists have opinions, but argued against the expression of non-professional or non-scientific opinions in the classroom.[4] Weber took this position for several reasons, but the primary one outlined in his discussion of Science as Vocation is that he believed it is not right for a person in a position of authority (a professor) to force their students to accept their opinions in order for them to pass the class. Weber did argue that it was acceptable for social scientists to express their opinions outside of the classroom and advocated for social scientists to be involved in politics and other social activism. The objective approach to social science remains popular in sociological research and refereed journals because it refuses to engage social issues at the level of opinions and instead focuses intently on data and theories.

The objective approach is contrasted with the critical approach, which has its roots in Karl Marx's work on economic structures. Marx argued that it is not enough to understand society; the goal is to change it. He disliked capitalism and his analysis of that economic system included a call for change. This approach to sociology is often referred to today as critical sociology (see also action research). Some sociological journals focus on critical sociology and some sociological approaches are inherently critical (e.g., feminist sociology).

Drawing on early feminist writings by social advocates like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Ida Wells Barnett, Betty Friedan, and sociological theorists such as Dorothy Smith, Joan Acker, and Patricia Yancey Martin, feminist sociologists critiqued "objective" traditions as unrealistic and unscientific in practice. Specifically, they - along with critical theorists like Michel Foucault, bell hooks, and Patricia Hill Collins - argued that since all science was conducted and all data was interpreted by human beings and all human beings have beliefs, values, and biases that they are often unaware of and that shape their perception of reality (see The Social Construction of Reality), objectivity only existed within the beliefs and values of the people that claimed it. These theorists argued that the "personal is political" (e.g., our personal decisions - no matter how small - are ultimately influenced by the political context of our lives and will shape the personal and political realities of others whether or not we are aware of these consequences). As a result, every scientist - regardless of their intentions or awareness - may seek to follow Weber's advice concerning objective teaching and research, but must also remain aware that they will ultimately fail to achieve this ideal. Whether or not scientists explicitly invoke their personal opinions in their teaching and research, every decision scientists make will, at some level, rely upon their subjective realities.

Although the recognition of all science as ultimately subjective to varying degrees is fairly well established at this point, the question of whether or not scientists should embrace this subjectivity remains an open one (e.g., to be or not to be political in classrooms and research projects). Further, there are many scientists (in sociology and other sciences) who support the idea that scholars should attempt to be as objective as possible, and promote this ideal in their teaching, research, and peer review. As a result, the debate within the field continues without resolution, and will likely be an important part of scientific knowledge and scholarship for some time to come.

Ethics edit

Ethical considerations are of particular importance to sociologists because of the subject of investigation - people. Because ethical considerations are of so much importance, sociologists adhere to a rigorous set of ethical guidelines. The most important ethical consideration of sociological research is that participants in sociological investigation are not harmed. While exactly what this entails can vary from study to study, there are several universally recognized considerations. For instance, research on children and youth always requires parental consent. Research on adults also requires informed consent and participants are never forced to participate. Confidentiality and anonymity are two additional practices that ensure the safety of participants when sensitive information is provided (e.g., sexuality, income, etc.). To ensure the safety of participants, most universities maintain an institutional review board (IRB) that reviews studies that include human participants and ensures ethical rigor.

It has not always been the case that scientists interested in studying humans have followed ethical principles in their research. Several studies that, when brought to light, led to the introduction of ethical principles guiding human subjects research and Institutional Review Boards to ensure compliance with those principles, are worth noting, including the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, in which 399 impoverished black men with syphilis were left untreated to track the progress of the disease and Nazi experimentation on humans. A recent paper by Susan M. Reverby [5] found that such unethical experiments were more widespread than just the widely known Tuskegee study and that the US Government funded a study in which thousands of Guatemalan prisoners were infected with syphilis to determine whether they could be cured with penicillin. Ethical oversight in science is designed to prevent such egregious violations of human rights today.

Sociologists also have professional ethical principles they follow. Honesty in research, analysis, and publication is important Sociologists who manipulate their data are ostracized and can have their memberships in professional organizations revoked. Conflicts of interest are also frowned upon. A conflict of interest can occur when a sociologist is given funding to conduct research on an issue that relates to the source of the funds. For example, if Microsoft were to fund a sociologist to investigate whether users of Microsoft's product users are happier than users of open source software (e.g., Linux, LibreOffice), the sociologist would need to disclose the source of the funding as it presents a significant conflict of interest. Unfortunately, this does not always happen, as several high profile cases illustrate (e.g., the Regnerus Affair). But the disclosure of conflicts of interest is recommended by most professional organizations and many academic journals. A comprehensive explanation of sociological guidelines is provided on the website of the American Sociological Association.

What Can Sociology Tell Us? edit

Having discussed the sociological approach to understanding society, it is worth noting the limitations of sociology. Because of the subject of investigation (society), sociology runs into a number of problems that have significant implications for this field of inquiry:

  • human behavior is complex, making prediction - especially at the individual level - difficult or even impossible
  • the presence of researchers can affect the phenomenon being studied (Hawthorne Effect)
  • society is constantly changing, making it difficult for sociologists to maintain current understandings; in fact, society might even change as a result of sociological investigation (for instance, sociologists testified in the Brown v. Board of Education decision to integrate schools)
  • it is difficult for sociologists to strive for objectivity and handle the subjective components of scientific practice - especially when the phenomena they study is also part of their social life

While it is important to recognize the limitations of sociology, sociology's contributions to our understanding of society have been significant and continue to provide useful theories and tools for understanding humans as social beings.

Additional Reading edit

Blackstone, Amy. Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.

Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research, 10th edition, Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., ISBN 0-534-62029-9

Glenn Firebaugh, Seven Rules for Social Research, Princeton University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-691-13567-0

W. Lawrence Neuman, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 6th edition, Allyn & Bacon, 2006, ISBN 0-205-45793-2

Kleinman, Sherryl. 2007. Feminist Fieldwork Analysis. Sage Publications, Inc.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: a Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Bruce Berg. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 7th edition.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

see also chapter on Sociological Practice additional reading

Discussion Questions edit

  • Why is human behavior hard to study?
  • Is sociology a science like the natural sciences (e.g., biology, physics, chemistry)? How?
  • What are the limitations of sociological inquiry?
  • How does sociological inquiry move beyond common sense?

References edit

  1. Kuhn, Thomas S. 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 50th Anniversary, 4th Edition. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
  2. Moghissi, A. Alan. 2010. “Peer Review and Scientific Assessment.” Technology & Innovation 12:187-188.
  3. Moody, James W., Lisa A. Keister, and Maria C. Ramos. 2022. “Reproducibility in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 48:65–85. doi:
  4. Weber, Max. 1946. Science As Vocation. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, Editors and Translators. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press; pp. 129-156.
  5. Reverby, Susan M. 2011. "Normal Exposure" and Inoculation Syphilis: A PHS "Tuskegee" Doctor in Guatemala, 1946-48. Journal of Policy History.

External links edit

General sociological theory edit

Introduction edit

Sociologists develop theories to explain social phenomena. A theory is a proposed relationship between two or more concepts. In other words, a theory is an explanation for why or how a phenomenon occurs. An example of a sociological theory is the work of Robert Putnam on the decline of civic engagement.[1] Putnam found that Americans' involvement in civic life (e.g., community organizations, clubs, voting, religious participation, etc.) has declined over the last 40 to 60 years. While there are a number of factors that contribute to this decline (Putnam's theory is quite complex), one of the prominent factors is the increased consumption of television as a form entertainment. Putnam's theory proposes:

The more television people watch, the lower their involvement in civic life will be.

This element of Putnam's theory clearly illustrates the basic purpose of sociological theory: it proposes a relationship between two or more concepts. In this case, the concepts are civic engagement and television watching. The relationship is an inverse one - as one goes up, the other goes down. What's more, it is an explanation of one phenomenon with another: part of the reason why civic engagement has declined over the last several decades is because people are watching more television.

Sociological theory is developed at multiple levels, ranging from grand theory to highly contextualized and specific micro-range theories. There are many middle-range and micro-range theories in sociology. Because such theories are dependent on context and specific to certain situations, it is beyond the scope of this text to explore each of those theories. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce some of the more well-known and most commonly used grand and middle-range theories in sociology.

Importance of Theory edit

In the theory proposed above, the astute reader will notice that the theory includes two components: The data, in this case the findings that civic engagement has declined and TV watching has increased, and the proposed relationship, that the increase in television viewing has contributed to the decline in civic engagement. Data alone are not particularly informative. If Putnam had not proposed a relationship between the two elements of social life, we may not have realized that television viewing does, in fact, reduce people's desire to participate in and their time dedicated to civic life. In order to understand the social world around us, it is necessary to employ theory to draw the connections between seemingly disparate concepts.

Another example of sociological theorizing illustrates this point. In his now classic work, Suicide,[2] Emile Durkheim was interested in explaining a social phenomenon, suicide, and employed both data and theory to offer an explanation. By aggregating data for large groups of people in Europe, Durkheim was able to discern patterns in suicide rates and connect those patterns with another concept (or variable): religious affiliation. Durkheim found that Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than were Catholics. At this point, Durkheim's analysis was still in the data stage; he had not proposed an explanation for the different suicide rates of the two groups. It was when Durkheim introduced the ideas of anomie and social solidarity that he began to explain the difference in suicide rates. Durkheim argued that the looser social ties found in Protestant religions lead to weaker social cohesion and reduced social solidarity. The higher suicide rates were the result of weakened social bonds among Protestants.

While Durkheim's findings have since been criticized, his study is a classic example of the use of theory to explain the relationship between two concepts. Durkheim's work also illustrates the importance of theory: without theories to explain the relationship between concepts, we would not be able to hypothesize cause and effect relationships in social life or outline processes whereby social events and patterns occur. Proposing cause and effect relationships or outlining processes in social experience are the major components of sociological theory.

Prominent Sociological Theories edit

As noted above, there are many theories in sociology. However, there are several broad theoretical perspectives that are prominent in the field (they are arguably paradigms). These theories are prominent because they are quite good at explaining social life. They are not without their problems, but these theories remain widely used and cited precisely because they have withstood a great deal of criticism.

As the dominant theories in sociology are discussed below, you might be inclined to ask, "Which of these theories is the best?" As is often the case in sociology (and in other scientific disciplines), just because things are different doesn't mean one is better than another. In fact, it is probably more useful and informative to view these theories as complementary. One theory may explain one element of society better than another. Or, both may be useful for explaining social life. In short, all of the theories are correct in the sense that they offer compelling explanations for social phenomena.

Structural-Functionalism edit

Structural-Functionalism is a sociological theory that originally attempted to explain social institutions as collective means to meet individual biological needs (originally just functionalism). Later it came to focus on the ways social institutions meet social needs (structural-functionalism).

Structural-functionalism draws its inspiration primarily from the ideas of Emile Durkheim.[3] Durkheim was concerned with the question of how societies maintain internal stability and survive over time. He sought to explain social cohesion and stability through the concept of solidarity. In more "primitive" societies it was mechanical solidarity, everyone performing similar tasks, that held society together. Durkheim proposed that such societies tend to be segmented, being composed of equivalent parts that are held together by shared values, common symbols, or systems of exchanges. In modern, complex societies members perform very different tasks, resulting in a strong interdependence between individuals. Based on the metaphor of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole, Durkheim argued that modern complex societies are held together by organic solidarity (think interdependent organs).

The central concern of structural-functionalism is a continuation of the Durkheimian task of explaining the apparent stability and internal cohesion of societies that are necessary to ensure their continued existence over time. Many functionalists argue that social institutions are functionally integrated to form a stable system and that a change in one institution will precipitate a change in other institutions. Societies are seen as coherent, bounded and fundamentally relational constructs that function like organisms, with their various parts (social institutions) working together to maintain and reproduce them. The various parts of society are assumed to work in an unconscious, quasi-automatic fashion towards the maintenance of the overall social equilibrium. All social and cultural phenomena are therefore seen as being functional in the sense of working together to achieve this state and are effectively deemed to have a life of their own. These components are then primarily analyzed in terms of the function they play. In other words, to understand a component of society, one can ask the question, "What is the function of this institution?" A function, in this sense, is the contribution made by a phenomenon to a larger system of which the phenomenon is a part.[4]

Thus, one can ask of education, "What is the function of education for society?" The answer is actually quite complex and requires a detailed analysis of the history of education, but one obvious answer is that education prepares individuals to enter the workforce.[5][6] By delineating the functions of elements of society, of the social structure, we can better understand social life.

Durkheim's strongly sociological perspective of society was continued by Radcliffe-Brown.[7] Following Auguste Comte, Radcliffe-Brown believed that the social constituted a separate level of reality distinct from both the biological and the inorganic (here non-living). Explanations of social phenomena therefore had to be constructed within this social level, with individuals merely being transient occupants of comparatively stable social roles. Thus, in structural-functionalist thought, individuals are not significant in and of themselves but only in terms of their social status: their position in patterns of social relations. The social structure is therefore a network of statuses connected by associated roles.[8]

Structural-functionalism was the dominant perspective of sociology between World War II and the Vietnam War.

Limitations edit

Structural-functionalism has been criticized for being unable to account for social change because it focuses so intently on social order and equilibrium in society. For instance, in the late 19th Century, higher education transitioned from a training center for clergy and the elite to a center for the conduct of science and the general education of the masses.[5][6] In other words, education did not always serve the function of preparing individuals for the labor force (with the exception of the ministry and the elite). As structural-functionalism thinks about elements of social life in relation to their present function and not their past functions, structural-functionalism has a difficult time explaining why a function of some element of society might change or how such change occurs. However, structural-functionalism could, in fact, offer an explanation in this case. Also occurring in the 19th Century (though it began in the 18th) was the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution, facilitated by capitalism, was increasingly demanding technological advances to increase profit. Technological advances and advanced industry both required more educated work forces. Thus, as one aspect of society changed - the economy and production - it required a comparable change in the educational system, bringing social life back into equilibrium.

Another philosophical problem with the structural-functional approach is the tautological argument that society does not have needs as a human being does; and even if society does have needs they need not be met. The idea that society has needs like humans do is not a tenable position because society is only alive in the sense that it is made up of living individuals.Thus, society cannot have wants or needs like humans do. What's more, just because a society has some element in it at the present that does not mean that it must necessarily have that element. For instance, in the United Kingdom, religious service attendance has declined precipitously over the last 100 years. Today, less than 1 in 10 British individuals attend religious services in a given week.[9] While one might argue that religion has certain functions in British society, it is becoming apparent that it is not necessary for British society to function.

Another criticism often leveled at structural-functionalist theory is that it supports the status quo. According to some critics, structural-functionalism paints conflict and challenge to the status quo as harmful to society, and therefore tends to be the prominent view among conservative thinkers.

Manifest and Latent Functions edit

Robert K. Merton (1957) proposed a distinction between manifest and latent functions.[10] Manifest functions are the intended functions of a phenomenon in a social system. Latent functions are the unintended functions of a phenomenon in a social system. An example of manifest and latent functions is education. The manifest purpose of public education is to increase the knowledge and abilities of the citizenry to prepare them to contribute in the workforce. A latent function of the education system is to function as a gatekeeper, preventing some people from earning degrees. Thus, while education's manifest function is to empower all individuals to contribute to the workforce and society, it also limits some people by creating boundaries of entry into occupations.

Conflict Theory edit

A prominent sociological theory that is often contrasted with structural-functionalism is conflict theory. Karl Marx is considered the father of conflict theory. Conflict theory argues that society is not best understood as a complex system striving for equilibrium but rather as a competition. Society is made up of individuals competing for limited resources (e.g., money, leisure, sexual partners, etc.). Broader social structures and organizations (e.g., religions, government, etc.) reflect the competition for resources in their inherent inequalities; some people and organizations have more resources (i.e., power and influence) and use those resources to maintain their positions of power in society.

Conflict theory was developed in part to illustrate the limitations of structural-functionalism. The structural-functionalist approach argued that society tends toward equilibrium, focusing on stability at the expense of social change. This is contrasted with the conflict approach, which argues that society is constantly in conflict over resources. One of the primary contributions conflict theory presents over the structural-functional approach is that it is ideally suited for explaining social change, a significant problem in the structural-functional approach.

The following are three primary assumptions of modern conflict theory:

  • Competition over scarce resources is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition rather than consensus is characteristic of human relationships.
  • Inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures. Individuals and groups that benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained.
  • Change occurs as a result of conflict between competing interests rather than through adaptation. Change is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

A heuristic device to help you think about society from a conflict perspective is to ask, "Who benefits from this element of society?" Using the same example as we did above, we can ask, "Who benefits from the current higher educational system in the U.S.?" The answer, of course, is the wealthy. Why? Because higher education in the U.S. is not free. Thus, the educational system often screens out poorer individuals not because they are unable to compete academically but because they cannot afford to pay for their education. Because the poor are unable to obtain higher education, this means they are also generally unable to get higher paying jobs which means they remain poor. This can easily translate into a vicious cycle of poverty. Thus, while the function of education is to educate the workforce, it also has built into it an element of conflict and inequality, favoring one group (the wealthy) over other groups (the poor). Thinking about education this way helps illustrate why both structural-functionalist and conflict theories are helpful in understanding how society works.

Conflict theory was elaborated in the United Kingdom by Max Gluckman and John Rex, in the United States by Lewis A. Coser and Randall Collins, and in Germany by Ralf Dahrendorf, all of whom were influenced by Karl Marx, Ludwig Gumplovicz, Vilfredo Pareto, Georg Simmel, and other founders of European sociology.

Limitations edit

Not surprisingly, the primary limitation of the social-conflict perspective is that it overlooks the stability of societies. While societies are in a constant state of change, much of the change is minor. Many of the broader elements of societies remain remarkably stable over time, indicating the structural-functional perspective has a great deal of merit.

As noted above, sociological theory is often complementary. This is particularly true of structural-functionalism and social-conflict theories. Structural-functionalism focuses on equilibrium and solidarity; conflict-theory focuses on change and conflict. Keep in mind that neither is better than the other; when combined, the two approaches offer a broader and more comprehensive view of society.

Symbolic Interactionism edit

In contrast to the rather broad approach toward society of structural-functionalism and conflict theory, Symbolic Interactionism is a theoretical approach to understanding the relationship between humans and society. The basic notion of symbolic interactionism is that human action and interaction are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful communication or symbols. In this approach, humans are portrayed as acting as opposed to being acted upon.[11]

The main principles of symbolic interactionism are:[12]

  1. human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings those things have for them
  2. these meanings arise from ongoing processes of social interaction and interpretation
  3. social action results from a "joint action", or the fitting together of individual lines of action

This approach stands in contrast to the strict behaviorism of psychological theories prevalent at the time it was first formulated (in the 1920s and 1930s). According to Symbolic Interactionism, humans are distinct from other animals because non-human animals simply respond to their environment (i.e., a stimulus evokes a response or stimulus -> response) whereas humans have the ability to interrupt that process (i.e., stimulus -> cognition -> response). Additionally, non-human animals are unable to conceive of alternative responses to gestures. Humans can. This understanding should not be taken to indicate that humans never behave in a strict stimulus -> response fashion, but rather that humans have the capability of not responding in that fashion (and do so much of the time).

This drawing illustrates the idea of the "looking-glass self" by illustrating that we can internalize how other people view us and then reflect upon those external appraisals without having to actually converse with others.

This perspective is also rooted in phenomenological thought (see social constructionism and phenomenology). According to symbolic interactionism, the objective world has no reality for humans, only subjectively-defined objects have meaning. Meanings are not entities that are bestowed on humans and learned by habituation. Instead, meanings can be altered through the creative capabilities of humans, and individuals may influence the many meanings that form their society.[11] Human society, therefore, is a social product.

Neurological evidence based on EEGs supports the idea that humans have a "social brain," that is, there are components of the human brain that govern social interaction.[13] These parts of the brain begin developing in early childhood (the preschool years) and aid humans in understanding how other people think.[13] In symbolic interactionism, this is known as "reflected appraisals" or "the looking glass self" and refers to our ability to think about how other people will think about us. A good example of this is when people try on clothes before going out with friends. Some people may not think much about how others will think about their clothing choices, but others can spend quite a bit of time considering what they are going to wear. And while they are deciding, the dialogue that is taking place inside their mind is usually a dialogue between their "self" (that portion of their identity that calls itself "I") and that person's internalized understanding of their friends and society (a "generalized other" called the "me"). An indicator of mature socialization is when an individual quite accurately predicts how other people think about them. Such an individual has incorporated the "social" into the "self" and will thus experience the world through an ongoing internal communication process that seeks to determine "if I do this, what will be thought of me."

It should also be noted that symbolic interactionists advocate a particular methodology. Because they see meaning as the fundamental component of human and society interaction, studying human and society interaction requires getting at that meaning. Thus, symbolic interaction tends to take two distinct, but related methodological paths. Processual Symbolic Interaction seeks to uncover the elaboration and experience of meanings in natural settings of social interaction through primarily qualitative methods (e.g., examining the process whereby people become and signify selves) while Structural Symbolic Interaction seeks to map the contours of the self through primarily quantitative methods (e.g., examining the structure of the self by asking who people believe themselves and others to be).

Symbolic Interaction arose through the integration of Structural Functionalism and Conflict Theories. Specifically, Symbolic Interaction seeks to uncover the ways "meanings" are deployed within interactions and embedded within larger social structures to facilitate social cohesion (Structural Functionalism) and social change (Conflict Theories). To use the case above, Symbolic Interaction may be used to explain the distinction between Conflict and Structural Functionalist approaches to education. If people act toward education based on the meaning they hold of it, then people that believe that education serves an important function for all of society (e.g., Structural Functionalism) will be hesitant to change this social structure. On the other hand, if people believe that education transmits social inequalities from generation to generation (e.g., Conflict Theory), then they will be more likely to attempt to change this structure over time. In either case, societies (and the people that form them) will move towards cohesion (Structural Functionalism) or conflict (Conflict Theory) concerning educational structures based upon the meanings these people have for the current educational structure. Symbolic Interaction thus often focuses on elaborating the multitude of ways that micro patterns of interaction and interpretation justify, sustain, or change large scale social structures and patterns of activity within the world.

Central to Symbolic Interaction is the notion that selves and societies exist in an ongoing reciprocal relationship wherein each acts back upon the other. Stated another way, Symbolic Interactionism argues that people become selves by learning and internalizing the symbolic materials of the social and historical context and culture they are born into and raised within (e.g., the individual is formed by the society), and then act back upon and alter societies (e.g., norms, cultures and structures) by deploying the symbolic resources at their disposal throughout the course of their ongoing lives (e.g., the society is formed by the joint action of individuals). As a result, Symbolic Interactionists argue against the division of society into micro, meso, and macro forms, and instead focus on the ways that interconnected people continuously construct, alter, signify, and affirm themselves and others in ways that create, sustain, and change existing social structures. They thus argue that society is always an ongoing information exchange between individuals, groups, and social structures that each depend on the other for their meaning and by extension their existence and survival.

Limitations edit

The most significant limitations of symbolic interactionism relate to its primary contribution: it focuses on the ongoing construction and contestation of meanings in society (e.g., norms, rules, cultures, and interpersonal experiences), which can only be grasped via examination of small groups or individual beings. As a result, Symbolic Interactionism typically focuses on "how" things are done rather than "why" things are done. As a result, Symbolic Interaction is more adequately suited to explaining how the world is, but is unable to demonstrate and document predictions about how the world might differ, if circumstances were hypothetically altered.

Role Theory edit

Another more micro-oriented approach to understanding social life that also incorporates the more structural elements of society is Role Theory.[14] Role theory emerged from the integration of Structural and Processual Symbolic Interactionist insights, and often draws heavily upon both of these theoretical traditions (see also dramaturgy). Role theory posits that human behavior is guided by expectations held both by the individual and by other people. The expectations correspond to different roles individuals perform or enact in their daily lives, such as secretary, father, or friend. For instance, most people hold preconceived notions of the role expectations of a secretary, which might include: answering phones, making and managing appointments, filing paperwork, and typing memos. These role expectations would not be expected of a professional soccer player.

Individuals generally have and manage many roles. Roles consist of a set of rules or norms that function as plans or blueprints to guide behavior. Roles specify what goals should be pursued, what tasks must be accomplished, and what performances are required in a given scenario or situation. Role theory holds that a substantial proportion of observable, day-to-day social behavior is simply persons carrying out their roles, much as actors carry out their roles on the stage or ballplayers theirs on the field. Role theory is, in fact, predictive. It implies that if we have information about the role expectations for a specified status (e.g., sister, fireman, prostitute), a significant portion of the behavior of the persons occupying that position can be predicted.

What's more, role theory also argues that in order to change behavior it is necessary to change roles; roles correspond to behaviors and vice versa. In addition to heavily influencing behavior, roles influence beliefs and attitudes; individuals will change their beliefs and attitudes to correspond with their roles. For instance, someone over-looked for a promotion to a managerial position in a company may change their beliefs about the benefits of management by convincing themself that they didn't want the additional responsibility that would have accompanied the position.

Many role theorists see Role Theory as one of the most compelling theories bridging individual behavior and social structure. Roles, which are in part dictated by social structure and in part by social interactions, guide the behavior of the individual. The individual, in turn, influences the norms, expectations, and behaviors associated with roles. The understanding is reciprocal.

Role Theory includes the following propositions:

  1. people spend much of their lives as members of groups and organizations
  2. within these groups, people occupy distinct positions
  3. each of these positions entails a role, which is a set of functions performed by the person for the group
  4. groups often formalize role expectations as norms or even codified rules, which include what rewards will result when roles are successfully performed and what punishments will result when roles are not successfully performed
  5. individuals usually carry out their roles and perform in accordance with prevailing norms; in other words, role theory assumes that people are primarily conformists who try to live up to the norms that accompany their roles
  6. group members check each individual's performance to determine whether it conforms with the norms; the anticipation that others will apply sanctions ensures role performance

Limitations edit

Role theory has a hard time explaining social deviance when it does not correspond to a pre-specified role. For instance, the behavior of someone who adopts the role of bank robber can be predicted - they will rob banks. But if a bank teller simply begins handing out cash to random people, role theory would be unable to explain why (though role conflict could be one possible answer; the bank teller may also be a Marxist-Communist who believes the means of production should belong to the masses and not the bourgeoisie).

Another limitation of role theory is that it does not and cannot explain how role expectations came to be what they are. Role theory has no explanation for why it is expected of male soldiers to cut their hair short, but it could predict with a high degree of accuracy that if someone is a male soldier they will have short hair. Additionally, role theory does not explain when and how role expectations change. As a result, role theorists typically draw upon insights from Symbolic Interaction Theory and Historical Comparative analyses to address these questions.

Impression Management edit

An extension of role theory, impression management is both a theory and process. The theory argues that people are constantly engaged in controlling how others perceive them. The process refers to the goal-directed conscious or unconscious effort to influence the perceptions of other people by regulating and controlling information in social interaction.[15] If a person tries to influence the perception of her or his own image, this activity is called self-presentation.

Erving Goffman (1959), the person most often credited with formally developing impression management theory, cast the idea in a dramaturgical framework.[16][17] The basic idea is that individuals in face-to-face situations are like actors on a stage performing roles (see role theory above). Aware of how they are being perceived by their audience, actors manage their behavior so as to create specific impressions in the minds of the audience. Strategic interpersonal behavior to shape or influence impressions formed by an audience is not a new idea. Plato spoke of the "great stage of human life" and Shakespeare noted that "All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players".

Social Constructionism edit

Social constructionism is a school of thought introduced into sociology by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann with their 1966 book The Social Construction of Reality.[18] Drawing on Symbolic Interactionist insights about the ongoing production and affirmation of meaning, social constructionism aims to discover the ways that individuals and groups create their perceived reality. Social constructionism focuses on the description of institutions and actions and not on analyzing cause and effect. Socially constructed reality is seen as an on-going dynamic process; reality is re-produced by people acting on their interpretations of what they perceive to be the world external to them. Berger and Luckmann argue that social construction describes both subjective and objective reality - that is that no reality exists outside what is produced and reproduced in social interactions.

A clear example of social constructionist thought is, following Sigmund Freud[19] and Émile Durkheim,[20] religion. Religion is seen as a socially constructed concept, the basis for which is rooted in either our psyche (Freud) or man's need to see some purpose in life or worship a higher presence. One of the key theorists of social constructionism, Peter Berger, explored this concept extensively in his book, The Sacred Canopy.[21]

Social constructionism is often seen as a source of the postmodern movement, and has been influential in the field of cultural studies.

Feminist Theory edit

Although women were primarily ignored, barred, and disenfranchised within most scientific communities prior to the women's rights movement of the 1960's and 1970's (for a notable exception in Sociology, see Dorothy Swaine Thomas), women have contributed to scientific disciplines, methods, and theories since at least the 1830's. Following the establishment of women's academic conferences and coordinated protests of the American Sociological Association's annual meetings during the 1970's, women made significant inroads into Sociology. For example, women such as Dorothy E. Smith, Joan Acker, Myra Marx Ferree, Patricia Yancey Martin, and bell hooks were all pioneers in Sociology who developed insights and empirical findings that challenged much of existing sociological practice, knowledge, and methods. These early scholars also founded women's academic organizations like Sociologists for Women in Society to lobby for the admittance and inclusion of minority people and perspectives within scientific disciplines. The theoretical perspectives these and subsequent scholars developed is broadly referred to as Feminist Theory. The name derives from the ties many of these individuals had and continue to have with women's movement organizations, the promotion of minority perspectives, their experience in relation to the subjective nature of scientific practice, and commitment to principles of social justice. Feminist Theory uncovered a vast "herstory" of women's (and other minority) academic thinking, writing, and activism, and integrated insights from these essays and studies into the scientific enterprise. These scholars uncovered many ways that Feminist theorists from as far back as the 1830's had already introduced insights - such as Social Constructionism, Intersectionality, and the subjective nature and critical possibilities of scientific work - that have informed scientific research and theorizing across disciplines.

Feminist scholars across disciplines have continuously sought to expand scientific "facts" beyond their initial (and often continuing) white, male, heterosexual biases and assumptions while seeking knowledge as an entryway into a more just social world. Below we offer summaries of the major conceptual approaches within Feminist Theory. It is important to note, however, that while we outline these perspectives under distinct headings and within specific orders for the purposes of clarity and introduction, contemporary Feminist theorists and researchers across disciplines often draw upon more than one of these perspectives in practice and continually seek ways to refine and integrate each of these approaches. Before presenting this outline, however, it is important to be aware of three basic premises or foundational ideas within and between contemporary Feminist Theories.[22]

  • Scientific practice is subjective: If one admits that social experience and environment influence individual and collective perceptions, then one cannot form a question without expressing - implicitly or explicitly - a socially influenced perspective. As long as people are the "doers" of research, research will have a subjective element to it and be open to debate or refinement on some level. Feminist theorists argue that understanding the social or natural world also requires interrogating our own conscious or unconscious bias, perspective, beliefs, and values, and our own positions within systems of racial, class, gender, sexual, political, and scientific social systems.
  • The personal is political: Experiences we consider personal are generally shaped by our social locations within existing systems of oppression and privilege. As a result, every personal decision or action ultimately reproduces and/or challenges systems of social inequality. Feminist theorists argue that understanding or changing large-scale systems of oppression and privilege requires examining the ways people think, feel, and act in all aspects of life since all such endeavors will influence the social and natural worlds they experience.
  • Everything is more than one thing: Rather than simple one to one relationships or isolated causal patterns, all social and natural systems are interlocked systems that may only be understood, reproduced or challenged in relation to the other systems they depend on. If one examines women's oppression, for example, one must also explore the ways of thinking and feeling that produce scientific categorization systems, the system of categorization that simplifies the world into only two sexes or genders, the social construction of the term "woman" within historical and contextual power relations, and the other systems that make up a given "woman". For example, in order to understand the experience of one woman requires examining the ways her position within racial, classed, sexual, religious, political, scientific, and other systems create the definition of what it means for her to be a "woman". Feminist theorists argue that the social and natural worlds cannot be understood via the isolation or control of various parts of social or natural experience. As a result, scientific inquiries require attending to the whole entity, system, or structure in relation to other entities, systems, or structures in the world at that time.

With these foundational ideas in mind, we now present the primary Feminist theoretical perspectives.

Liberal Feminism edit

Liberal feminists believe that men and women both are disadvantaged by society’s gender expectations. They advocate working within institutions to “level the playing field” through changing laws, education, and socialization to bring about gender equality.

Marxist and Socialist Feminism edit

Marxist feminists believe that the oppression of women stems primarily from capitalism, which exploits women’s labor and is upheld through women’s unpaid domestic labor. They believe that economic inequalities are the most central form of inequality. Therefore, eliminating capitalism would get rid of gender inequalities.

Socialist feminists believe that women’s oppression is inseparable from class oppression. Therefore, to bring about gender equality, we must work to eliminate both capitalism and patriarchy in all social and natural fields of knowledge and experience.

Radical, Separatist, and Cultural Feminism edit

Radical feminists believe that women are oppressed by our patriarchal society. They do not believe that men are oppressed. They seek a fundamental reorganization of society because our existing political, scientific, religious, and social organization is inherently patriarchal.

Separatist feminists, like radical feminists, believe that women are oppressed by our patriarchal society. They, however, believe that we can’t get rid of this problem if women and men are together. In order to achieve equality, women need to separate themselves from men. Some believe this is a temporary stage while others see this as a permanent goal.

Cultural feminists, like radical feminists, believe that women are oppressed by our patriarchal society. They, however, focus on empowering women through valuing, emphasizing, and encouraging the positive qualities traditionally associated with women, such as nurturing, caring, cooperation, relationships with others, childbirth, morality, peace, pureness, and women’s connection to nature and the earth.

Black Feminist Thought and Queer Feminism edit

Black feminists believe that many inequalities are important in society today, not only gender. In addition to gender inequalities, they focus on race, ethnicity, and class — and sometimes also add sexuality, nationality, age, disability, and others. They believe that people experience gender differently depending on their location in socially constructed cultural, political, and biological structures of race, ethnicity and class. Therefore, there is no universal female experience. This perspective is sometimes referred to as multicultural feminism, multiracial feminism, or womanism.

Queer feminists - sometimes referred to as Postmodern Feminists - believe that gender and sex are multiple, constantly changing, and performed by individuals and groups within situated social, historical, scientific, and political contexts. There are many (i.e., more than two) genders and sexes, and variations (biologically and socially) within other "accepted" or "normalized" categorizations. They focus on creating social change through challenging the existence and blurring the boundaries of these categories. This perspective shares many ideas with Queer Theory.

Integration Theory edit

Recently, some sociologists have been taking a different approach to sociological theory by employing an integrationist approach - combining micro- and macro-level theories to provide a comprehensive understanding of human social behavior (while these studies rarely cite Symbolic Interaction Theory, most of their models are based heavily upon Herbert Blumer's initial elaboration of Symbolic Interaction in relation to social institutions[23][24]). Numerous models could be presented in this vein. George Ritzer's[25] Integration Model is a good example.

Ritzer proposes four highly interdependent elements in his sociological model: a macro-objective component (e.g., society, law, bureaucracy), a micro-objective component (e.g., patterns of behavior and human interaction), a macro-subjective component (e.g., culture, norms, and values), and a micro-subjective component (e.g., perceptions, beliefs). This model is of particular use in understanding society because it uses two axes: one ranging from objective (society) to subjective (culture and cultural interpretation); the other ranging from the macro-level (norms) to the micro-level (individual level beliefs).

George Ritzer's macro/micro integration theory of social analysis.

The integration approach is particularly useful for explaining social phenomena because it shows how the different components of social life work together to influence society and behavior.

If used for understanding a specific cultural phenomenon, like the displaying of abstract art in one's home,[26] the integration model depicts the different influences on the decision. For instance, the model depicts that cultural norms can influence individual behavior. The model also shows that individual level values, beliefs, and behaviors influence macro-level culture. This is, in fact, part of what David Halle finds: while there are art consumption differences based on class, they are not predicted solely by class. Displayers of abstract art tend not only to belong to the upper-class, but also are employed in art-production occupations. This would indicate that there are multiple levels of influence involved in art tastes – both broad cultural norms and smaller level occupational norms in addition to personal preferences.

Additional Reading edit

Durkheim, Emile. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Edited with an introduction by George Simpson. Translated by John A. Spaulding & George Simpson. New York: The Free Press. ISBN: 978-0684836324.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. Introduction by Anthony Giddens. New York: Routledge. ISBN: 978- 0415084345.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN: 978-0385094023.

Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN: 978-0-385-05898-8.

Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. New York: Routledge. ISBN: 978-0415951500.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN: 978-0679752554.

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press. Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite.

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960’s to the 1990’s. New York: Routledge.

Smith, Dorothy. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic. Boston: Northeastern University.

Smith, Dorothy. 1990. The Conceptual Practices of Power.

Warner, Michael. 1999. The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics and the Ethics of Queer Life. New York: Free Press.

hooks, bell. 1981. Ain’t I a Woman?: Black Women and Feminism. ISBN 0-89608-129-X

Dubois, W.E.B. 1899. The Philadelphia Negro.

DuBois, W.E.B., The Souls of Black Folk

Durkheim, Emile. 1912. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.

Foucault, Michel. 1990 [1978]. The History of Sexuality, An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books.

Discussion Questions edit

  • Why do sociologists need theories?
  • How does sociological theory complement data?
  • What is the difference between sociological theorizing and philosophy?

References edit

  1. Putnam, Robert D. 2001. Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community. 1st ed. Simon & Schuster.
  2. Durkheim, Emile. 1997. Suicide. Free Press.
  3. Durkheim, Emile, and Lewis A. Coser. 1997. The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press.
  4. Hoult, Thomas Ford (1969). Dictionary of Modern Sociology. p. 139.
  5. a b Marsden, George M. 1996. The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief. Oxford University Press, USA.
  6. a b Smith, Christian. 2003. The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularization of American Public Life. 1st ed. University of California Press.
  7. Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1965. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. illustrated edition. Free Press.
  8. Layton, R. 1997. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 37-38. ISBN 0521629829
  9. Bruce, Steve. 2002. God is Dead: Secularization in the West. Wiley-Blackwell.
  10. Merton, Robert (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.
  11. a b Herman, Nancy J. and Reynolds, Larry T. 1994. Symbolic Interaction: An Introduction to Social Psychology. Altamira Press. ISBN 1882289226
  12. Blumer, H. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press. ISBN 0520056760
  13. a b Sabbagh, Mark A., Lindsay C. Bowman, Lyndsay E. Evraire, and Jennie M. B. Ito. 2009. “Neurodevelopmental Correlates of Theory of Mind in Preschool Children.” Child Development 80:1147-1162.
  14. Ebaugh, Helen Rose Fuchs. 1988. Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. 1st ed. University Of Chicago Press.
  15. Baumeister, Roy F., and Dianne M. Tice. 1984. “Role of Self-Presentation and Choice in Cognitive Dissonance under Forced Compliance: Necessary or Sufficient Causes?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(1):5–13. doi:
  16. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books. ISBN 0385094027
  17. Goffman, Erving. 1961. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. MacMillan Publishing Co. ISBN 0023445602
  18. Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. First Thus. Anchor.
  19. Freud, Sigmund. 2009. The Future of An Illusion. CreateSpace.
  20. Durkheim, Emile. 2008. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. abridged edition. Oxford University Press, USA.
  21. Berger, Peter L. 1990. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Anchor.
  22. Kleinman, Sherryl. 2007. Feminist Fieldwork Analysis. Thousand Oaks, Sage.
  23. Blumer, Herber. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press
  24. Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press
  25. Ritzer, George, and Douglas J. Goodman. 2003. Sociological Theory. 6th ed. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. P. 357.
  26. Halle, David. 1996. Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home. University Of Chicago Press.

External links edit

Society edit

As a pastoralist society, the Maasai way of life revolves around their livestock. They often times will travel hundreds of miles of semi-arid and arid terrain of Kenya and Tanzania in search of grazing lands and watering holes for their cattle. The cows are invaluable in providing a constant source of protein in the form of meat, blood, and milk, but also supplying the dried dung for constructing their semi-temporary huts. Considering the importance of cattle in their society, a Maasai male’s amount of wealth as well as his allotment of wives are usually determined by the number of cattle he possesses. The Maasai people are a society reminiscent of a way of life long before the Industrial Revolution and the current post-industrial period where technology has become a global norm. However, the Maasai pastoralist traditions have managed to endure in the midst of extreme social change. How have they been able to do this?

Today, you will still see the Maasai people migrating across many miles of dry desert in their traditional garb composed of a checkered cape and an assortment of bracelets for the women and men. However, there is one new added accessory. A cell phone. The Maasai today can now use the GPS on their cell phones to locate grazing areas and watering holes for their cattle and also take advantage of other mobile applications such as those that locate potential predators in the area. Cell phones have made avoiding as well as hunting lions much easier for the Maasai people. Many members of their society have even taken advantage of cell phones to establish and boost a tourism business geared towards offering outsiders a taste of the Maasai life. Hence, cell phones have paradoxically been a key component in maintaining the Maasai's traditional way of life in the face of extreme social change during the Age of Globalization.

The Maasai people are an illustrative example of how one particular society has been able to straddle two stages of societal development (i.e., pastoralist and post-industrial) simultaneously. This chapter on “society” first explicates the different stages of societal development, and later introduces the classical views of Weber, Marx, and Durkheim concerning the impact of social change from the pre-industrial societies such as the Maasai people to the industrialized societies that appear to be much more commonplace today.

Maasai men showing their jumping dance.

Introduction edit

The simplest definition of society is a group of people who share a defined territory and a culture. In sociology, we take that definition a little further by arguing that society is also the social structure and interactions of that group of people. Social structure is the relatively enduring patterns of behavior and relationships within a society.[1] Thus, a society is not only the group of people and their culture, but the relationships between the people and the institutions within that group.

In sociology, a distinction is made between society and culture. Culture refers to the norms, values, beliefs, behaviors, and meanings given to symbols in a society.[2] Culture is distinct from society in that it adds meanings to relationships. For instance, what it means to be a "husband" to a gay couple in Boston is very different from what it means to be a husband to a polygamist man in rural southern Utah. Thus, while the relationship exists in both (i.e., they both have social structure), what the relationship means differs by culture.

All human societies have a culture and culture can only exist where there is a society. Sociologists distinguish between society and culture despite their close interconnectedness primarily for analytical purposes: It allows sociologists to think about societal development independent of culture and cultural change (which are discussed in the next chapter in greater detail) even though societal change and development are contingent upon culture.

This chapter presents a brief overview of some of the types of human societies that have existed and continue to exist. It will then present some classic approaches to understanding society and what changing social structure can mean for individuals.

Societal Development edit

The sociological understanding of societal development relies heavily upon the work of Gerhard Lenski.[3] Lenski outlined some of the more commonly seen organizational structures in human societies. Classifications of human societies can be based on two factors: (1) the primary means of subsistence and (2) the political structure. This chapter focuses on the subsistence systems of societies rather than their political structures.

While it is a bit far-reaching to argue that all societies will develop through the stages outlined below, it does appear that most societies follow such a route. Human groups begin as hunter-gatherers, move toward pastoralism and/or horticulturalism, develop toward an agrarian society, and ultimately end up undergoing a period of industrialization (with the potential for developing a service industry following industrialization).[4] Not all societies pass through every stage. Some societies have stopped at the pastoral or horticultural stage (e.g., Bedouin nomads), though these may be temporary pauses due to economic niches that will likely disappear over time. Some societies may also jump stages as a result of the introduction of technology from other societies. It is also worth noting that these categories aren't really distinct groups as there is often overlap in the subsistence systems used in a society. Some pastoralist societies also engage in some measure of horticultural food production and most industrial and post-industrial societies still have agriculture, just in a reduced capacity.

Hunter-Gatherer edit

The hunter-gatherer way of life is based on the exploitation of wild plants and animals. Consequently, hunter-gatherers are relatively mobile, and groups of hunter-gatherers have fluid boundaries and composition. Typically in hunter-gatherer societies men hunt larger wild animals and women gather fruits, nuts, roots, and other edible plant-based food and hunt smaller animals. Hunter-gatherers use materials available in the wild to construct shelters or rely on naturally occurring shelters like overhangs. Their shelters give them protection from predators and the elements.

Ancient hunter.

The majority of hunter-gatherer societies are nomadic. It is difficult to be settled under such a subsistence system as the resources of one region can quickly become exhausted. Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have very low population densities as a result of their subsistence system. Agricultural subsistence systems can support population densities 60 to 100 times greater than land left uncultivated, resulting in denser populations.

Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have non-hierarchical social structures, though this is not always the case. Because hunter-gatherers tend to be nomadic, they generally do not have the possibility to store surplus food. As a result, full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by hunter-gatherer societies. The hierarchical egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer societies tends to extend to gender-based egalitarianism as well. Although disputed, many anthropologists believe gender egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer societies stems from the lack of control over food production, lack of food surplus (which can be used for control), and an equal gender contribution to kin and cultural survival.

Archeological evidence to date suggests that prior to 13,000BCE, all human beings were hunter-gatherers. While declining in number, there are still some hunter-gatherer groups in existence today. Such groups are found in the Arctic, tropical rainforests, and deserts where other forms of subsistence production are impossible or too costly. In most cases these groups do not have a continuous history of hunting and gathering; in many cases their ancestors were agriculturalists who were pushed into marginal areas as a result of migrations and wars. Examples of hunter-gatherer groups still in existence include:

The line between agricultural and hunter-gatherer societies is not clear cut. Many hunter-gatherers consciously manipulate the landscape through cutting or burning useless (to them) plants to encourage the growth and success of those they consume. Most agricultural people also tend to do some hunting and gathering. Some agricultural groups farm during the temperate months and hunt during the winter.

Pastoralist edit

Iranian nomads in 2006.

A pastoralist society is a society in which the primary means of subsistence is domesticated livestock. It is often the case that, like hunter-gatherers, pastoralists are nomadic, moving seasonally in search of fresh pastures and water for their animals. Employment of a pastoralist subsistence system often results in greater population densities and the development of both social hierarchies and divisions in labor as it is more likely there will be a surplus of food.

Pastoralist societies still exist. For instance, in Australia, the vast semi-arid areas in the interior of the country contain pastoral runs called sheep stations. These areas may be thousands of square kilometers in size. The number of livestock allowed in these areas is regulated in order to reliably sustain them, providing enough feed and water for the stock. Other examples of pastoralists societies still in existence include:

Horticulturalist edit

Horticulturalist societies are societies in which the primary means of subsistence is the cultivation of crops using hand tools. Like pastoral societies, the cultivation of crops increases population densities and, as a result of food surpluses, allows for a division of labor in society.

Horticulture differs from agriculture in that agriculture employs animals, machinery, or some other non-human means to facilitate the cultivation of crops while horticulture relies solely on humans for crop cultivation.

Agriculture edit

A tractor ploughing an alfalfa field circa 1921.
A pineapple farmer in Ghana.

Agrarian societies are societies in which the primary means of subsistence is the cultivation of crops using a mixture of human and non-human means (i.e., animals and/or machinery). Agriculture is the process of producing food, feed, fiber, and other desired products by the cultivation of plants and the raising of domesticated animals (livestock). Agriculture can refer to subsistence agriculture or industrial agriculture.

Subsistence agriculture is agriculture carried out for the production of enough food to meet just the needs of the agriculturalist and his/her family. Subsistence agriculture is a simple, often organic, system using saved seed native to the ecoregion combined with crop rotation or other relatively simple techniques to maximize yield. Historically most farmers were engaged in subsistence agriculture and this is still the case in many developing nations.

In developed nations a person using such simple techniques on small patches of land would generally be referred to as a gardener; activity of this type would be seen more as a hobby than a profession. Some people in developed nations are driven into such primitive methods by poverty. It is also worth noting that large scale organic farming is on the rise as a result of a renewed interest in non-genetically modified and pesticide free foods.

In developed nations, a farmer or industrial agriculturalist is usually defined as someone with an ownership interest in crops or livestock, and who provides labor or management in their production. Farmers obtain their financial income from the cultivation of land to yield crops or the commercial raising of animals (animal husbandry), or both. Those who provide only labor but not management and do not have ownership are often called farmhands, or, if they supervise a leased strip of land growing only one crop, as sharecroppers.

Agriculture allows a much greater density of population than can be supported by hunting and gathering and allows for the accumulation of excess product to keep for winter use or to sell for profit. The ability of farmers to feed large numbers of people whose activities have nothing to do with material production was the crucial factor in the rise of surplus, specialization, advanced technology, hierarchical social structures, inequality, and standing armies.[4]

Development of Horticulture and Agriculture edit

Horticulture and agriculture as types of subsistence developed among humans somewhere between 10,000 and 8,000 B.C.E. in the Fertile Crescent region of the Middle East.[5][6] The reasons for the development of horticulture and agriculture are debated but may have included climate change and the accumulation of food surplus for competitive gift-giving. Most certainly there was a gradual transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural economies after a lengthy period when some crops were deliberately planted and other foods were gathered from the wild. In addition to the emergence of farming in the Fertile Crescent, agriculture appeared by at least 6,800 B.C.E. in East Asia (rice) and, later, in Central and South America (maize and squash). Small scale agriculture also likely arose independently in early Neolithic contexts in India (rice) and Southeast Asia (taro).[4]

Full dependency on domestic crops and animals (i.e. when wild resources contributed a nutritionally insignificant component to the diet) did not occur until the Bronze Age. If the operative definition of agriculture includes large scale intensive cultivation of land, i.e., mono-cropping, organised irrigation, and use of a specialized labor force, the title "inventors of agriculture" would fall to the Sumerians, starting around 5,500 B.C.E.

By the early 1800s agricultural practices, particularly careful selection of hardy strains and cultivars, had so improved that yield per land unit was many times that seen in the Middle Ages and before, especially in the largely virgin lands of North and South America.

Agriculture Today edit

In the world, the use of crop breeding, better management of soil nutrients, and improved weed control have greatly increased yields per unit area. At the same time, the use of mechanization has decreased labor input. The developing world generally produces lower yields, having less of the latest science, capital, and technology base. More people in the world are involved in agriculture as their primary economic activity than in any other, yet it only accounts for four percent of the world's GDP. The rapid rise of mechanization in the 20th century, especially in the form of the tractor, reduced the necessity of humans performing the demanding tasks of sowing, harvesting, and threshing. With mechanization, these tasks could be performed with a speed and on a scale barely imaginable before. These advances have resulted in a substantial increase in the yield of agricultural techniques that have also translated into a decline in the percentage of populations in developed countries that are required to work in agriculture to feed the rest of the population. As the pie chart below indicates, about 1% of Americans are employed in agriculture today and produce sufficient food to feed the other 99% of Americans.

Percent of the U.S. population employed in agriculture by Census District. Source: US Census 2000.

Industrial edit

A brick factory in the Netherlands is an example of industry.

An industrial society is a society in which the primary means of subsistence is industry. Industry is a system of production focused on mechanized manufacturing of goods. Like agrarian societies, industrial societies increase food surpluses, resulting in more developed hierarchies and significantly more division of labor.

The division of labor in industrial societies is often one of the most notable elements of the society and can even function to re-organize the development of relationships. Whereas relationships in pre-industrial societies were more likely to develop through contact at one's place of worship or through proximity of housing, industrial society brings people with similar occupations together, often leading to the formation of friendships through one's work.[7]

When capitalised, The Industrial Revolution refers to the first known industrial revolution, which took place in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. What is some times referred to as The Second Industrial Revolution describes later, somewhat less dramatic changes resulting from the widespread availability of electric power and the internal-combustion engine. Many developing nations began industrialisation under the influence of either the United States or the USSR during the Cold War.

Today, industry makes up only a relatively small percentage of highly developed countries' workforce (see the pie chart above), in large part due to advanced mechanization. The use of machines and robots to facilitate manufacturing reduces the number of people required to work in industry by increasing their efficiency. As a result, a single worker can produce substantially more goods in the same amount of time today than they used to be able to produce. This has also resulted in a transition in most highly developed countries into a post-industrial or service-oriented economy.

Post-Industrial edit

A post-industrial society is a society in which the primary means of subsistence is derived from service-oriented work, as opposed to agriculture or industry.[8] It is important to note here that the term post-industrial is still debated in part because it is the current state of society; it is difficult to name a phenomenon while it is occurring.

Post-industrial societies are often marked by:

  • an increase in the size of the service sector or jobs that perform services rather than creating goods (industry)
  • either the outsourcing of or extensive use of mechanization in manufacturing
  • an increase in the amount of information technology, often leading to an Information Age
  • information, knowledge, and creativity are seen as the new raw materials of the economy

Most highly developed countries are now post-industrial in that the majority of their workforce works in service-oriented industries, like finance, healthcare, education, business or sales, rather than in industry or agriculture. This is the case in the U.S., as depicted in the pie chart above.

Post-industrial society is occasionally used critically by individuals seeking to restore or return to industrial development. Increasingly, however, individuals and communities are viewing abandoned factories as sites for new housing and shopping. Capitalists are also realizing the recreational and commercial development opportunities such locations offer.

The Implications of Societal Development edit

The stages of societal development.

As noted throughout the above discussion of societal development, changes in the social structure of a society - in this case the primary means of subsistence - also affect other aspects of society. For instance, as hunters and gatherers make the transition into pastoralism and horticulture, they also develop a surplus in food stuffs. While it is common for people in the developed world today to have lots of surplus food, we rarely consider just how important that extra food is. To begin with, once a society has surplus food, that means more of their children will survive into adulthood. Additionally, as food yields increase in agricultural societies, smaller percentages of the population are required to produce the food for the rest of the population. This frees up those people not engaged in food production to specialize in other areas, like clothing or housing production. This results in specialists: some people become experts in growing crops or raising livestock while others become experts in clothing production, metal-working, home construction, etc. That specialization leads to rapid increases in technology as people are freed from having to spend the majority of their time finding or growing their food and can then spend their time improving at their speciality. The relationship between surplus and technology may not seem obvious, initially, but surplus is clearly the forerunner of technological development.

This is illustrated in the diagram to the right. The diagram shows societal development along the top and the implications of societal development along the bottom. The arrows running between the two rows illustrate the fact that these relationships are very complex. For instance, specialization not only results from agriculture but also from denser populations and surplus and helps spur industry. The point being, these are interdependent aspects of societal development that co-evolve.

One additional outcome of surplus that is included in the diagram is inequality. Inequality will be discussed in much greater detail later in this book, but it is important to note that as soon as there is surplus, there will be greater surplus for some people, and some people - as evidenced in most developed societies today - may not have access to enough resources despite the exist of a surplus within the larger society. Those with more surplus have an economic advantage relative to those with less surplus as they have greater bargaining power and in many cases - et voilà, social inequality is born.

Classical Views on Social Change edit

As Western societies transitioned from pre-industrial economies based primarily on agriculture to industrialized societies in the 19th century, some people worried about the impacts such changes would have on society and individuals. Three early sociologists, Weber, Marx, and Durkheim, perceived different impacts of the Industrial Revolution on the individual and society and described those impacts in their work.

Weber and Rationalization edit

Max Weber was particularly concerned about the rationalization and bureaucratization of society stemming from the Industrial Revolution and how these two changes would affect humanity's agency and happiness.[9] As Weber understood society, particularly during the industrial revolution of the late 19th century in which he lived, society was being driven by the passage of rational ideas into culture which, in turn, transformed society into an increasingly bureaucratic entity. Bureaucracy is a type of organizational or institutional management that is, as Weber understood it, rooted in legal-rational authority. Bureaucracy is a complex means of managing life in social institutions that includes rules and regulations, patterns and procedures that both are designed to simplify the functioning of complex organizations. An example of bureaucracy would be the forms used to pay one's income taxes - they require specific information and procedures to fill them out. Included in that form, however, are countless rules and laws that dictate what can and can't be tied into one's taxes. Thus, bureaucracy simplifies the process of paying one's taxes by putting the process into a formulaic structure, but simultaneously complicates it by adding rules and regulations that govern the procedure. Weber did believe bureaucracy was the most rational form of institutional governance, but because Weber viewed rationalization as the driving force of society, he believed bureaucracy would increase until it ruled society. Society, for Weber, would become almost synonymous with bureaucracy.

As Weber did not see any alternative to bureaucracy, he believed it would ultimately lead to an iron cage: there would be no way to get out of it. Weber viewed this as a bleak outcome that would affect individuals' happiness as they would be forced to function in a highly rational society with rigid rules and norms without the possibility to change it. Because Weber could not envision other forces influencing the ultimate direction of society - the exception being temporary lapses into non-bureaucracy spurred by charismatic leaders - he saw no cure for the iron cage of rationality. Society would become a large bureaucracy that would govern people's lives. Weber was unable to envision a solution to his iron cage of bureaucracy dilemma. Since a completely rational society was inevitable and bureaucracy was the most rational form of societal management, the iron cage, according to Weber, does not have a solution.

Marx and Alienation edit

Karl Marx took a different perspective on the impact of the Industrial Revolution on society and the individual.[10] In order to understand Marx's perspective, however, it is necessary to understand how Marx perceived happiness. According to Marx, species being (or happiness) is the pinnacle of human nature. Species being is understood to be a type of self-realization or self-actualization brought about by meaningful work. But in addition to engaging in meaningful work, self-actualized individuals must also own the products of their labors and have the option of doing what they will with those products.

In a capitalist society (which was co-evolved with the Industrial Revolution), rather than owning the fruits of their labors, the proletariat or working class owns only their labor power, not the fruits of their labors (i.e., the results of production). The capitalists or bourgeoisie employ the proletariat for a living wage, but then keep the products of the labor. As a result, the proletariat is alienated from the fruits of its labor – they do not own the products they produce, only their labor power. Because Marx believed species being to be the goal and ideal of human nature and that species being could only be realized when individuals owned the results of their labors, Marx saw capitalism as leading toward increasingly unhappy individuals; they would be alienated from the results of their production and therefore would not be self-realized.

But the alienation from the results of their production is just one component of the alienation Marx proposed. In addition to the alienation from the results of production, the proletariat is also alienated from each other under capitalism. Capitalists alienate the proletariat from each other by forcing them to compete for limited job opportunities. Job opportunities are limited under capitalism in order for capitalists to keep wages down; without a pool of extraneous workers, capitalists would have to meet the wage demands of their workers. Because they are forced to compete with other members of the proletariat, workers are alienated from each other, compounding the unhappiness of the proletariat.

While Marx did have a solution to the problem of alienation, he seldom discussed it in detail. Marx's proposed solution was for the proletariat to unite and through protests or revolution (or legislation in democratic nations) overthrow the bourgeoisie and institute a new form of government – communism. This form of government would be based on communally owned and highly developed means of production and self-governance. The means of production would be developed – through capitalism – to the point that everyone in society would have sufficient 'free' time to allow them to participate in whatever governmental decisions needed to be made for the community as a whole. By re-connecting the individual with the fruits of their labor and empowering them toward true self-governance, species being would be realized and happiness would be returned.

Two additional comments are in order here. First, the economic systems that developed in The Soviet Union and China - as well as other parts of the world - was not the communism envisioned by Marx. Rather, they had achieved a form of socialism, what Marx called the stage between capitalism and communism. Second, Marx believed capitalism, while harmful to species being, was necessary to advance the means of production to a stage where communism (as he envisioned it) could be realized. Thus, while Marx was highly critical of capitalism, he also recognized its utility in developing the means of production.

Durkheim and Solidarity edit

Durkheim's view of society and the changes it was undergoing as a result of industrialization also led him to believe unhappiness was a possible outcome. Durkheim believed that an important component of social life was social solidarity, which is understood as a sense of community. In his classic study, Suicide,[11] Durkheim argued that one of the root causes of suicide was a decrease in social solidarity – termed anomie (French for chaos) by Durkheim. Durkheim also argued that the increasing emphasis on individualism found in Protestant religions – in contrast to Catholicism – contributed to an increase in anomie, which resulted in higher suicide rates among Protestants.

In another work, The Division of Labor in Society,[7] Durkheim proposed that pre-industrial societies maintained their social solidarity through a mechanistic sense of community and through their religious affiliations. Most people were generalists in their work – they farmed and created their own tools and clothing. Because they were alike in their generality, they were also more likely to share a sense of community, which Durkheim saw as an important component of happiness. In addition to their similarity in occupations, many individuals belonged to the same religious groups, which also fostered a sense of solidarity.

In industrializing societies, Durkheim recognized the inevitability of specialization. By definition, specialization means that individuals are going to have dissimilar occupations. This specialization would also affect religion. In industrial societies, religion would become just one aspect of lives that were increasingly divided into compartments – home, family, work, recreation, religion, etc.

Durkheim believed there were two components that would alleviate the decreasing social solidarity in industrializing societies: organic solidarity and conscientious attempts to find camaraderie through one's place of employment. Whereas social solidarity was maintained in pre-industrial societies through a mechanistic sense of similarity and dependence along with communal religious affiliations, in industrialized societies, social solidarity would be maintained by the interdependence of specialists on one another. If one individual specialized in treating the injured or ill, they would not have time to raise crops or otherwise produce food. Doctors would become dependent on farmers for their food while farmers would become dependent on doctors for their healthcare. This would force a type of organic solidarity — organic in the sense that the parts were interdependent like the organs of an animal are interdependent for their survival.

In addition to the inevitable interdependence a specialized society would warrant, Durkheim believed that a conscientious effort to develop and foster friendships would transition from a religious brotherhood to friendships developed at one's place of employment. Specialized individuals would have a great deal in common with their co-workers and, like members of the same religious congregations in pre-industrial societies, co-workers would be able to develop strong bonds of social solidarity through their occupations. Thus, for Durkheim, the answer to the decrease in mechanistic solidarity and the increasing anomie was organic solidarity and solidarity pursued within one's speciality occupation.

Conclusion edit

Sociologists have observed increases in surpluses of goods, densities of populations, the division of labor, technological advances, as well as inequality as societies have transitioned from one stage of societal development to the next. Weber, Marx, and Durkheim, focusing specifically on the transition from pre-industrial societies to the industrialized societies that they were witnessing during their lifetime, argued that there was also increased rationalization and bureaucratization, greater alienation from the fruits of labor and from each other, and the shift from mechanic solidarity to organic solidarity, respectively. However, what sociologists in the past did not anticipate was the dramatic effects of globalization on societal development. In the face of rapid globalization today, there are some societies that are currently straddling multiple stages of societal development like the Maasai people discussed at the beginning of the chapter, while others may have skipped over stages entirely. As societies continue to alter, modify, and transform with changing times, they offer new objects of study for sociologists in which prevailing theories can be improved.

Additional Reading edit

  • Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains.
  • Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
  • Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
  • Weber, Max. 1920. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology.
  • Wright, Erik Olin. 1997. Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis.
  • Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday.

Discussion Questions edit

  • How is a society different from a nation or country?
  • Why might societies develop in the pattern that they do?
  • What is the relationship between surplus and inequality?
  • Does development necessarily imply progress?
  • How can our existing understanding of societal development and social change be improved to account for anomalies, such as certain societies avoiding change and others skipping expected stages of development?
  • How does globalization fit into existing views of societal development and social change?

References edit

  1. Merton, Robert. 1938. Social Structure. Filipino Sociological Review, Vol. 3, No.5, pp.672-682
  2. Swidler, A. (2003). Talk of Love: How Culture Matters. University Of Chicago Press.
  3. Lenski, Gerhard; Nolan, Patrick; and Lenski, Jean. 1995. Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology. 7th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 1594510237
  4. a b c Diamond, Jared. 2005. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. 1st ed. W.W. Norton & Co.
  5. Price, T. Douglas [ed.]. 2000. Europe's First Farmers. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521665728
  6. Harris, David R. [ed.]. 1996. The Origins and Spread of Agriculture in Eurasia. UCL Press. ISBN 1560986751
  7. a b Durkheim, Emile, and Lewis A. Coser. 1997. The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press.
  8. Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society : a Venture in Social Forecasting. Basic Books.
  9. Weber, Max. 1997. The Theory Of Social And Economic Organization. Free Press.
  10. Marx, Karl. 1906. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Modern Library Giant. The Modern Library.
  11. Durkheim, Emile. 1997. Suicide. Free Press.

External links edit

Culture edit

The well-known playwright, William Shakespeare, wrote in 1597, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell just as sweet.” Later in 1913, Gertrude Stein penned the often-quoted phrase, “A rose is a rose is a rose.” Although centuries apart, both Shakespeare and Stein were essentially making the same intellectual point that “things are what they are,” but are they really? Is the world around us truly that simple? For instance, "Is a cow, a cow, a cow?"

Beef hot dogs, hamburgers, and steaks have become a major part of American culture. These culinary delights can easily be found anywhere from athletic stadiums to fine dining establishments. The U.S. has become one of the biggest consumers of beef and beef products. Americans now consume about 200 billion pounds of beef each year. That equates to ten times more beef than what Asian Indians on the other side of the globe consume annually. This is despite the fact that the U.S. population is roughly three times smaller than that of India’s. As one might expect, all kinds of different cuts of beef can easily be found in U.S. grocery stores. In contrast, most states in India still ban the slaughter of cows outright. Article 48 of India’s constitution declares, “The State shall endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” As one can see, the Asian Indian culture’s perspective on the cow is very different from that of the American culture. In India, the cow is seen as a sacred animal rather than an epicurean treat according to Hinduism, which is still the largest religion in the country.

It is through cross-cultural comparisons that we observe a notable divergence in not only the perception, but also the consumption of cows. So, is a cow, a cow, a cow? Sociologists would argue that a cow is not necessarily a cow, and that cultural variation ultimately dictates our assessment and treatment of things in society. What we may devour here in the U.S., others may venerate outside of the U.S., just like the dogs that are beloved by so many Americans are a common food staple in other parts of the world. This chapter on culture explains what culture entails as well as its origins before moving onto a comparison of subcultures vs. countercultures and ethnocentrism vs. cultural relativism. The chapter concludes with theories of culture, potential for cultural change, and how sociologists research culture.

It is culturally acceptable in some countries to eat dogs.

The simplest way to think about culture is to think about the distinction between nature (our biology and genetics) and nurture (our environment and surroundings that also shape our identities). Because of our biology and genetics, we have a particular form and we have certain abilities. But our biological nature does not exclusively determine who we are. For that, we need culture. Culture is the non-biological or social aspects of human life, basically anything that is learned by humans is part of culture.[1]

Generally speaking, the following elements of social life are considered to be representative of human culture: "stories, beliefs, media, ideas, works of art, religious practices, fashions, rituals, specialized knowledge, and common sense" (p. xvi).[2]

Yet, examples of culture do not, in themselves, present a clear understanding of the concept of culture; culture is more than the object or behavior. Culture also includes,

…norms, values, beliefs, or expressive symbols. Roughly, norms are the way people behave in a given society, values are what they hold dear, beliefs are how they think the universe operates, and expressive symbols are representations, often representations of social norms, values, and beliefs themselves. (p. 3)[2]

To summarize, culture encompasses objects and symbols, the meaning given to those objects and symbols, and the norms, values, and beliefs that pervade social life. "The definition is understood to include two elements - that which differentiates one group or society from others and the concept of acquired or learned behavior". (p. 43)[3]

Keep in mind that, in any given society, culture is not necessarily rigid and totally uniform. As is the case with most elements of social life, culture is relatively stable (thus it is functional in the structural-functionalist sense) but at the same time contested (in the conflict sense).[4]

In fact, social theorists, such as Michel Foucault, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, Erving Goffman, and George Herbert Mead, have long noted that language lies at the root of all human culture. Since language is never static and relies upon continued use for its existence, culture is thus continuously negotiated [5] and may remain relatively stable or change rapidly in relation to the ongoing linguistic negotiations and developments within groups, organizations, institutions, and societies.

'High' Culture edit

Ballet, traditionally considered high culture.

Many people today think of culture in the way that it was thought of in Europe during the 18th and early 19th centuries. This concept of culture reflected inequalities within European societies and their colonies around the world. This understanding of culture equates culture with civilization and contrasts both with nature or non-civilization. According to this understanding of culture, some countries are more civilized than others, and some people are more cultured than others. Theorists like Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) believed that culture is simply that which is created by "the best that has been thought and said in the world" (p. 6).[6] Anything that doesn't fit into this category is labeled as chaos or anarchy. From this perspective, culture is closely tied to cultivation, which is the progressive refinement of human behavior.

In practice, culture referred to elite goods and activities such as haute cuisine, high fashion or haute couture, museum-caliber art and classical music. The word cultured referred to people who knew about and took part in these activities. For example, someone who used culture in this sense might argue that classical music is more refined than music by working-class people, such as jazz or the indigenous music traditions of aboriginal peoples.

People who use culture in this way tend not to use it in the plural. They believe that there are not distinct cultures, each with their own internal logic and values, but rather only a single standard of refinement to which all groups are held accountable. Thus people who differ from those who believe themselves to be cultured in this sense are not usually understood as having a different culture; they are understood as being uncultured.

The Changing Concept of Culture edit

During the Romantic Era, scholars in Germany, especially those concerned with nationalism, developed a more inclusive notion of culture as worldview. That is, each ethnic group is characterized by a distinct and incommensurable world view. Although more inclusive, this approach to culture still allowed for distinctions between civilized and primitive or tribal cultures.

By the late 19th century, anthropologists had changed the concept of culture to include a wider variety of societies, ultimately resulting in the concept of culture outlined above - objects and symbols, the meaning given to those objects and symbols, and the norms, values, and beliefs that pervade social life.

This new perspective has also removed the evaluative element of the concept of culture and instead proposes distinctions rather than rankings between different cultures. For instance, the high culture of elites is now contrasted with popular or pop culture. In this sense, high culture no longer refers to the idea of being cultured, as all people are cultured. High culture simply refers to the objects, symbols, norms, values, and beliefs of a particular group of people; popular culture does the same.

Most social scientists today reject the cultured vs. uncultured concept of culture. Instead, social scientists accept and advocate the definition of culture outlined above as being the "nurture" component of human social life. Social scientists recognize that non-elites are as cultured as elites (and that non-Westerners are just as civilized); they simply have a different culture. Recent studies have demonstrated that highly valued notions of culture are often produced via the strategic use of existing tastes, preferences, and patterns of social inequality, which, rather than demonstrating refinement or progress, actually reveal existing power relations within and between socio-political structures.[7]

The Origins of Culture edit

Chinese Opera, a culture tradition quite distinct from European Opera.

Attentive to the theory of evolution, anthropologists assumed that all human beings are equally evolved, and the fact that all humans have cultures must in some way be a result of human evolution. They were also wary of using biological evolution to explain differences between specific cultures - an approach that either was a form of, or legitimized forms of, racism. Anthropologists believed biological evolution produced an inclusive notion of culture, a concept that anthropologists could apply equally to non-literate and literate societies, or to nomadic and to sedentary societies. They argued that through the course of their evolution, human beings evolved a universal human capacity to classify experiences, and encode and communicate them symbolically. Since these symbolic systems were learned and taught, they began to develop independently of biological evolution (in other words, one human being can learn a belief, value, or way of doing something from another, even if they are not biologically related). That this capacity for symbolic thinking and social learning is a product of human evolution confounds older arguments about nature versus nurture. Thus, Clifford Geertz[8] argued that human physiology and neurology developed in conjunction with the first cultural activities, and Middleton (1990:17 n.27) concluded that human "instincts were culturally formed."

This view of culture argues that people living apart from one another develop unique cultures. However, elements of different cultures can easily spread from one group of people to another. Culture is dynamic and can be taught and learned, making it a potentially rapid form of adaptation to changes in physical conditions. Anthropologists view culture as not only a product of biological evolution but as a supplement to it; it can be seen as the main means of human adaptation to the natural world.

This view of culture as a symbolic system with adaptive functions, which varies from place to place, led anthropologists to conceive of different cultures as defined by distinct patterns (or structures) of enduring, although arbitrary, conventional sets of meaning, which took concrete form in a variety of artifacts such as myths and rituals, tools, the design of housing, and the planning of villages. Anthropologists thus distinguish between material culture and symbolic culture, not only because each reflects different kinds of human activity, but also because they constitute different kinds of data that require different methodologies to study.

This view of culture, which came to dominate anthropology between World War I and World War II, implied that each culture was bounded and had to be understood as a whole, on its own terms. The result is a belief in cultural relativism, which suggests that there are no "better" or "worse" cultures, just different cultures.

Recent research suggests that human culture has reversed the causal direction suggested above and influenced human evolution.[9] One well-known illustration of this is the rapid spread of genetic instructions produces a protein that allows humans to digest lactose.[9] This adaptation spread rapidly in Europe around 4,000 BCE with the domestication of mammals, as humans began harvesting their milk for consumption. Prior to this adaptation, the gene that produces a protein allowing for the digestion of lactose was switched off after children were weaned. Thus, the change in culture - drinking milk from other mammals - eventually led to changes in human genetics. Genetics has, therefore, resulted in culture, which is now acting back on genetics.

Level of Abstraction edit

Another element of culture that is important for a clear understanding of the concept is level of abstraction. Culture ranges from the concrete, cultural object (e.g., the understanding of a work of art) to micro-level interpersonal interactions (e.g., the socialization of a child by their parents or guardians) to a macro-level influence on entire societies (e.g., the Puritanical roots of the U.S. that can be used to justify the exportation of democracy – a lá the Iraq War).[10] It is important when trying to understand the concept of culture to keep in mind that the concept can have multiple levels of meaning, and that each of these levels may continuously act upon one another in complex ways.[11]

The Artificiality of Cultural Categorization edit

One of the more important points to understand about culture is that it is an artificial categorization of elements of social life. As Griswold puts it,

There is no such thing as culture or society out there in the real world. There are only people who work, joke, raise children, love, think, worship, fight, and behave in a wide variety of ways. To speak of culture as one thing and society as another is to make an analytical distinction between two different aspects of human experience. One way to think of the distinction is that culture designates the expressive aspect of human existence, whereas society designates the relational (and often practical) aspect. (p. 4)[2]

In the above quote, Griswold emphasizes that culture is distinct from society but affirms that this distinction is, like all classifications, artificial. Humans do not experience culture in a separate or distinct way from society. Culture and society are truly two-sides of a coin; a coin that makes up social life. Yet the distinction between the two, while artificial, is useful for a number of reasons. For instance, the distinction between culture and society is of particular use when exploring how norms and values are transmitted from generation to generation and answering the question of cultural conflict between people of different cultural backgrounds (say, the Japanese and Americans). Further, the distinction is useful for explicating the historical development of specific social structures, and the persistence or demise of social inequalities within and between societies. [12]

Subcultures & Countercultures edit

Trekkies (or fans of Star Trek) are a subculture; they share specific understandings and meanings that those outside their subculture may not understand.

A subculture is a culture shared and actively participated in by a minority of people within a broader culture. A culture often contains numerous subcultures. Subcultures incorporate large parts of the broader cultures of which they are part, but in specifics they may differ radically. Some subcultures achieve such a status that they acquire a name of their own. Examples of subcultures could include: bikers, military culture, Bronies, and Star Trek fans (trekkers or trekkies).

The woman and children in this photo are members of The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (or FLDS), which advocates the practice polygamy, making members part of a countercultural group (polygamy is illegal in the United States).

A counterculture is a subculture with the addition that some of its beliefs, values, or norms challenge or even contradict those of the main culture of which it is part.[13] Examples of countercultures in the U.S. could include: the hippie movement of the 1960s, the green movement, polygamists, feminist groups, BDSM Communities, and LGBTQ communities.

Subcultures bring together like-minded individuals who feel neglected by societal standards and allow them to develop a sense of identity.[14] Subcultures can be distinctive because of the age, ethnicity, class, location, or gender of the members. The qualities that determine a subculture as distinct may be linguistic, aesthetic, religious, political, sexual, geographical, or a combination of factors. Members of a subculture often signal their membership through a distinctive and symbolic use of style, which includes fashions, mannerisms, and argot.[14]

Ethnocentrism & Cultural Relativism edit

Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture. Many claim that ethnocentrism occurs in every society; ironically, ethnocentrism may be something that all cultures have in common.

The term was coined by William Graham Sumner, a social evolutionist and professor of Political and Social Science at Yale University. He defined it as, "The sentiment of cohesion, internal comradeship, and devotion to the in-group, which carries with it a sense of superiority to any out-group and readiness to defend the interests of the in-group against the out-group."[15] Ethnocentrism often entails the belief that one's own race or ethnic group is the most important and/or that some or all aspects of its culture are superior to those of other groups. Within this ideology, individuals will judge other groups in relation to their own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behaviour, customs, and religion. It also involves an incapacity to acknowledge that cultural differentiation does not imply inferiority of those groups who are ethnically distinct from one's own.

Sociologists study ethnocentrism because of its role in various elements of social life, ranging from politics to terrorism.[16] This is also an area where sociologists often become advocates as they attempt to reveal ethnocentric biases to those who hold them with the aim of helping people realize that such biases are seldom beneficial to social solidarity and peaceful human relations.

Cultural relativism is the belief that the concepts and values of a culture cannot be fully translated into, or fully understood in, other languages; that a specific cultural artifact (e.g. a ritual) has to be understood in terms of the larger symbolic system of which it is a part.

An example of cultural relativism might include slang words from specific languages (and even from particular dialects within a language). For instance, the word tranquilo in Spanish translates directly to 'calm' in English. However, it can be used in many more ways than just as an adjective (e.g., the seas are calm). Tranquilo can be a command or suggestion encouraging another to calm down. It can also be used to ease tensions in an argument (e.g., everyone relax) or to indicate a degree of self-composure (e.g., I'm calm). There is not a clear English translation of the word, and in order to fully comprehend its many possible uses a cultural relativist would argue that it would be necessary to fully immerse oneself in cultures where the word is used.

Theories of Culture edit

While there are numerous theoretical approaches employed to understand 'culture', this chapter uses just one model to illustrate how sociologists understand the concept. The model is an integrationist model advocated by Ritzer.[17] Ritzer proposes four highly interdependent elements in his sociological model: a macro-objective component (e.g., society, law, bureaucracy), a micro-objective component (e.g., patterns of behavior and human interaction), a macro-subjective component (e.g., culture, norms, and values), and a micro-subjective component (e.g., perceptions, beliefs). This model is of particular use in understanding the role of culture in sociological research because it presents two axes for understanding culture: one ranging from objective (society) to subjective (culture and cultural interpretation); the other ranging from the macro-level (norms) to the micro-level (individual level beliefs).

George Ritzer's macro/micro integration theory of social analysis.

If used for understanding a specific cultural phenomenon, like the displaying of abstract art,[18] this model depicts how cultural norms can influence individual behavior. This model also posits that individual level values, beliefs, and behaviors can, in turn, influence the macro-level culture. This is, in fact, part of what David Halle finds: while there are certainly cultural differences based on class, they are not unique to class. Displayers of abstract art tend not only to belong to the upper-class, but also are employed in art-production occupations. This would indicate that there are multiple levels of influence involved in art tastes – both broad cultural norms and smaller level occupational norms in addition to personal preferences.

The Function of Culture edit

Culture can also be seen to play a specific function in social life. According to Griswold, "The sociological analysis of culture begins at the premise that culture provides orientation, wards off chaos, and directs behavior toward certain lines of action and away from others."[2] Griswold reiterates this point by explaining that, "Groups and societies need collective representations of themselves to inspire sentiments of unity and mutual support, and culture fulfills this need."[2] In other words, culture can have a certain utilitarian function – the maintenance of order as the result of shared understandings and meanings.

On the other hand, culture can also function to create and sustain social inequalities. According to Collins,[19] cultural notions of race, class, gender, and sexualities may be used to explain and justify societal level patterns of oppression and privilege by allowing social beings to believe existing inequalities simply reflect the way things have always been. As a result, efforts for social justice and equality must often overcome cultural patterns that lead dominants and subordinates to blindly accept existing social orders as natural or inevitable. Following Collins, some sociologists explore whether or not the shared understandings and meanings maintained via cultural practice resist or reproduce the ongoing subordination of minority groups.

Cultural Change edit

The belief that culture is symbolically coded and can thus be taught from one person to another means that cultures, although bounded, can change. Cultures are both predisposed to change and resistant to it. Resistance can come from habit, religion, science, and the integration and interdependence of cultural traits.[20] For example, men and women have complementary roles in many cultures. One sex might desire changes that affect the other, as happened in the second half of the 20th century in western cultures (see, for example, the women's movement), while the other sex may be resistant to that change (possibly in order to maintain a power imbalance in their favor). Further, the demarcation of human beings into only two sexes (e.g., males and females) culturally erases the biological and genetic reality of intersex people, and justifies the genital mutilation of people born genetically beyond male/female classification schemes.[21] Changing scientific and medical practices of infant genital mutilation in the case of intersex individuals, however, remains difficult due to cultural beliefs promoting and enforcing two sexes with separate but "complementary" roles.

The symbol of the ankh has its roots in Egyptian religious practice, but the symbol diffused over time and was adopted by other groups, including pagans, as a religious symbol.

Cultural change can have many causes, including: the environment, inventions, and contact with other cultures. For example, the end of the last ice age helped lead to the invention of agriculture.[22] Another invention that substantially changed culture was the development of the birth control pill, which changed women's attitudes toward sex. Prior to the introduction of the birth control pill, women were at a high risk of pregnancy as a result of sex. After the introduction of birth control pills, risk of pregnancy was substantially reduced, increasing heterosexual people's willingness to engage in sexual activity outside of wedlock.[23] Likewise, the introduction of the television substantially reduced American involvement in civic life.[24]

Several understandings of how cultures change come from Anthropology. For instance, in diffusion theory, the form of something moves from one culture to another, but not its meaning. For example, the ankh symbol originated in Egyptian culture but has diffused to numerous cultures. It's original meaning may have been lost, but it is now used by many practitioners of New Age Religion as an arcane symbol of power or life forces.

Contact between cultures can also result in acculturation. Acculturation has different meanings, but in this context refers to replacement of the traits of one culture with those of another (through force, negotiation, or agreement), such as what happened with many Native American Indians as Europeans took over their lands. Many Native Americans were acculturated into European norms, beliefs, and values, from religion to how to raise children because Europeans believed Natives could not adopt these cultural practices. When Natives proved able to practice religion and parenthood in non-European ways, however, many of them were put to death, sent to conditioning camps, or moved into uncultivated western lands where they were required to form their own communities based on European values and practices.[25] Related processes on an individual level are assimilation and transculturation, both of which refer to adoption of a different culture by an individual, which may occur through force or choice.

Griswold outlined another sociological approach to cultural change.[2] Griswold points out that it may seem as though culture comes from individuals, but there is also the larger, collective, and long-lasting culture that cannot have been the creation of single individuals as it predates and post-dates individual humans and contributors to culture. The author presents a sociological perspective to address this conflict,

Sociology suggests an alternative to both the unsatisfying it has always been that way view at one extreme and the unsociological individual genius view at the other. This alternative posits that culture and cultural works are collective, not individual, creations. We can best understand specific cultural objects... by seeing them not as unique to their creators but as the fruits of collective production, fundamentally social in their genesis. (p. 53)

Griswold suggests, then, that culture changes through the contextually dependent and socially situated actions of individuals; macro-level culture influences the individual who, in turn, can influence that same culture (see also the discussion of Symbolic Interaction earlier in this text). The logic is a bit circular, but it illustrates how culture can change over time yet remain somewhat constant.

It is, of course, important to recognize here that Griswold is talking about cultural change and not the actual origins of culture (as in, "there was no culture and then, suddenly, there was"). Because Griswold does not explicitly distinguish between the origins of cultural change and the origins of culture, it may appear as though Griswold is arguing here for the origins of culture and situating these origins in society. This is neither accurate nor a clear representation of sociological thought on this issue. Culture, just like society, has existed since the beginning of humanity (humans being social and cultural beings). Society and culture co-exist because humans have social relations and meanings tied to those relations (e.g. brother, lover, friend).[26] Culture as a super-phenomenon has no real beginning except in the sense that humans (homo sapiens) have a beginning. This, then, makes the question of the origins of culture moot – it has existed as long as we have, and will likely exist as long as we do.

Cultural Sociology: Researching Culture edit

How do sociologists study culture? One approach to studying culture falls under the label 'cultural sociology', which combines the study of culture with cultural understandings of phenomena. Griswold explains how cultural sociologists approach their research,

...if one were to try to understand a certain group of people, one would look for the expressive forms through which they represent themselves to themselves... The sociologist can come at this collective representation process from the other direction, from the analysis of a particular cultural object, as well; if we were to try to understand a cultural object, we would look for how it is used by some group as representing that group. (p. 59)[2]

Cultural sociologists look for how people make meaning in their lives out of the different cultural elements that surround them. A particularly clear example of cultural sociology is the study of the Village-Northton by Elijah Anderson.[27] Anderson was interested in a number of things in his book, but two cultural components stood out. First, Anderson was looking at the border of two culturally and socio-economically distinct neighborhoods. Because these two neighborhoods were distinct yet shared a border, this research site provided numerous opportunities for the exploration of culture. Not surprisingly, cultural conflict is an optimal scenario for the exploration of culture and cultural interaction. Additionally, Anderson was interested in how individuals in these neighborhoods negotiated interpersonal interactions, especially when individuals from the Village (middle to upper-middle class and predominantly white) were forced to interact with members of the Northton area (lower class and poor blacks).

Anderson’s methodology was a combination of participant observation and interviews. But when viewed in light of the quote above by Griswold, it becomes apparent that Anderson’s focus in these interviews and observations was self-presentation. Anderson regularly described the individuals he interviewed and observed in light of their clothing, behavior, attitudes, beliefs, and opinions. As he interacted with more and more individuals, patterns began to develop. Specifically, individuals dressed in certain outfits behaved in similar ways. For instance, those dressed in business attire (even when walking their dogs) – the yuppies – had particular perspectives on the future of the Village: they were interested in increasing property values in order to maximize their investment. Another example of cultural significance of clothing is older black men who intentionally wore button-up shirts and ties because of the cultural symbolism of that particular outfit: it signified to the cultural outsider that the wearer was refined and distinct from the athletic-suit-wearing drug dealers who controlled numerous Northton corners.

Ultimately, Anderson’s goal was to develop a sort of typology of streetwise individuals: people who could manage awkward and uncomfortable interpersonal interactions on the street in such a fashion that they emerged from the interactions unharmed. While he developed a loose description of these types of individuals, the important part to understand here is how he explored these aspects of culture. First, he found a cultural border that presented cultural conflict. When individuals have to negotiate meaning publicly, it makes it much easier for the sociologist to tease out culture. Additionally, Anderson observed both the transmission of culture from generation to generation (i.e., socialization), but also the self-representation that is provided by cultural expressions (clothing, behavior, etc). Through years of observation, Anderson gained a familiarity with these elements of culture that allowed him to understand how they interacted.

Conclusion edit

So what is culture? Understood most simply as a way of life of a particular society, culture entails a variety of aspects that include, but are not limited to: norms, values, beliefs, or expressive symbols. Consequently, culture can encompass anything that provides meaning or can be given meaning among a group of people. As illustrated at the beginning of the chapter, there may be different meanings attached to the same object or symbol depending on the culture at hand. The cow, which can be found across the globe, is an edifying illustration of this point. Each culture has its own interpretation of what a cow is and means. In the U.S., we most often see a cow as something to eat in our daily life, but in India, many people see a cow as something to revere in their spiritual life. However, culture is not static. It is vulnerable to change, sometimes at a slow pace that is less visible and sometimes at a fast pace that is much more observable. For example, in the advent of globalization in recent years, there is some evidence that India has been moving towards greater consumption of beef and beef products. Only time will tell whether or not there will be a dramatic shift in Asian Indian culture with regard to its perception and treatment of cows due to globalization.

Additional Reading edit

  • Blair-Loy, Mary. 2001. "Cultural constructions of family schemas: The case of women finance executives". Gender & Society, 15(5): 687-709.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1980. The Logic of Practice.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction. Cambridge: Harvard University.
  • Emerson, Rana A. 2002. "'Where my girls at?': Negotiating Black womanhood in music videos". Gender & Society, 16(1): 115-135.
  • Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology.
  • Hamilton, Laura, and Armstrong, Elizabeth A. 2009. "Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed options". Gender & Society, 23(5): 589-616.
  • Milkie, Melissa A. 2002. "Contested images of femininity: An analysis of cultural gatekeepers' struggles with the 'real girl' critique". Gender & Society, 16(6): 839-859.

Discussion Questions edit

  • Are there any humans who don't have culture?
  • What is the role of culture in human competition with other living things?
  • Are there some cultures that are better than others?
  • Can you measure culture?

References edit

  1. Valentino, Lauren, and Stephen Vaisey. 2022. “Culture and Durable Inequality.” Annual Review of Sociology 48(1):109–29. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-102739.
  2. a b c d e f g Griswold, Wendy. 2004. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
  3. Gusfield, Joseph R. Culture. Contexts. 2006; 5(1):43-44.
  4. Butler, Judith. 2008. “Sexual politics, torture, and secular time.” The British Journal of Sociology 59:1-23.
  5. Schwalbe, Michael, Sandra Godwin, Daphne Holden, Douglas Schrock, Shealy Thompson, and Michelle Wolkomir. 2000. “Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: An Interactionist Analysis.” Social Forces 79: 419-452.
  6. Arnold, Matthew, Culture and Anarchy, 1882. Macmillan and Co., New York. Online at [1].
  7. Koontz, Amanda. 2010. “Constructing Authenticity: A Review of Trends and Influences in the Process of Authenticating Cultural Products.” Sociology Compass 11(4): 977-988.
  8. Geertz, Clifford. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York. ISBN 0465097197.
  9. a b Laland, Kevin N., John Odling-Smee, and Sean Myles. 2010. “How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together.” Nat Rev Genet 11:137-148.
  10. Wald, Kenneth D. 2003. Religion and Politics in the United States. Fourth ed. New york: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
  11. Pierre Bourdieu. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, trans. Richard Nice, 1984. Harvard University Press.
  12. Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books.
  13. Roszak, Theodore, The Making of a Counter Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and Its Youthful Opposition, 1968/1969, Doubleday, New York, ISBN 0385073291; ISBN 978-0385073295.
  14. a b Hebdige, Dick (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style (Routledge, March 10, 1981; softcover ISBN 0-415-03949-5.
  15. William Graham Sumner, War and Other Essays, ed. Albert Galloway Keller (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1919).
  16. Juergensmeyer, Mark. 2003. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, 3rd Edition. 3rd ed. University of California Press.
  17. Ritzer, George and Douglas J. Goodman. 2004. Modern Sociological Theory. sixth ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
  18. Halle, David. 1993. Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  19. Collins, Patricia Hill. 2005. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. Routledge.
  20. Emerson, Michael O., and Christian Smith. 2001. Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. Oxford University Press, USA.
  21. Haas, Kate. 2004. Who will make room for the Intersexed? American Journal of Law and Medicine 30(1): 41 - 68.
  22. Diamond, Jared. 2005. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. 1st ed. W.W. Norton & Co.
  23. Coontz, Stephanie. 2000. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. Basic Books.
  24. Putnam, Robert D. 2001. Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community. 1st ed. Simon & Schuster.
  25. Loewen, James W. 1995. Lies my Teacher Told me. The New Press.
  26. Leakey, Richard. 1996. The Origin of Humankind. New York: BasicBooks.
  27. Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

External links edit

For other sociological studies of culture, see Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction and American Sociological Association, Section on Culture

Socialization edit

On November 4, 1970, child welfare authorities discovered a 13-year-old child who had been locked up in a bedroom of a house in Arcadia, California for the majority of her life. The young girl, known to the public as Genie (a pseudonym), was one of the worst cases in recorded history of extreme abuse, neglect, and social isolation. From the age of about 20 months until authorities found her at the age of 13 years and 7 months, Genie had been mostly strapped to a child’s toilet or bound to a crib in addition to being severely malnourished. Her father, who had believed that Genie had significant mental impairment, had decided to isolate her and forbade the family from interacting with her. She consequently lacked any form of socialization since she was a toddler and had suffered mentally from the social deprivation. Psychologists, linguists, and other scientists began studying Genie’s case of near-total isolation. Many of them determined that the absence of socializing opportunities in the early years of her life had led her to missing the critical period of language acquisition, and that Genie ultimately remained unable to fully acquire the use of language.

Although Genie’s case is one of the most well-known cases of social isolation, there have been many other documented or alleged cases of feral children in history since the 14th century. These cases throughout time illustrate the importance of socialization among humans. Many have involved alternative socialization experiences with animals in the absence of human interaction. One recently-documented case involves Oxana Malaya in Ukraine in the 1980s. From about the age of three to the age of eight, Oxana began living with the family’s dogs after her alcoholic parents had forgotten her outside one evening. When authorities found her, she was running around on all fours and barking like her canine companions. However, through resocialization, Oxana was able to subdue her dog-like behaviors and eventually learned to speak Russian. Despite her progress, she remained somewhat intellectually-impaired due to the years of neglect and absence of human socialization.

Both Genie and Oxana’s well-known cases of extreme isolation demonstrate the importance of human interaction in the socialization process among people. This chapter on socialization introduces the different types of socialization as well as the need for socialization among humans in general. It goes on to provide the various theoretical understandings of socialization before discussing some key studies on the topic.

Elements of Socialization edit

Socialization is a fundamental sociological concept, comprising a number of elements. While not every sociologist will agree which elements are the most important, or even how to define some of the elements of socialization, the elements outlined below should help clarify what is meant by socialization.

Goals of Socialization edit

A kindergarten in Afghanistan.

Arnett,[1] in presenting a new theoretical understanding of socialization (see below), outlined what he believes to be the three goals of socialization:

  1. impulse control and the development of a conscience
  2. role preparation and performance, including occupational roles, gender roles, and roles in institutions such as marriage and parenthood
  3. the cultivation of sources of meaning, or what is important, valued, and to be lived for

In short, socialization is the process that prepares humans to function in social life. It should be re-iterated here that socialization is culturally relative - people in different cultures and people who occupy different racial, classed, gendered, sexual, and religious social locations are socialized differently. This distinction does not and should not inherently force an evaluative judgement. Socialization, because it is the adoption of culture, is going to be different in every culture and within different subcultures. Socialization, as both process or outcome, is not better or worse in any particular culture or subculture.

It should also be noted that, while socialization is a key sociological process in the development of individuals who can function in human society, not every aspect of human behavior is learned. For instance, there is evidence that most children have innate empathy for individuals who are willfully injured and consider it wrong.[2] Thus, some aspects of human behavior that one might believe are learned, like empathy and morals, may, in fact, be biologically determined. To what extent human behavior is biologically determined vs. learned is still an open question in the study of human behavior, but recent reviews of biological, genetic, neuroscience, and psychological literatures suggest that culture can influence biology and vice versa (e.g., nurture becomes nature through processes wherein learned responses and behaviors feed the development of the brain and the activation of genetic potential).[3][4][5]

Primary and Secondary Socialization edit

Socialization is a life process, but is generally divided into two parts: Primary socialization takes place early in life, as a child and adolescent. Secondary socialization refers to the socialization that takes place throughout one's life, both as a child and as one encounters new groups that require additional socialization. While there are scholars who argue that only one or the other of these occurs, most social scientists tend to combine the two, arguing that the basic or core identity of the individual develops during primary socialization, with more specific changes occurring later - through secondary socialization - in response to the acquisition of new group memberships and roles and differently structured social situations. The need for later life socialization may stem from the increasing complexity of society with its corresponding increase in varied roles and responsibilities.[6]

Mortimer and Simmons outline three specific ways these two parts of socialization differ:[6]

  1. content - Socialization in childhood is thought to be concerned with the regulation of biological drives. In adolescence, socialization is concerned with the development of overarching values and the self-image. In adulthood, socialization involves more overt and specific norms and behaviors, such as those related to the work role as well as more superficial personality features.
  2. context - In earlier periods, the socializee (the person being socialized) more clearly assumes the status of learner within the context of the initial setting (which may be a family of orientation, an orphanage, a period of homelessness, or any other initial social groups at the beginning of a child's life), the school (or other educational context), or the peer group. Also, relationships in the earlier period are more likely to be affectively charged, i.e., highly emotional. In adulthood, though the socializee takes the role of student at times, much socialization occurs after the socializee has assumed full incumbency of the adult role. There is also a greater likelihood of more formal relationships due to situational contexts (e.g., work environment), which moderates down the affective component.
  3. response - The child and adolescent may be more easily malleable than the adult. Also, much adult socialization is self-initiated and voluntary; adults can leave or terminate the process at any time if they have the proper resources (symbolic, financial, and social) to do so.

Socialization is, of course, a social process. It involves interactions between people. Socialization, as noted in the distinction between primary and secondary, can take place in multiple contexts and as a result of contact with numerous groups. Some of the more significant contributors to the socialization process are: parents, guardians, friends, schools, siblings or other family members, social clubs (like religions or sports teams), life partners (romantic or platonic), and co-workers. Each of these groups include a culture that must be learned and to some degree appropriated by the socializee in order to gain admittance to the group.

Broad and Narrow Socialization edit

Arnett proposed an interesting though seldom used distinction in types of socialization.[1] Arnett distinguished between broad and narrow socialization:

  • broad socialization is intended to promote independence, individualism, and self-expression; it is dubbed broad because this type of socialization has the potential of resulting in a broad range of outcomes
  • narrow socialization is intended to promote obedience and conformity; it is dubbed narrow because there is a narrow range of outcomes

These distinctions correspond to Arnett's definition of socialization, which is:

the whole process by which an individual born with behavioral potentialities of enormously wide range, is led to develop actual behavior which is confined with a much narrower range; the range of what is customary and acceptable for him according to the standards of his group

Arnett explains that his understanding of socialization should not be understood as having just two options, broad or narrow. Instead, the author argues that socialization can be broad or narrow within each of the seven socializing forces he outlines (e.g., family, friends, etc.). Because each force can be either broad or narrow, there is a wide variety of possible broad/narrow socialization combinations. Finally, Arnett notes two examples where his distinction is relevant. First, Arnett argues that there are often differences in socialization by gender. Where these differences exist, argues Arnett, socialization tends to be narrower for women than for men. Arnett also argues that Japanese socialization is narrow as there is more pressure toward conformity in that culture. Arnett argues that this may account for the lower crime rates in Japan.

Total Institutions edit

A painting of a prison.

Not all socialization is voluntary nor is all socialization successful. There are components of society designed specifically to resocialize individuals who were not successfully socialized to begin with. For instance, prisons and mental health institutions are designed to resocialize people who are deemed to have not been successfully socialized. Depending on the degree of isolation and resocialization that takes place in a given institution, some of these institutions are labeled total institutions. In his classic study of total institutions, Erving Goffman gives the following characteristics of total institutions:[7]

  1. all aspects of life are conducted in the same place under the same authority
  2. the individual is a member of a large cohort, all treated alike
  3. all daily activities (over a 24-hour period) are tightly scheduled
  4. there is a sharp split between supervisors and lower participants
  5. information about the member's fate is withheld

The most common examples of total institutions include mental hospitals, prisons, and military boot camps, though there are numerous other institutions that could be considered total institutions as well. The goal of total institutions is to facilitate a complete break with one's old life in order for the institution to resocialize the individual into a new life.

Mortimer and Simmons note a difference in socialization methodologies in different types of institutions.[6] When the goal of an institution is socialization (primary or secondary), the institution tends to use normative pressures. When the goal of an institution is resocialization of deviants, coercion is frequently involved.

In all such cases (and especially in total institutions), this process is accomplished by what Goffman called "the mortification of the self," which refers to the processes whereby authority figures strip unwanted elements from the person under their care and to fashion a type of self society deems acceptable or normative. In the case of mental patients and military personnel, for example, new admissions to the institutions are stripped of their existing symbolic resources (e.g., fashion choices, schedules, methods of speech, etc.) so they may be re-fashioned in the image of the "healthy patient" or "capable soldier." While much socialization involves learning and adopting new lessons, socialization often also involves the repression or suppression of individuality, prior cultural ties, and former patterns of behavior.[7][8]

The Importance of Socialization edit

One of the most common methods used to illustrate the importance of socialization is to draw upon the few unfortunate cases of children who were, through neglect, misfortune, or willful abuse, not socialized by adults while they were growing up. Such children are called "feral" or wild. Some feral children have been confined by people (usually their own parents); in some cases this child abandonment was due to the parents' rejection of a child's severe intellectual or physical impairment. Feral children may have experienced severe child abuse or trauma before being abandoned or running away. Others are alleged to have been brought up by animals; some are said to have lived in the wild on their own. When completely brought up by non-human animals, the feral child exhibits behaviors (within physical limits) almost entirely like those of the particular care-animal, such as its fear of or indifference to humans.

Feral children lack the basic social skills which are normally learned in the process of socialization. For example, they may be unable to learn to use a toilet, have trouble learning to walk upright and display a complete lack of interest in the human activity around them. They often seem mentally impaired and have almost insurmountable trouble learning a human language. The impaired ability to learn language after having been isolated for so many years is often attributed to the existence of a critical period for language learning, and taken as evidence in favor of the Critical Period Hypothesis, and the examples of such children are often used to cast doubts upon potential biological and genetic determinants of human behavior and development. It is very difficult to socialize a child who became isolated at a very young age into a relatively normal member of society and such individuals often need close care throughout their lives.

There are, unfortunately, a number of examples of such children that have been well-documented, including:

Theoretical Understandings of Socialization edit

Socialization, as a concept in social scientific research, has evolved over time. While the basic idea outlined above has been a component of most understandings of socialization, there have been quite a variety of definitions and theories of socialization. Some of these approaches are presented here as definitional variety is often informative.[10][6][11]

  • Symbolic Interactionism - the self develops as a result of interrelated social interactions and interpretive processes; as a result, socialization is highly dependent on the situations in which the actor finds him/herself and the ways these situations are "made sense of" by the being or others; this approach also argues that socialization is a continuous, lifelong process
  • Role Theory - socialization is seen as a process of acquisition of appropriate norms, attitudes, self-images, values, and role behaviors that enable acceptance in the group and effective performance of new roles; in this framework, socialization is seen as a conservative force, permitting the perpetuation of the social organization in spite of the turn-over of individual members through time
  • Reinforcement Theory - the self develops as a result of cognitive evaluations of costs and benefits; this understanding assumes that the socializee, in approaching new roles, is an independent and active negotiator for advantages in relationships with role partners and membership groups
  • Internalization Theory - socialization is a series of stages in which the individual learns to participate in various levels of organization of society; this theory contends that the child internalizes a cognitive frame of reference for interpersonal relations and a common system of expressive symbolism in addition to a moral conscience; this approach was advocated by Talcott Parsons

Recent research[12] suggests that human children are hard-wired to exactly imitate the roles of adults, including actions that are not pragmatic. This is referred to as "overimitation" and, while seemingly maladaptive from an evolutionary perspective, it is possible that this is one of the characteristics of humans that facilitates the transmission of culture from generation to generation.[12] Despite this possibility, however, arguments in this vein typically stress conformity among children, and ignore variation and deviance (especially in the context of minority groups).

Socialization as Joining Groups edit

Socialization has addressed the problem of individual adjustment to society. In all of the approaches outlined above, socialization has, in one way or another, referred to the idea that society shapes its members toward compliance and cooperation with societal requirements. In order to reduce confusion, develop a research methodology for measuring socialization, and potentially lead to the comparability of research findings from different studies, Long and Hadden proposed a revised understanding of socialization.[11] Rather than referring to a vague adoption or learning of culture, Long and Hadden reframed socialization as "the medium for transforming newcomers into bona fide members of a group." Before discussing some of the specifics of this approach, it may be useful to outline some of the critiques Long and Hadden present of earlier approaches to socialization.

According to Long and Hadden, many earlier approaches to socialization extended socialization to every part of human social life. As a result, everyone becomes both a socializing agent (socializer) and a novice (socializee) in all encounters with others. This conceptualization leaves socialization without a social home; it is all around but no place in particular. Another criticism of previous approaches is that they allowed socialization to include anything, and anything which is part of the process at one time may be excluded at another. With this conceptualization, any phenomenon may shift its status in the socialization process without changing its own composition or expression. In other words, socialization includes virtually everything, excludes almost nothing, and shifts with circumstance and outcomes. Additionally, previous approaches to socialization lacked specificity about the nature of socialization activity. Defining socialization by its outcomes made it unnecessary to stipulate the nature of the process conceptually. Socialization could be attributed to this or that but in order to truly understand what is taking place it is necessary to go beyond just pointing to socializing agents and specify what it is about those agents that is doing the socializing. Another serious drawback of earlier approaches is that they disregard the process component of socialization. Doing so limits the socialization concept to employment primarily as a post hoc interpretive category that is used to lend significance to findings defined and developed in other terms.

As a result of these criticisms, Long and Hadden found themselves presented with a two-fold task:[11]

  • locate socialization and its social boundaries more precisely
  • specify the distinctive properties which distinguish it from related phenomena

To accomplish this, Long and Hadden developed a new understanding of socialization, "socialization is the process of creating and incorporating new members of a group from a pool of newcomers, carried out by members and their allies". Under this understanding, the principal agents of socialization are certified and practicing members of the group to which novices are being socialized. It should be noted that certified here is only a shortened way of saying "a socially approved member of the group." Thus, Long and Hadden's revised understanding of socialization sees it as both the process and outcome of joining groups.

Research Examples edit

One important area of socialization research involves differences in gender socialization, but much of that research is summarized in the chapter on gender. The following three research examples are interesting in that they explore both primary and secondary socialization and do so from varying perspectives.

Socialization and Social Class edit

Ellis, Lee, and Peterson,[13] developing a research agenda begun by Melvin L. Kohn,[14] explored differences in how parents raise their children relative to their social class. Kohn found that lower class parents were more likely to emphasize conformity in their children whereas middle-class parents were more likely to emphasize creativity and self-reliance.[14] Ellis et. al. proposed and found that parents value conformity over self-reliance in children to the extent that conformity superseded self-reliance as a criterion for success in their own endeavors. In other words, Ellis et. al. verified that the reason lower-class parents emphasize conformity in their children is because they experience conformity in their day-to-day activities. For example, factory work is far more about conforming than innovation.

Another study in this same area explored a slightly different component of this relationship. Erlanger was interested in a correlation between social class and physical violence.[5] While he did not find a strong correlation indicating lower class individuals were more likely to employ physical violence in punishing their children, he did present evidence concerning several outdated propositions. Erlanger's findings include:

  • physical punishment does not lead to working class authoritarianism
  • childhood punishment experiences do not explain the greater probability that working class adults, as opposed to middle class adults, will commit homicide
  • general use of corporal punishment is not a precursor to child abuse
  • use of corporal punishment is not part of a subcultural positive evaluation of violence

It should be noted that this is an older study and that more recent findings may have shed more light on these issues. It should also be noted that Erlanger readily points out when his findings are strongly supported or weakly supported by his data. It behooves the interested party to read his paper directly rather than rely on the summary above for the specific nuances. Further, it is important to note that many of these findings (especially in relation to Kohn's original analyses) have also been verified in natural settings. Annette Lareau, for example, utilized interviews and participant observation with middle and working class parents to demonstrate two primary patterns of child rearing distinguished by class status - concerted cultivation and natural growth. Specifically, she found that working class parents encouraged natural growth wherein their children were left more free to structure their own time, which facilitated greater development of creativity and wider friendship and familial networks, but also led to an emerging sense of social restraint. On the other hand, she found that middle class parents practiced concerted cultivation wherein they intimately planned and scheduled their children's lives around extracurricular activities, which limited their children's friendship and familial networks, but facilitated an emerging sense of entitlement and important negotiation skills that could be transferred into educational and occupational advantages over the life course.

Socialization and Death Preparation edit

Marshall interviewed a number of retirement home residents to explore how their environment influenced their thinking about death.[15] Marshall was examining secondary socialization concerning mortality. Marshall found that a combination of relationships, behavioral changes, and retirement home culture contributed to a conception of death that was both accepting and courageous.

Residents of this particular retirement home found themselves with more time on their hands - to think about death - because they no longer had to care for their own homes. Additionally, they found themselves surrounded by people in a situation similar to their own: they were basically moving into the retirement home to prepare for death. The prevalence of elderly people facilitated discussions of death, which also helped socialize the residents into their acceptance of mortality. Finally, the retirement home community encouraged a culture of life and fulfillment in part to counter-act the frequency of death. Some residents calculated there was one death per week in the retirement home. In light of such numbers, it was important to the success of the community to maintain a positive culture that embraced life yet accepted death. In summary, Marshall found that numerous factors contributed to the socialization of residents into a positive lifestyle that was also accepting of and preparatory for their impending deaths.

Do College Preparation Classes Make a Difference? edit

Rosenbaum was interested in the effects of high school tracks on IQ.[16] High school tracks are the different levels or types of courses students can take; for instance, many high schools now include college preparation tracks and general education tracks. Rosenbaum's hypothesis was that students who followed the lower tracks (non college-preparation) would score lower on IQ tests over time than would students who followed the higher tracks (college-preparation). Considering that school is one of the primary contributors to socialization, it makes sense that participation in a given track can also result in the adoption of the norms, values, beliefs, skills, and behaviors (i.e., culture) that correspond to that track. In other words, tracks can turn into a type of self-fulfilling prophecy: you may start out at the same level as someone in a higher track, but by the time you have completed the lower track you will have become like the other students in your track.

To reduce confounding variables and ensure notable test effects, Rosenbaum selected a homogeneous, white, working class public school with five different, highly stratified classes. Rosenbaum then compared IQ scores for individuals in the different tracks at two time points. As it turns out, tracking does have a significant effect on IQ. People in lower tracks can actually see a decline in IQ compared to a possible increase among those in the upper track. In other words, tracks socialize their students into their corresponding roles.

Conclusion edit

Socialization is the process by which humans learn how to function in a particular society. Although it is expected that all humans experience some form of socialization during their lives, there have been some rare instances throughout history in which individuals were either forced to live in social isolation, such as the case of Genie, or undergo socialization through alternative means, such as the case of Oxana Malaya. Both cases were depicted at the beginning of the chapter and illustrate the importance of socialization in human development. Although socialization is observably essential among humans, it is important to note here that socialization is very much culturally-relative, meaning that the process and outcomes do vary from culture to culture. This is most evident in the diverse social norms existing throughout the world. How each of us are socialized in a particular society ultimately determines what we perceive as “normal” and “abnormal,” and even then, we are susceptible to resocialization depending on the changing circumstances of our social environment or social exposure.

Additional Reading edit

  • Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual. NY: Pantheon Books.
  • Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and other Inmates. NY: Doubleday/Anchor
  • Scott, Marvin B. and Stanford M. Lyman. 1968. “Accounts.” American Sociological Review 33: 46-62.
  • Emerson, Rana A. 2002. “Where my girls at?:” Negotiating black womanhood in music videos. Gender & Society 16(1): 115-135.
  • Baker-Sperry, Lori and Grauerholz, Liz. 2003. The pervasiveness and persistence of the feminine beauty ideal in children’s fairy tales. Gender & Society 17(5): 711-726.
  • Buysse, Jo Ann M. and Embser-Herbert, Melissa Sheridan. 2004. Constructions of gender in sport: An analysis of intercollegiate media guide cover photographs. Gender & Society 18(1): 66-81.
  • Massoni, Kelley. 2004. Modeling work: Occupational messages in Seventeen Magazine. Gender & Society 18(1): 47-65.
  • Martin, Karin A. and Kazyak, Emily. 2009. Hetero-romantic love and heterosexiness in children’s g-rated films. Gender & Society 23(3): 315-336.
  • Thoits, Peggy A. 1989. “The Sociology of Emotions.” Annual Review of Sociology 15: 317-342.
  • Kemper, Theodore D. 1987. “How Many Emotions Are There? Wedding the Social and the Autonomic Components.” American Journal of Sociology 93: 263-289.
  • Hochschild, Arlie R. 1979. “Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology 3: 551-575.
  • Shott, Susan. 1979. “Emotion and Social Life: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.” American Journal of Sociology 84: 1317-1334.
  • Scheff, Thomas J. 1988. “Shame and Conformity: The Deference-Emotion System.” American Sociological Review 53: 395-406.
  • Hochschild, Arlie R. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkley: University of California Press.

Discussion Questions edit

  • Who socialized you into society and how did they do it?
  • In what way are you a socializing agent?
  • Can socialization fail?
  • How does socialization vary by social class, by race, and/or by gender?
  • what are the elements of socialization.

References edit

  1. a b Arnett, Jeffrey J. 1995. Broad and Narrow Socialization: The Family in the Context of a Cultural Theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57( 3):617-28.
  2. Decety, Jean, Kalina J. Michalska, and Yuko Akitsuki. 2008. Who caused the pain? An fMRI Investigation of Empathy and Intentionality in Children. Neuropsychologia. 46, 11:2607-2614.
  3. Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. Oxford University Press.
  4. Butler, Judith. 1999. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.
  5. Chrisler, Joan and Paula Caplan. 2002. “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde: How PMS became a Cultural Phenomenon and Psychiatric Disorder.” Annual Review of Sex Research 13:274-306.
  6. a b c d Mortimer, Jeylan T. and Roberta G. Simmons. 1978. Adult Socialization. Annual Review of Sociology 4:421-54.
  7. a b Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the social situations of Mental Patients and other Inmates. Doubleday Publishing
  8. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  9. DeGregory, Lane (2008-08-04). "The Girl in the Window". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-08-04.
  10. Holland, David. 1970. Familization, Socialization, and the Universe of Meaning: An Extension of the Interactional Approach to the Study of the Family. Journal of Marriage and the Family 32(3):415-27.
  11. a b c Long, Theodore E. and Jeffrey K. Hadden. 1985. A Reconception of Socialization. Sociological Theory 3(1):39-49.
  12. a b Mark Nielsen and Keyan Tomaselli “Overimitation in Kalahari Bushman Children and the Origins of Human Cultural Cognition” in Psychological Science, May 2010, 21: 729-736.
  13. Ellis, Godfrey J., Gary R. Lee, and Larry R. Petersen. 1978. Supervision and Conformity: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Parental Socialization Values. American Journal of Sociology 84(2):386-403.
  14. a b Kohn, Melvin L. 1969. Class and Conformity, A Study in Values. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
  15. Marshall, Victor W. 1975. Socialization for Impending Death in a Retirement Village. American Journal of Sociology 80(5):1124-44.
  16. Rosenbaum, James E. 1975. The Stratification of Socialization Processes. American Sociological Review 40(1):48-54.

Groups edit

As someone who studies people, I spend a lot of time watching them and attempting to both make sense of what they do and use these observations to make sense of my own research and theory development. On this particular day in the park, I saw two children playing on opposite sides of a typical swing set, and around the time I was getting bored with my novel one of the little kids asked the other, “are you a boy,” and the other little kid said “no.” Smiling, the first child said, “oh, then you’re a girl,” but again the second child said “no.” After staring for a moment, the first child said, “but I thought you had to pick one or the other.” Climbing into a swing, the second child responded, “My parents don’t make me choose – they say I can be anything I want.” Smiling, the first child asked, “I wonder why I can’t be anything I want,” and without missing a beat, the second child responded, “Ask your parents.”

In this section, we examine what sociologists have learned about groups, and the ways group memberships influence social and personal experience. As we begin this section, ask yourself the questions noted above. Who are you? Do you allow yourself to be anything you want or do you act certain ways to fit into the groups that you either selected or were placed in throughout your life? How might your life be different if you became a member of other groups? If everything about you is based on some group membership, is anyone really an individual?

Introduction edit

In sociology, a group is usually defined as a number of people who identify and interact with one another. This is a very broad definition, as it includes groups of all sizes, from dyads to whole societies. While an aggregate comprises merely a number of individuals, a group in sociology exhibits cohesiveness to a larger degree. Aspects that members in the group may share include: interests, values, ethnic/linguistic background, roles and kinship. One way of determining if a collection of people can be considered a group is if individuals who belong to that collection use the self-referent pronoun "we;" using "we" to refer to a collection of people often implies that the collection thinks of itself as a group. Examples of groups include: families, companies, circles of friends, clubs, local chapters of fraternities and sororities, and local religious congregations.

Collections of people that do not use the self-referent pronoun "we" but share certain characteristics (e.g., roles, social functions, etc.) are different from groups in that they usually do not regularly interact with each other nor share similar interests or values. Such collections are referred to as categories of people rather than groups; examples include: police, soldiers, millionaires, women, etc.

Individuals form groups for a variety of reasons. There are some rather obvious ones, like reproduction, protection, trade, protest, and food production. But social categorization of people into groups and categories also facilitates behavior and action.[1] An example may help explain this idea:

Suppose you are driving somewhere in a car when you notice red lights flashing in your rearview mirror. Because you have been socialized into society, you know that the red lights mean you should pull over, so you do. After waiting for a minute or two, an individual in a uniform walks toward your car door. You roll down your window and the individual asks you for your "license and registration."

Because groups and categories help facilitate social behavior, you know who this individual is: a member of a law enforcement category like the police or highway patrol. In all likelihood, you do not have to question this individual as to why they are driving a special car with lights on it, why they are wearing a uniform, why they are carrying a gun, or why they pulled you over (you may ask why they pulled you over, but doing so often increases the likelihood they'll give you a ticket). In short, because you recognize that the individual driving the car belongs to a specific social category (or group), you can enter this interaction with a body of knowledge that will help guide your behavior. You do not have to learn how to interact in that situation every single time you encounter it.

In fact, sociologists have long recognized the people experience much of social life by attempting to frame situations in terms they can understand.[2] Specifically, people approach each situation by consciously or unconsciously asking "What is going on here," and seeking to coordinate their activities to the "definition of the situation" they decide upon. To accomplish this, people scan situations for information "given" (e.g., the things people do to signify who they are and what groups they belong to intentionally) and "given off" (e.g., the things people do that inadvertently signify who they are and the groups they belong to) by other people in the situation. Based on this information, people then act in ways they have been socialized to believe is appropriate for the situation. In the case above, for example, you (as the driver) would note the information given (e.g., the special car, the lights, and the uniform worn) to ascertain what was happening and who the other driver was, and then you could note the information given off (e.g., the apparent mood of the police officer based upon her or his body language, verbal language, and mannerisms) to predict (accurately or otherwise) what was about to happen to you. In so doing, you would be using the knowledge of groups at your disposal to manage the situation. Such interpretive work combined with social categorizations to smooth a wide variety of interactional and interpretive experiences.

Social Identity Theory edit

Social identity is a theory developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. As developed by Tajfel, Social Identity Theory is a diffuse but interrelated group of social psychological theories concerned with when and why individuals identify with, and behave as part of, social groups, adopting shared attitudes to outsiders. It is also concerned with what difference it makes when encounters between individuals are perceived as encounters between group members. Social Identity Theory is thus concerned both with the psychological and sociological aspects of group behavior. According to Tajfel and Turner, social identities are composed of three elements.

Categorization edit

We categorize objects in order to understand them, in a very similar way we categorize people (including ourselves) in order to understand the social environment. We use social categories like black, white, Australian, Christian, Muslim, student, and bus driver because they are useful. If we can assign people to a category then that tells us things about those people. Without an understanding of people's groups and categories, we would have a very difficult time functioning in society. Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to. We define appropriate behavior by reference to the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only do this if you can tell who belongs to your group.

Identification edit

We identify with groups that we perceive ourselves to belong to. Identification carries two meanings. Part of who we are is made up of our group memberships. That is, sometimes we think of ourselves as "us" vs. "them" or "we" vs. "they", and at other times we think of ourselves as "I" vs. "he or she" or "me" vs. "him or her". In other words, sometimes we think of ourselves as group members and at other times we think of ourselves as unique individuals. This varies situationally, so that we can be more or less a group member, depending upon the circumstances. What is crucial for our purposes is that thinking of yourself as a group member and thinking of yourself as a unique individual are both parts of your self-concept. The first is referred to as social identity, the latter is referred to as personal identity. In social identity theory, group membership is not something foreign which is tacked onto the person, it is a real, true and vital part of the person. Our groups make up part of who we are.

The other meaning implied by the concept of identity is the idea that we are, in some sense, the same, or identical to other people. This should not be misinterpreted, when we say that we are the same, we mean that for some purposes we treat members of our groups as being similar to ourselves in some relevant way. To take the most extreme example, in some violent conflict such as a war, the members of the opposite group - the outgroup - are treated as identical and completely different to the those people in your group - the ingroup - which is made up of distinct individuals. Thinking about individuals in one's outgroup in such a fashion allows the individual to believe that the enemy is deserving of death by dehumanizing them (more on this below). Treating people this way allows us to justify otherwise unjustifiable behavior.

Comparison edit

A positive self-concept is a part of normal psychological functioning. There is pretty good evidence that to deal effectively with the world we need to feel good about ourselves. The idea of social comparison is that in order to evaluate ourselves we compare ourselves with similar others. We often gain self-esteem by comparing ourselves with others in our group, particularly if we can claim membership in a prestigious group. The prestige of a group is also often created through comparisons that positively reflect on the group. In other words, people in groups choose to compare their groups with other groups in ways that reflect positively on themselves. In fact, people are motivated to see their own group as relatively better than similar (but inferior) groups (i.e., positive distinctiveness). Inversely, people in a group may minimize differences between their group and another, slightly more prestigious group so one's own group tends to be seen more favorably (i.e., negative distinctiveness).

Groups choose dimensions for comparison in order to maximize the positivity of their own group. Groups which perceive themselves to be of high status on particular dimensions will choose those as the basis of comparison. Groups of low status will minimize differences on those dimensions or choose new dimensions. For example, people from some Middle Eastern Islamic countries might regard their country as inferior to the West in terms of economic and technological advancement but might regard their way of life as being morally superior.

Intriguingly, the notion that inferior or "underdog" groups are hyper-motivated to succeed against superior groups turns out not to be true, generally. Members of a group or team will actually work harder when they are competing against a lower ranked group than when they are competing against a higher-ranked group.[3] This makes sense when framed as a status issue: the superior group has more to lose if it is defeated by an inferior team while the inferior team, if it loses, has not lost anything but rather has affirmed the existing social order. Thus, members of higher status groups work harder when competing against lower status groups.

Primary and Secondary Groups edit

This family from the 1970s would be an example of a primary group.

In sociology we distinguish between two types of groups based upon their characteristics. A Primary group is typically a small social group whose members share close, personal, enduring relationships. These groups are marked by concern for one another, shared activities and culture, and long periods of time spent together. The goal of primary groups is actually the relationships themselves rather than achieving some other purpose. Families and close friends are examples of primary groups

A class of students is generally considered a secondary group.

Secondary groups are large groups whose relationships are impersonal and goal-oriented. Some secondary groups may last for many years, though most are short term. Such groups also begin and end with very little significance in the lives of the people involved. People in a secondary group interact on a less personal level than in a primary group. Rather than having as the goal the maintenance and development of the relationships themselves, these groups generally come together to accomplish a specific purpose. Since secondary groups are established to perform functions, people’s roles are more interchangeable. Examples of secondary groups include: classmates in a college course, athletic teams, and co-workers.

The distinction between primary and secondary groups was originally proposed by Charles Horton Cooley. He labeled groups as "primary" because people often experience such groups early in their life and such groups play an important role in the development of personal identity. Secondary groups generally develop later in life and are much less likely to be influential on one's identity.

Group Dynamics edit

Building on the recognition of primary and secondary groups, sociologists often focus their studies on either group dynamics, group influence (see the next section) or a combination of these two areas of inquiry. In terms of group dynamics, sociologists have long explored the ways people act in groups as a method for bridging individual and societal level forms of meaning making and activity.[4] Drawing heavily on insights from Symbolic Interaction and Structural Functionalist theories, researchers explore the ways that groups are shaped by and in turn shape societal notions of "normal" and "deviant" as well as societal patterns of inequality. At the same time, researchers explore the ways that groups are formed, negotiated, and adjusted by the actions of individual beings interacting with one another on a newfound and/or regular basis. In so doing, studies of group dynamics shed light upon some ways groups reflect, reinforce, and/or shift the ongoing reciprocal relationship between self and society.

Dramaturgy edit

Much research into group dynamics draws from the dramaturgical approach outlined by Erving Goffman, and refined by other Symbolic Interactionists throughout the latter part of the 20th Century. Utilizing the metaphor of the theatre, Goffman defined social life as an information game wherein people give (i.e., intentionally transmit information) and give off (i.e., accidentally transmit information) details about themselves through the emphasis they place upon the social groups to which they belong. Specifically, people spend much of their lives attempting to demonstrate and affirm their membership within groups that are well regarded while distancing themselves from groups that are stigmatized within society. In so doing, people learn a wide variety of "signifying practices" or ways of showing others who we are and what we do within group contexts, which demonstrate group membership. An average college student, for example, may decide to wear certain brands of clothing, display certain logos of sports teams, adorn oneself with specific types of jewelry, and/or speak in certain manners all to give the impression they are a certain type of person. At the same time, others will constantly "read" the presentations and impressions generated by this college student's signifying practices to guess what type of person they are. For example, if a students is perceived to be wearing a cross, one might think one is a Christian, or if a student is carrying a Coach bag, others may perceive one has some money). Drawing on such information, people can then sort themselves into various groups, which may then establish specific codes of conduct and dress for members.[5]

Identity Work edit

Building upon Dramaturgical insights, sociologists developed the notion of "identity work," or the things people do (individually and collectively) to give meaning to themselves and others.[6] Examining the ways people constructed personal, collective, group, and social identities, researchers taking an identity work approach have outlined four generic processes whereby people give meaning to themselves and others within group contexts. First, group members must define an identity into existence. For example, as a class we all might decide to call ourselves the dragon class. Second, group members must establish a set of codes or symbolic signals that allow people to tell others they are a member of a group. In our class example, we could say that members of the dragon class always wear pink on Tuesdays, calls things that are cool "fetch", and always skip whenever we leave the classroom while pumping our fists and laughing. While we would likely need to develop other codes as time went by to further demonstrate our group identity, these initial ideas would allow us to begin showing others we are members of a group. Third, group members must establish ritual occasions or opportunities to affirm our membership in the group. In our class example, we could pick meeting times outside of class to get together on Tuesdays when we're all wearing pink, and we could applaud, laugh, or pat others on the back whenever they use the word "fetch." In such cases, we could each demonstrate to other group members that they belong while also having opportunities to remind ourselves that we belong. Finally, group members must come up with ways to police the boundaries of our group. In our class example, we would make sure to stop people when they used any term other than "fetch" to say something was cool and question group members that did not skip out of class. Specifically, we would seek to make sure others within the group behaved in the already agreed upon ways in order to make sure the group norms held. Through the combination of all these processes, we would have created a group identity and a set of norms to demonstrate that identity to others.

A real life example may be illustrative here. Imagine that you have just joined a new religion and you are learning what it means to be a member of that group. To do this, first you will go to other members of that religion to learn what the religion means, what its people believe, what items they consider important, and what actions are allowed for members - all of these would be identity codes. After you defined yourself as a group member, you would then need to adopt some or all of these identity codes so others believe you are a member. By adopting these identity codes correctly in the presence of other group members, you would gain affirmation wherein existing group members approve of your performance of these identity codes and welcome you into the group (in some cases, there may even be a formal ceremony where you profess your membership and other group members affirm that profession). Finally, you will begin to notice that other group members (and over time you will do this to) will check on you to make sure you are doing the identity codes properly. In so doing, they will police your behavior to make sure you still belong to the group. Similar to the religious example just outlined, sociologists have noted similar processes of (1) definition, (2) coding, (3) affirming, and (4) policing in social groups as wide ranging as scientific disciplines, support groups, fraternities, sororities, sports teams, friendship groups or cliques, office or other occupational settings, social movement organizations, and classrooms to name just a few. In fact, it might be interesting for you to ask yourself how many times you have experienced and enacted these patterns in your own group memberships. In all such cases, people engage in identity work to construct, affirm, and signify membership within social groups.

Emotion Work edit

Similar to identity work processes, scholars have noted the tendency for people to alter their emotional expressions, experiences, and understandings in relation to group memberships. Specifically, social groups and contexts typically contain "feeling rules," or cultural understandings or scripts that provide people with clues to how one should feel, how much one should feel, and how one should display feelings within a given group or situation. When one arrives at a funeral, for example, people will expect one to be sad, appear sad, and do so in a manner that does not detract from the funeral ritual itself (though funeral norms are culture specific). Despite these expectations, one may arrive feeling happy (e.g., "I hated that dude."), appear nervous (e.g., "Can anyone tell I hated that dude?"), or become more emotional than people are comfortable with seeing (e.g., crying "OH MY BABY! OH MY BABY!" before falling on the floor or the casket). In such cases where our actual emotions do not match the feeling rules of a given group or context, we engage in what Arlie Russell Hochschild termed "emotion work," or the processes whereby people seek to manage or change their emotions to align them with normative feeling rules in a given group or context. Drawing on these insights, sociologists have outlined three main strategies of emotion work:

  • Bodily = adjusting the body to shape feelings (e.g., scratching an arm or popping a rubber band on the skin to invoke feelings)
  • Cognitive = adjusting thoughts to shape feelings (e.g., telling ourselves "I need to be happy for him" when our boyfriend is getting ready to marry that other man we don't like)
  • Discursive = using language to reframe feelings (e.g., "Oh, it was...nice" or other phrases used to hide our actual feelings about something)

Further, sociologists have outlined three main types of emotion work people do in the course of their lives:

  • Individual = working on our own emotions (e.g., college students managing anxiety at test time)
  • Interpersonal = working on the emotions of others during interactional exchanges (e.g., people in wheelchairs managing the discomfort of others in their presence)
  • Reciprocal = working with others to manage collective emotions (e.g., employees managing the negative reactions of bosses or other co-workers during tense working situations)

Self & Society edit

In recent years, Dramaturgical scholars have integrated many of the insights on group dynamics to demonstrate the ways groups reflect the reciprocal relationship between selves and societies. They have demonstrated that the primary codes that individuals use within groups to signify personal and collective identities rely heavily upon existing societal beliefs, values, and norms. People form groups by doing identity work that blends their personal desires with the symbolic materials provided by social structures. Similarly, people manage and maintain groups and group membership by doing emotion work that aligns their personal feelings with existing structural feeling rules. As a result, groups provide opportunities to examine the ways that selves and structures work hand in hand - to varying degrees - to continuously reproduce individuals and societies predicated upon "who we believe ourselves to be," "what we believe this says about us," and "how we feel about these details."[7]

Group Influence edit

The primary reason sociologists study groups is because of their power over individuals. A large body of research suggests that group membership strongly shapes the everyday behavior of individuals. Following are some of the many ways groups shape individual level behavior.

Conformity edit

An example of the types of cards used in the Solomon Asch line experiments.

If you've ever done something in a group that you would not do if you were alone, it's likely that you experienced conformity; your attitudes, beliefs, and/or behaviors were influenced by other people. One of the most well-known illustrations of conformity is Solomon Asch's conformity experiments. The experiment was set up as follows:

Research participants would enter a room and sit at a table with several other people (who were confederates, meaning they were actually helping with the research). The participant and confederates would be shown one card that had a reference line and another card that had three comparison lines. Subjects were required to select the comparison line that corresponded in length to the reference line.

This seems like a relatively straightforward task. However, choosing the correct line becomes much more difficult when the confederates choose the wrong answer. Why? Because of our tendency to conform to those around us. Thus, when Asch has the confederates choose the wrong answer, participants also chose the wrong line 37% of the time.[8][9] How do you think you would respond in such a situation?

Jason Chein and Laurence Steinberg have illustrated why people in groups are more likely to take risks (one form of conforming) using functional magnetic resonance imaging: the presence of peers heightens the benefits that result from risky decisions.[10] Participants in their research remained aware of the risks, but their brains exhibited heightened sensitivity to the benefits of succeeding. Thus, the presence of peers can facilitate risky behavior as it makes the reward more meaningful.

Social Facilitation edit

People often perform their best when competing with others, like in races, as a result of social facilitation. This is just one illustration of the influence of groups on individuals.

Social facilitation is the tendency for people to be aroused into better performance on simple tasks (or tasks at which they are expert or that have become autonomous) when under the eye of others,[11] rather than while they are alone (i.e., the audience effect), or when competing against another (i.e., the coactor effect).[12] Complex tasks (or tasks at which people are not skilled), however, are often performed in an inferior manner in such situations.[13] This effect has been demonstrated in a variety of species. In humans, it is strongest among those who are most concerned about the opinions of others, and when the individual is being watched by someone he or she does not know, or cannot see well.[14]

Social Loafing edit

Social loafing refers to the phenomenon that can occur when people in a group make less of an effort to achieve a goal than they would working alone. As a result of social loafing, groups can sometimes generate less total output than the combined performance of their members working as individuals.[15] Social loafing results from a lack of motivation when working in a group because individuals do not believe their specific contribution will be evaluated. As a result, they do not put in as much effort as they otherwise would.[15]

Deindividuation edit

Deindividuation refers to the phenomenon of relinquishing one's sense of identity, self-awareness, or evaluation apprehension. This can happen as a result of becoming part of a group that fosters obedience to group norms rather than an individual's norms, such as an army or mob.[16] Once this happens, individuals no longer think about themselves before they act and may, in fact, be unaware of their own actions.

Deindividuation can have quite destructive effects, like increasing the odds someone will commit a crime[17], engaging in violence,[18][19] or even over-enforce the law, such as police in riot situations.

Group Polarization edit

Juries can be influenced by group polarization, leading to more extreme punitive damage awards.

Group polarization refers to the finding that after participating in a discussion group, members tend to advocate more extreme positions and/or call for riskier courses of action than individuals who did not participate in any such discussion.[20]

Group polarization results from two primary mechanisms: social comparison and informational influence.[21] Social comparison refers to the drive of individuals to appear socially desirable. Informational social influence occurs when a person is in a situation where he or she is unsure of the correct way to behave. In such situations, that person will often look to others for cues concerning the correct behavior. When "we conform because we believe that other's interpretation of an ambiguous situation is more accurate than ours and will help us choose an appropriate course of action,"[22] it is informational social influence.

Group polarization has been used to explain the decision-making of juries, particularly when considering punitive damages in a civil trial. Studies have shown that after deliberating together, mock jury members often decided on punitive damage awards that were larger or smaller than the amount any individual juror had favored prior to deliberation. The studies indicated that when the jurors favored a relatively low award, discussion would lead to an even more lenient result, while if the jury was inclined to impose a stiff penalty, discussion would make it even harsher.

Diffusion of Responsibility edit

Diffusion of responsibility (also called the bystander effect) is a social phenomenon which tends to occur in groups of people above a certain critical size when responsibility is not explicitly assigned. A common example would be observing a minor fender-bender on a busy freeway. Most people, when they observe something like that, do not stop and do not call the police, assuming someone else will do so. This phenomenon rarely ever occurs in small groups. In tests involving groups of three or fewer, everyone in the group took action as opposed to groups of over ten where in almost every test, no one took action.

Kitty Genovese's murder is widely cited as an example of the diffusion of responsibility as numerous people observed (either heard or saw) her murder but no one called the police immediately, allowing the murderer to leave the scene of the initial attack then return to track her down and kill her and still get away.

False Consensus and Illusory Superiority edit

The false consensus effect is the tendency for people to project their way of thinking onto other people.[23][24] In other words, people often assume that everyone else thinks the same way they do. This belief is unsubstantiated by statistical and qualitative data, leading to the perception of a consensus that does not exist. This logical fallacy involves a group or individual assuming that their own opinions, beliefs and predilections are more prevalent amongst the general public than they really are. This bias is commonly present in a group setting where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way. This is done to justify one's own beliefs.

Illusory superiority is a cognitive bias in which people overestimate the degree to which they possess desirable qualities, relative to others, or underestimate their negative qualities relative to others.[25] Such over- and under-estimations serve to bolster peoples' self-esteem. People who succumb to the illusory superiority bias have inflated views of their own characteristics. Some surveys have found all, or nearly all, the participants rate themselves as above the group average. The strongest effect has been found when people rate themselves on abilities at which they are totally incompetent. These subjects have the greatest disparity between their actual performance (at the low end of the distribution) and their self-rating (placing themselves above average). The effect has been found when people compare themselves to others on many different abilities and personality traits:

  • Sorority members perceive those in their sorority as far less likely to be conceited and snobby than those in other sororities[26]
  • 53% of Dutch adults rate their marriage or partnership as better than most others; only 1% rate it as worse than most marriages[27]
  • 66% of adult Americans grade their oldest child's public school with an A or B, but 64% give the nation's public schools a C or D[28]

Groupthink edit

Groupthink is a term coined by psychologist Irving Janis [29] to describe a process by which a group can make bad or irrational decisions. In a groupthink situation, each member of the group attempts to conform his or her opinions to what they believe to be the consensus of the group. In a general sense this seems to be a very rationalistic way to approach the situation. However this results in a situation in which the group ultimately agrees upon an action which each member might individually consider to be unwise (the risky shift).

Janis' original definition of the term was "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action." The word groupthink was intended to be reminiscent of George Orwell's coinages (such as doublethink and duckspeak) from the fictional language Newspeak, which he portrayed in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Groupthink tends to occur on committees and in large organizations. Janis originally studied the Pearl Harbor bombing, the Vietnam War and the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Recently, in 2004, the US Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq[30] blamed groupthink for failures to correctly interpret intelligence relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

Janis[31] provides descriptions of groupthink:

antecedent conditions of groupthink symptoms indicative of groupthink symptoms of decisions affected by groupthink
Insulation of the group Illusion of invulnerability Incomplete survey of alternatives
High group cohesiveness Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group Incomplete survey of objectives
Directive leadership Collective rationalization of group's decisions Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
Lack of norms requiring methodical procedures Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents Failure to re-appraise initially rejected alternatives
Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms Poor information search
High stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than the one offered by the leader(s) Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect) Selective bias in processing information at hand (see also confirmation bias)
Direct pressure on dissenters to conform Failure to work out contingency plans
Self-appointed "mindguards" protect the group from negative information

One mechanism which management consultants recommend to avoid groupthink is to place responsibility and authority for a decision in the hands of a single person who can turn to others for advice. Others advise that a pre-selected individual take the role of disagreeing with any suggestion presented, thereby making other individuals more likely to present their own ideas and point out flaws in others' — and reducing the stigma associated with being the first to take negative stances (see Devil's Advocate).

Anonymous feedback via suggestion box or online chat has been found to be a useful remedy for groupthink — negative or dissenting views of proposals can be raised without any individual being identifiable by others as having lodged a critique. Thus the social capital of the group is preserved, as all members have plausible deniability that they raised a dissenting point.

Networks edit

A social network is a social structure between actors, either individuals or organizations. It indicates the ways in which they are connected through various social familiarities ranging from casual acquaintance to close familial bonds. The study of social networks is called both social network analysis and social network theory. Research in a number of academic fields has demonstrated that social networks operate on many levels, from families up to the level of nations, and play a critical role in determining the way problems are solved, organizations are run, and the degree to which individuals succeed in achieving their goals.

An example of a social network diagram

Social network theory views social relationships in terms of nodes and ties. Nodes are the individual actors within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors. There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. In its most simple form, a social network is a map of all of the relevant ties between the nodes being studied. The network can also be used to determine the social capital of individual actors. These concepts are often displayed in a social network diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are the lines.

The shape of the social network helps determine a network's usefulness to its individuals. Smaller, tighter networks can be less useful to their members than networks with lots of loose connections (weak ties) to individuals outside the main network. More "open" networks, with many weak ties and social connections, are more likely to introduce new ideas and opportunities to their members than closed networks with many redundant ties. In other words, a group of friends who only do things with each other already share the same knowledge and opportunities. A group of individuals with connections to other social worlds is likely to have access to a wider range of information. It is better for individual success to have connections to a variety of networks rather than many connections within a single network. Similarly, individuals can exercise influence or act as brokers within their social networks by bridging two networks that are not directly linked (called filling social holes).

The power of social network theory stems from its difference from traditional sociological studies, which assume that it is the attributes of individual actors - whether they are friendly or unfriendly, smart or dumb, etc. - that matter. Social network theory produces an alternate view, where the attributes of individuals are less important than their relationships and ties with other actors within the network. This approach has turned out to be useful for explaining many real-world phenomena, but leaves less room for individual agency, the ability for individuals to influence their success, so much of it rests within the structure of their network. For instance, social networks have been used to examine how companies interact with each other, characterizing the many informal connections that link executives together, as well as associations and connections between individual employees at different companies. These networks provide ways for companies to gather information, deter competition, and even collude in setting prices or policies. Power within organizations has also been found to be tied to social networks. Powerful people in organizations often derive their power from their degree of connectedness within the organization (i.e., the degree to which an individual within a network is at the center of many relationships) rather than from job title or statuses. Social networks also play a key role in hiring, in business success for firms, and in job performance.

The so-called rule of 150 states that the size of a genuine social network is limited to about 150 members (sometimes called the Dunbar Number). The rule arises from cross-cultural studies in sociology and especially anthropology of the maximum size of a village (in modern parlance an ecovillage). It is theorized in evolutionary psychology that the number may be some kind of limit of average human ability to recognize members and track emotional facts about all members of a group. However, it may be due to economics and the need to track "free riders", as larger groups tend to be easier for cheats and liars to prosper in.

The "six degrees of separation" model.

The small world phenomenon is the hypothesis that the chain of social acquaintances required to connect one arbitrary person to another arbitrary person anywhere in the world is generally short. The concept gave rise to the famous phrase six degrees of separation after a 1967 small world experiment by psychologist Stanley Milgram which found that two random US citizens were connected by an average of six acquaintances. Current internet experiments continue to explore this phenomenon, including the Ohio State Electronic Small World Project and Columbia's Small World Project. As of 2005, these experiments confirm that about five to seven degrees of separation are sufficient for connecting any two people through the internet.

Sociologists are interested in social networks because of their influence on and importance for the individual. Social networks are the basic tools used by individuals to meet other people, to recreate, and to find social support.[32] Recent research suggests that the social networks of Americans are shrinking and more and more people have no close confidants or people with whom they can share their most intimate thoughts.[33] In 1985, the mean network size of individuals in the U.S. was 2.94 people. Networks declined by almost an entire confidant by 2004, to 2.08 people. Almost half, 46.3% of Americans, say they have only one or no confidants with whom they can discuss important matters. The most frequently occurring response to the question of how many confidants one has was zero in 2004. The decline in confidants has been most notable among non-kin networks, putting greater emphasis on kin and spouses as social confidants. Most social confidants are similar in demographic characteristics to the person doing the sharing.[33] The implications of these findings are potentially disturbing for American society as people have smaller social support networks, which are important for both social but also health reasons.[32]

Additional Reading edit

Wilkins, Amy. 2008. Wannabes, Christians and Goths: THE BOUNDARIES OF SEX, STYLE, AND STATUS. University of Chicago Press.

Subcultures: The Basics By Ross Haenfler

Straight Edge Hardcore Punk, Clean Living Youth, and Social Change Ross Haenfler (Author)

Staggenborg, Suzanne. 2001. Beyond culture versus politics: A case study of a local women’s movement. Gender & Society 15(4): 507-530.

Zajicek, Anna M. 2002. Race discourses and antiracist practices in a local women's movement. Gender & Society 16(2): 155-174.

Kuumba, M. Bahati. 2002. “You’ve struck a rock”: Comparing gender, social movements and transformation in the United States and South Africa. Gender & Society 16(4): 504-523.

Haenfler, Ross. 2012. “Lifestyle Movements: Exploring The Intersection of Lifestyle and Social Movements.” With Brett Johnson and Ellis Jones, in Social Movement Studies 11, 1:1-20.

Anderson, Eric. 2002. Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment. Gender & Society 16(6): 860-877.

Hennen, Peter. 2005. Bear bodies, bear masculinity: Recuperation, resistance, or retreat? Gender & Society 19(1): 25-43.

Simon, Robin W., Donna Eder, and Cathy Evans. 1992. “The Development of Feeling Norms Underlying Romantic Love among Adolescent Females.” Social Psychology Quarterly 55: 29-46.

Whalen, Jack and Don H. Zimmerman. 1998. “Observations on the Display and Management of Emotions in Naturally Occurring Activities: The Case of ‘Hysteria’ in Calls to 9-1-1.” Social Psychology Quarterly 61: 141-159.

Cahill, Spencer E. 1999. “Emotional Capital and Professional Socialization: The Case of Mortuary Science Students (and Me).” Social Psychology Quarterly 62:101-116. Katz, Jack. 1996. “Families and Funny Mirrors: A Study of the Social Construction and Personal Embodiment of Humor.” American Journal of Sociology 101: 1194-1237.

Adler, Patricia A. and Peter Adler. 1995. “Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Preadolescent Cliques.” Social Psychology Quarterly 58: 145-162.

Discussion Questions edit

  • Why do you belong to the groups you do?
  • Have you ever done something in a group you would not do alone? Why?
  • What are some of the ways the groups you belong to have influenced your behavior?
  • Has the information in this chapter changed the way you think about your group memberships? How? Why?
  • what is the difference between formal and membership group? * what is the difference between informal and non_ membership group?

References edit

  1. Hogg, Michael A. Social Categorization, Depersonalization, and Group Behavior. Hogg, Michael A. and Tindale, Scott, Editors. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers; 2003; pp. 56-85.
  2. Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Social Experience. Harper and Row Publishers.
  3. Pettit, Nathan C., Kevyn Yong, and Sandra E. Spataro. 2010. Holding Your Place: Reactions to the Prospect of Status Gains and Losses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 46, 2:396-401.
  4. Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interaction: Perspective and Method. University of California Press.
  5. Adler, Peter and Patricia Adler. 1998. Peer Power: Preadolescent Culture and Identity. Rutgers University Press.
  6. Schwalbe, Michael, and Douglas Schrock. 1996. “Identity Work as Group Process.” Advances in Group Processes, 13:113-147.
  7. Schwalbe, Michael, Sandra Godwin, Daphne Holden, Douglas Schrock, Shealy Thompson, and Michele Wolkomir. 2000. “Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: An Interactionist Analysis.” Social Forces 79: 419-452.
  8. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole no. 416).
  9. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
  10. Chein, Jason, Dustin Albert, Lia O’Brien, Kaitlyn Uckert, and Laurence Steinberg. 2010. “Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry.” Developmental Science no.
  11. Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533.
  12. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269-274.
  13. Cottrell, N.B., Wack, D.L., Sekerak, G.J., & Rittle, R.M. (1968). Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 245-250.
  14. Bond, Charles F., Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: a meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin. 94(2), Sep 1983, 265-292.
  15. a b Karau, S. J. & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706.
  16. Mullen, B. 1986. Atrocity as a function of lynch mob composition: A self-attention perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 187-197.
  17. Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L. and Kelem, R. T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(2), 178-183.
  18. Diener, E. (1976). Effects of prior destructive behavior, anonymity, and group presence on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 497-507
  19. Silke, A. (2003). Deindividuation, anonymity, and violence: Findings from Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 493-499
  20. Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12, 125-135.
  21. Isenberg, Daniel J. 1986. "Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (6), 1141-1151.
  22. Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, A.M. (2005). Social Psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  23. Ross L., Greene D. & House, P. (1977). The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13, 279-301.
  24. Fields, James M., and Howard Schuman, (1976-77) "Public Beliefs about the Beliefs of the Public," Public Opinion Quarterly, 40: 427-448.
  25. Hoorens, Vera (1993). "Self-enhancement and Superiority Biases in Social Comparison". European Review of Social Psychology (Psychology Press) 4 (1): 113—139.
  26. Biernat, M., Vescio, T.K., & Theno, S.A. (1996). Violating American Values: A "Value congruence" approach to understanding outgroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 387-410.
  27. Buunk, B.P., & van der Eijnden, R.J.J.M. (1997). Perceived prevalence, perceived superiority, and relationship satisfaction: Most relationships are good, but ours is the best. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 219-228.
  28. Whitman, D. (1996, December, 16). Im OK, you're not. U.S. News and World Report, p. 24.
  29. Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0395140447
  30. Senate Intelligence Committee. 2004. Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
  31. Janis, I. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment. New York: The Free Press.
  32. a b Putnam, Robert D. 2001. Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community. 1st ed. Simon & Schuster.
  33. a b McPherson, J. Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears. 2006. "Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades." American Sociological Review. 71(3): 353-375.

External links edit

Demography edit

A group of town counselors in a small city in a West African country met to discuss solutions to the challenges of a rapidly growing population. Over the past few decades, high local birthrates had led to a doubling of the local population. More people now wanted land to build homes, but land was also needed to grow more food. Increased demand for clean water taxed the local sanitation systems, while increased competition for jobs meant employers could hire desperate workers for less money than they had been paying before. Violent confrontations were becoming more common as people competed for scarce resources.

While addressing the immediate concerns, town counselors realized they would need to find a way to reduce the high birthrates to avoid an even more challenging future. They shared stories of other towns that had tried a variety of ways to reduce the birthrates. Some passed laws prohibiting new births. Others had freely distributed various types of birth control. Still others tried public education programs that informed citizens of the ill effects of an ever-growing population. None of the programs had been successful in reducing birthrates. The local culture was very family centered. Children were seen as both a blessing and a type of insurance that someone would care for you as you aged.

Finally, a young person who had just returned from taking Sociology classes at a nearby University spoke up. “I have learned of one method that is very successful in reducing birthrates, not only in Africa but in many other parts of the world. It may not be immediately obvious as to why, but there are many studies that demonstrate its success.” The town counselors were intrigued, and asked the student to tell them more. “If you want to reduce birth rates... you need to provide women with opportunities to be educated and to get jobs.”

The reasons for this interesting recommendation are explored later in this chapter.

Introduction edit

China is the world's most populous country, with over 1.4 billion people. The Chinese government, like many other governments, has a number of policies related to fertility.

Demography is the study of human population dynamics. It encompasses the study of the size, structure and distribution of populations, and how populations change over time due to births, deaths, migration, and aging. Demographic analysis can relate to whole societies or to smaller groups defined by criteria such as education, religion, or ethnicity.

Why study demography? edit

Before proposing complex theories to explain sociological phenomena (e.g., World Systems Theory), especially at the macro and/or societal levels, sociologists should first turn to demographic indicators for possible explanations. Demographic analysis is a powerful tool that can explain a number of sociological phenomena.

For instance, in examining the elements that led to the first World War, most people turn to political and diplomatic conflicts but fail to consider the implications of expanding populations in the European countries involved. Expanding populations will result in increased competition for resources (i.e., food, land, access to trade routes and ports, etc.). Expanding populations may not have been the primary cause of World War I, but they may have played a role in the increased hostilities leading up to the war. In this fashion, demographic indicators are often informative in explaining world events and should be turned to first as explanations.

History edit

The study of human populations has its roots, like sociology generally, in the societal changes that accompanied both the scientific and industrial revolutions. Some early mathematicians developed primitive forms of life tables, which are tables of life expectancies, often used for life insurance and actuarial purposes. Censuses, another demographic tool, were instituted for primarily political purposes:

  • as a basis for taxation
  • as a basis for political representation

The development of demographic calculations started in the 18th century. Census taking, on the other hand, has a long history dating back close to 2,000 years among the Chinese and the Romans and even further back in history among some groups in the Middle East. Most modern censuses began in the late 18th century.

Data and Methods edit

Demography relies on large data sets that are primarily derived from censuses and registration statistics (i.e., birth, death, and marriage registrations). Large data sets over long periods of time (e.g., the U.S. census is conducted every 10 years) are required to develop trends in demographic indicators, like birth and death rates.

In many countries, particularly in developing nations, reliable demographic data are still difficult to obtain. In some locales this may be due to the association of census with taxation.

Demographic Indicators edit

Because demography is interested in changes in human populations, demographers focus on specific indicators of change. Two of the most important indicators are birth and death rates, which are also referred to as fertility (see also fecundity) and mortality. Additionally, demographers are interested in migration trends or the movement of people from one location to another. Some of the specific measures used to explore these elements of population change are discussed below. While demography often provides useful portraits of social patterns, it is important to note that - especially in relation to minority groups - accurate numerical values are often difficult to achieve, and thus demographic understandings of social structures and patterns are continuously shifting in relation to the availability of more accurate data and measurement techniques.[1]

Fertility and Fecundity edit

Fertility, in demography, refers to the ability of females to produce healthy offspring. Fecundity is the potential reproductive capacity of a female. Some of the more common demographic measures used in relation to fertility and/or fecundity include:

  • crude birth rate: the annual number of live births per thousand people
  • general fertility rate: the annual number of live births per 1000 women of childbearing age (often taken to be from 15 to 49 years old, but sometimes from 15 to 44).
  • age-specific fertility rate: the annual number of live births per 1000 women in particular age groups (usually age 15-19, 20-24 etc.)
  • total fertility rate: the number of live births per woman completing her reproductive life if her childbearing at each age reflected current age-specific fertility rates
  • gross reproduction rate: the number of daughters who would be born to a woman completing her reproductive life at current age-specific fertility rates
  • net reproduction rate: the number of daughters who would be born to a woman according to current age-specific fertility and mortality rates

Another important demographic concept relating to fertility is replacement level. Replacement level fertility refers to the number of children that a woman (or monogamous couple) must have in order to replace the existing population. Sub-replacement fertility is a fertility rate that is not high enough to replace an existing population. Replacement level fertility is generally set at 2.1 children in a woman's lifetime (this number varies by geographic region given different mortality rates). Sub-replacement fertility is below approximately 2.1 children in a woman's life time. The reason the number is set to 2.1 children per woman is because two children are needed to replace the parents and an additional one-tenth of a child is needed to make up for the mortality of children and women who do not reach the end of their reproductive years.[2] Of course, women don't have one-tenth of a child; this results from statistical averaging between women who have more than two children and those who have two or fewer children.

The chart below illustrates trends in childbearing by region of the world. Fertility rates dropped earlier in the more developed regions of the world, followed by Asia and Latin America. Fertility rates are just starting to decline in Africa.

This chart shows trends in the Total Fertility Rate by world regions from 1950 to 2021.

The chart below highlights the varied fertility rates of specific countries as some have very low fertility rates, many have moderate rates, and some have very high rates.

This chart illustrates the total fertility rates for various countries around the world in 2021.

The following chart illustrates the relationship between contraceptive use and the total fertility rate by regions of the world. Increased contraceptive use is associated with lower numbers of children per woman.


One of the strongest predictors of fertility rates is women's educational attainment.[3] Almost universally, higher levels of educational attainment result in lower fertility rates. It is not, however, education itself that causes declines in fertility but rather its association with other factors that reduce fertility: women with higher levels of education delay marriage and are more likely to abstain from marriage and / or parenthood, have improved labor market opportunities, are more likely to use contraception during intercourse, and are less likely to adopt traditional childbearing roles.[3]

Fertility rates are also closely related to a country's level of development, which influences other factors.[4] For instance, women who have kids in developed countries have increased opportunity costs, meaning they will make less money because of time spent outside the workforce raising kids. This is true in developed countries because women are more likely to be highly skilled and well-paid (relative to women in developing countries). Additionally, delayed childbearing, probability of a child reaching adulthood, norms about ideal family sizes, and pervasiveness of contraceptives will all reduce fertility rates. But one of the biggest factors is the cost of children. In undeveloped and developing countries, children are often an economic asset to parents as they serve as cheap labor on the farm; they don't require pay, just food and shelter. That is not the case in developed countries, where very few people work in agriculture (roughly 2% in the US). Instead, children are an economic liability, meaning they cost money while not generating money for the parents. The cost of raising a child from birth to 18 in a middle-income home in 2022 was $310,000.[5] The cost of raising children in developed countries reduces fertility rates in those countries.[4] Further, mothers (but not fathers) in developed countries typically experience wage penalties (e.g., receive less pay than male and non-parental female workers), which can further exacerbate the financial cost of parenthood for women in developed countries.[6]

Mortality edit

Mortality refers to the finite nature of humanity: people die. Mortality in demography is interested in the number of deaths in a given time or place or the proportion of deaths in relation to a population. Some of the more common demographic measures of mortality include:

  • crude death rate: the annual number of deaths per 1000 people
  • infant mortality rate: the annual number of deaths of children less than 1 year old per thousand live births
  • life expectancy: the number of years which an individual at a given age can expect to live at present mortality rates

Note that the crude death rate as defined above and applied to a whole population can give a misleading impression. For example, the number of deaths per 1000 people can be higher for developed nations than in less-developed countries, despite standards of health being better in developed countries. This is because developed countries have relatively more older people, who are more likely to die in a given year, so that the overall mortality rate can be higher even if the mortality rate at any given age is lower. A more complete picture of mortality is given by a life table which summarizes mortality separately at each age.

This chart depicts infant mortality by region of the world. The less developed regions of the world have higher infant mortality rates than the more developed regions.

This chart shows infant mortality rates by world regions from 1950 to 2021.

This chart depicts life expectancy by region of the world. Similar to infant mortality, life expectancies are higher in more developed regions of the world.

This chart shows life expectancy at birth estimates by world regions from 1950-2021.

According to recent research,[7] one of the best predictors of longevity (i.e., a long life) is education, even when other factors are controlled: the more educated you are, the longer you can expect to live. A few additional years of schooling can add several additional years to your life and vastly improve your health in old age. The mechanism through which this works is not the schooling itself, but schooling's influence on other health-related behaviors. The more education someone has, the lower his/her likelihood of smoking and engaging in unhealthy and high risk behaviors. Education also increases the probability of people engaging in healthy behaviors, like frequently exercising.[7]

Other factors associated with greater longevity include:

  • wealth: money increases access to good healthcare, which improves health and increases longevity
  • race: whites live longer than blacks, though this is due to other social disparities, like income and education, and not to race itself
  • ability to delay gratification: with the ability to delay gratification people live healthier lives and engage in healthier behaviors (e.g., exercise)
  • larger social networks: having a large group of friends and close relationships with relatives increases your social support, which positively influences health
  • job satisfaction: people in more powerful and more satisfying jobs tend to be healthier than people in less satisfying jobs

The Demographic Transition edit


The demographic transition is a model and theory describing the transition from high birth rates and death rates to low birth and death rates that occurs as part of the economic development of a country. In pre-industrial societies, population growth is relatively slow because both birth and death rates are high. In most post-industrial societies, birth and death rates are both low. The transition from high rates to low rates is referred to as the demographic transition. This understanding of societal changes is based on the work of Thompson,[8] Blacker,[9] and Notestein,[10] who derived the model based on changes in demographics over the preceding two hundred years or so.

The beginning of the demographic transition in a society is indicated when death rates drop without a corresponding fall in birth rates (usually the result of improved sanitation and advances in healthcare). Countries in the second stage of the demographic transition (see diagram) experience a large increase in population. This is depicted in the diagram when death rates fall in stage two but birth rates do not fall until stage three. The red line begins its rapid upward growth in stage two and begins to level off at the end of stage three.

By the end of stage three, birth rates drop to fall in line with the lower death rates. While there are several theories that attempt to explain why this occurs (e.g., Becker and Caldwell, who view children as economic commodities),[11][12] why birth rates decline in post-industrial societies is still being evaluated. Recent evidence from Mongolia, which underwent a demographic and economic transition in the 1990s and early 2000s, suggests that during this transition women begin pursuing education in order to obtain greater wealth.[13] Thus, fertility maximization (i.e., having lots of kids) was traded for the pursuit of status enhancement (i.e., having more money), suggesting that prior explanations for the demographic transition - namely, the cost of children - may have been at least partially correct. As a result of this transition, many developed countries now have a population that is static or, in some cases, shrinking.

As with all models, this is an idealized, composite picture of population change in these countries. The model is a generalization that applies to these countries as a group and may not accurately describe all individual cases. Whether or not it will accurately depict changes in developing societies today remains to be seen. For more information on the demographic transition, see here.

Population Growth and Overpopulation edit

The time it takes to introduce additional billions of people has decreased since the first billion mark was reached.

Overpopulation indicates a scenario in which the population of a living species exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecological niche. Overpopulation is not a function of the number or density of the individuals, but rather the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive. In other words, it is a ratio: population over resources. If a given environment has a population of 10, but there is food and drinking water enough for only 9 people, then that environment is overpopulated, while if the population is 100 individuals but there are food and water enough for 200, then it is not overpopulated. Resources to be taken into account when estimating if an ecological niche is overpopulated include clean water, food, shelter, warmth, etc. In the case of human beings, there are others such as arable land and, for all but tribes with primitive lifestyles, lesser resources such as jobs, money, education, fuel, electricity, medicine, proper sewage and garbage management, and transportation.

The majority of world population growth today is occurring in less developed countries.

Presently, every year the world's human population grows by approximately 80 million. About half the world lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility and population growth in those countries is due to immigration. The United Nations projects that the world human population will stabilize in 2075 at nine billion due to declining fertility rates.[14] All the nations of East Asia, with the exceptions of Mongolia, the Philippines, and Laos, are below replacement level. Russia and Eastern Europe are dramatically below replacement fertility. Western Europe also is below replacement. In the Middle East Iran, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, and Lebanon are below replacement. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are similar to Western Europe. In the United States, fertility is now at around 1.6 births per woman, which is below the replacement level. Many of these nations still have growing populations due to high rates of immigration.

Much of the projected growth is expected to come from African countries where birth rates remain high.[15] While birth rates in most countries have fallen since 1990, in some parts of Africa birth rates have actually increased and the average woman has more than five children, well above the replacement rate.[15]

Early Projections of Overpopulation edit

Early in the 19th century, Thomas Malthus argued in An Essay on the Principle of Population that, if left unrestricted, human populations would continue to grow until they would become too large to be supported by the food grown on available agricultural land. He proposed that, while resources tend to grow arithmetically, population grows exponentially. At that point, the population would be restrained through mass famine and starvation. Malthus argued for population control, through moral restraint, to avoid this happening.

The alternative to moral restraint, according to Malthus, is biological and natural population limitation. As the population exceeds the amount of available resources the population decreases through famine, disease, or war, since the lack of resources causes mortality to increase. This process keeps the population in check and ensures it does not exceed the amount of resources.

Over the two hundred years following Malthus's projections, famine has overtaken numerous individual regions. Proponents of this theory, Neo-Malthusians, state that these famines were examples of Malthusian catastrophes. On a global scale, however, food production has grown faster than population. It has often been argued that future pressures on food production, combined with threats to other aspects of the earth's habitat such as global warming, make overpopulation a still more serious threat in the future.

Population as a Function of Food Availability edit

There are some scholars who argue that human populations predictably grow and shrink according to their available food supply - populations grow when there is an abundance of food and shrink in times of scarcity. This idea is only slightly less problematic than the idea that human population growth is not guided by food production, as it suggests that that every time food production is intensified to feed a growing population, the population responds by increasing even more. Some human populations throughout history support this theory, as consistent population growth began with the agricultural revolution, when food supplies consistently increased.

Critics of this idea point out that birth rates are voluntarily the lowest in developed nations, which also have the highest access to food. In fact, the population is decreasing in some countries with abundant food supply. Thus, human populations do not always grow to match the available food supply. Critics cite other factors that contribute to declining birth rates in developed nations, including: increased access to contraception, later ages of marriage, the growing desire of many women in such settings to seek careers outside of child rearing and domestic work, and the decreased economic 'utility' of children in industrialized settings.[11][12] The latter explanation stems from the fact that children perform a great deal of work in small-scale agricultural societies, and work less in industrial ones; this interpretation may seem callous, but it has been cited to explain the drop-off in birthrates worldwide in all industrializing regions.

For some, the concept that human populations behave in the same way as do populations of bears and fish is hard to believe; for others it indicates a feasible solution to population issues. In either case, since populations are tied to the food they consume, discussions of populations should not take place without considering the role played by food supply. There is a substantial body of research that has considered the ability of the planet to provide sufficient food for the world's growing population.[16] This research suggests that the planet can potentially provide sufficient food for the projected peak population of humans of 9 billion people, but only if agriculture is carefully managed. Factors that must be considered include: genetically modified crops, employing agricultural tools in correct, context-specific ways, aquaculture, and simultaneously working to limit harm to the environment.[16]

Effects of Overpopulation edit

Many proponents of population control have averred that famine is far from being the only problem attendant to overpopulation. These critics point out ultimate shortages of energy sources and other natural resources, as well as the importance of serious communicable diseases in dense populations and war over scarce resources such as land area. A shortage of arable land (where food crops will grow) is also a problem.

The world's current agricultural production, if it were distributed evenly, would be sufficient to feed everyone living on the Earth today. However, many critics hold that, in the absence of other measures, simply feeding the world's population well would only make matters worse, natural growth will cause the population to grow to unsustainable levels, and will directly result in famines and deforestation and indirectly in pandemic disease and war.

Some of the other characteristics of overpopulation include:

  • Child poverty
  • High birth rates
  • Lower life expectancies
  • Lower levels of literacy
  • Higher rates of unemployment, especially in urban areas
  • Insufficient arable land
  • Little surplus food
  • Poor diet with ill health and diet-deficiency diseases (e.g. rickets)
  • Low per capita GDP
  • Increasingly unhygienic conditions
  • Government is stretched economically
  • Increased crime rates resulting from people stealing resources to survive
  • Mass extinctions of plants and animals as habitat is used for farming and human settlements
Urbanization results from both industrialization (increasing efficiency among farmers) and population growth.

Another point of view on population growth and how it effects the standard of living is that of Virginia Abernethy. In Population Politics she shows evidence that declining fertility following industrialization only holds true in nations where women enjoy a relatively high status. In strongly patriarchal nations, where women enjoy few rights, a higher standard of living tends to result in population growth. Abernathy argues that foreign aid to poor countries must include significant components designed to improve the education, human rights, political rights, political power, and economic status and power of women.

Possible Solutions to Overpopulation edit

Some approach overpopulation with a survival of the fittest, laissez-faire attitude, arguing that if the Earth's ecosystem becomes overtaxed, it will naturally regulate itself. In this mode of thought, disease or starvation are "natural" means of lessening population. Objections to this argument are:

  1. in the meantime, a huge number of plant and animal species become extinct
  2. this would result in terrible pollution in some areas that would be difficult to abate
  3. it creates certain moral problems, as this approach would result in great suffering in the people who die

Others argue that economic development is the best way to reduce population growth as economic development can spur demographic transitions that seem to naturally lead to reductions in fertility rates.

In either case, it is often held that the most productive approach is to provide a combination of help targeted towards population control and self-sufficiency. One of the most important measures proposed for this effort is the empowerment of women educationally, economically, politically, and in the family. The value of this philosophy has been substantially borne out in cases where great strides have been taken toward this goal. Where women's status has dramatically improved, there has generally been a drastic reduction in the birthrate to more sustainable levels. Other measures include effective family planning programs, local renewable energy systems, sustainable agriculture methods and supplies, reforestation, and measures to protect the local environment.

David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agricultural sciences, sees several possible scenarios for the 22nd century:

  1. a planet with 2 billion people thriving in harmony with the environment
  2. or, at the other extreme, 12 billion miserable humans suffering a difficult life with limited resources and widespread famine

Spreading awareness of the issues is an important first step in addressing it.

Underpopulation edit

Once countries pass through the demographic transition, some experience fertility rate decreases so substantial that they fall well below replacement level and their populations begin to shrink (as has Russia's in recent years, though emigration has also played a role in Russia's population decline). A new fear for many governments, particularly those in countries with very low fertility rates, is that a declining population will reduce the GDP and economic growth of the country, as population growth is often a driving force of economic expansion.[2] To combat extremely low fertility rates, some of these governments have introduced pro-family policies, that include things like payments to parents for having children and extensive parental leave for parents. Such policies may reverse the low fertility rates, but they may also exacerbate overpopulation.

Migration edit

The likelihood of a given individual in the U.S. moving to another place in the U.S. in any given year has declined over the last 40 years. Only about 1 in 10 Americans have moved in the last year, which is about half the proportion that changed residences annually in the 1960s.[17][18] The reduction in moves is attributable to aging populations (older people are less likely to move) and an increase in dual-career couples. Those who do move are generally driven by jobs.[17]

Close to 37% of Americans have never moved from the community in which they were born.[17] There are wide variations in native inhabitants, however: 76% of Texans were born in-state while only 14% of Nevadans were born in-state. Some states lose a large number of people who were born in the state as well, like Alaska, where only 28% of the people born in that state have remained there.[17] Immigration is often a controversial topic, for a variety of reasons, though many have to do with competition between those already living in the destination location and those arriving in that location. One study found that one type of competition between immigrants and non-immigrants may be overstated. Some people have suggested that natives' opportunities to attend college are negatively impacted through competition with immigrants.[19] Neymotin found that competition with immigrants does not harm the educational outcomes of U.S. natives and may in fact facilitate college attending.[19] Additionally, recent research suggests that opposition to immigration is less about competition over jobs and more about how immigrants might change the identity of the society where the migrants move.[20]

Urbanization edit

Urbanization is the physical growth of urban areas as a result of global change. Urbanization is also defined by the United Nations as movement of people from rural to urban areas with population growth equating to urban migration. Over half of the world's population lived in urban areas at the end of 2008 and that percentage continues to increase.[21] Urbanization is closely linked to modernization, industrialization, and the sociological process of rationalization.

Movement edit

Percentage of population which is urbanized, by country, as of 2005.[22]

As more and more people leave villages and farms to live in cities, urban growth results. The rapid growth of cities like Chicago in the late 19th century and Mumbai a century later can be attributed largely to rural-urban migration and the demographic transition. This kind of growth is especially commonplace in developing countries.

The rapid urbanization of the world’s population over the twentieth century is described in the 2005 Revision of the UN World Urbanization Prospects report. The global proportion of urban population rose dramatically from 13% (220 million) in 1900, to 29% (732 million) in 1950, to 49% (3.2 billion) in 2005[23] and to 56.2% in 2020 per the 2018 UN World Urbanization Prospects report. The same report projected that the figure is likely to rise to 60% (4.9 billion) by 2030 and 68.4% by 2050.[24] Urbanization rates vary between countries. The United States and United Kingdom have a far higher urbanization level than China, India, Swaziland or Niger, but a far slower annual urbanization rate, since much less of the population is living in a rural area.

Causes edit

Urbanization is not always attributed to high density. In Manila, the cost of living has forced residents to live in low quality slums and shanty towns

People move into cities to seek economic opportunities. A major contributing factor is known as "rural flight." In rural areas, often on small family farms, it is difficult to improve one's standard of living beyond basic sustenance. Farm living is dependent on unpredictable environmental conditions, and in times of drought, flood or pestilence, survival becomes extremely problematic. In modern times, industrialization of agriculture has negatively affected the economy of small and middle-sized farms and strongly reduced the size of the rural labour market. Cities, in contrast, are known to be places where money, services, and wealth are centralized. Cities are where fortunes are made and where social mobility is possible. Businesses, which generate jobs and capital, are usually located in urban areas. Whether the source is trade or tourism, it is also through the cities that foreign money flows into a country. As with immigration generally, there are factors that push people out of rural areas and pull them into urban areas.

There are also better basic services as well as other specialist services in urban areas that aren't found in rural areas. There are more job opportunities and a greater variety of jobs. Health is another major factor. People, especially the elderly, are often forced to move to cities where there are doctors and hospitals that can address their health needs. Other factors include a greater variety of entertainment (e.g., restaurants, movie theaters, theme parks, etc.) and better quality of education in the form of universities. Due to their high populations, urban areas can also have much more diverse social communities allowing others to find people like them when they might not be able to in rural areas. These conditions are heightened during times of change from a pre-industrial society to an industrial one.

Economic Effects edit

As cities develop, effects can include a dramatic increase in costs, often pricing the local working class out of the real estate market. For example, Eric Hobsbawm's wrote, "Urban development in our period [1789–1848] was a gigantic process of class segregation, which pushed the new labouring poor into great morasses of misery outside the centres of government and business and the newly specialised residential areas of the bourgeoisie. The almost universal European division into a 'good' west end and a 'poor' east end of large cities developed in this period."[25] This is likely due the prevailing south-west wind which carries coal smoke and other airborne pollutants downwind, making the western edges of towns preferable to the eastern ones. Similar problems now affect the developing world; rising inequality results from rapid urbanization. The drive for growth and efficiency can lead to less equitable urban development.[26]

Urbanization is often viewed as a negative trend, but can in fact, be perceived simply as a natural occurrence from individual and corporate efforts to reduce expense in commuting and transportation while improving opportunities for jobs, education, housing, and transportation. Living in cities permits individuals and families to take advantage of the opportunities of proximity, diversity, and marketplace competition.[27]

Environmental Effects edit

One environmental concern associated with urbanization is the urban heat island. The urban heat island is formed when industrial and urban areas are developed and heat becomes more abundant. In rural areas, a large part of the incoming solar energy is used to evaporate water from vegetation and soil. In cities, where less vegetation and exposed soil exists, the majority of the sun’s energy is absorbed by urban structures and asphalt. Hence, during warm daylight hours, less evaporative cooling in cities allows surface temperatures to rise higher than in rural areas. Additional city heat is given off by vehicles and factories, as well as by industrial and domestic heating and cooling units.[28] This effect causes the city to become 2 to 10o F (1 to 6o C) warmer than surrounding landscapes.[29] Impacts also include reducing soil moisture and intensification of carbon dioxide emissions.[30]

The effects of urbanization may be an overall positive for the environment. Birth rates of new urban dwellers fall quickly. This can prevent overpopulation. Additionally, it puts a stop to destructive subsistence farming techniques, like slash and burn agriculture. Finally, it minimizes land use by humans, leaving more for nature.[31]

Other Effects edit

In addition to the effects noted above, urbanization can influence how people feel about their environment. For instance, one study found that people who live in large apartment buildings are less likely to know their neighbors. Even so, they do not feel greater fear when they are walking around alone than do individuals who live in single-family homes. However, when people in apartment buildings are home alone, they feel less fear than do people who are home alone in single-family homes. One possible explanation is a "fortress effect": individuals in large apartment buildings feel isolated from those outside the building.[32] Another possible explanation is that the close presence of people around us, even if we do not know them, tends to afford some degree of security.

Changing Forms of Urbanization edit

Different forms of urbanization can be classified depending on the style of architecture and planning methods as well as historic growth of areas. In cities in the developed world, urbanization traditionally exhibited a concentration of human activities and settlements around the downtown area. Recent developments, such as inner-city redevelopment schemes, mean that new arrivals in cities no longer necessarily settle in the center. In some developed regions, the reverse effect, originally called counter urbanisation has occurred, with cities losing population to rural areas, and is particularly common for richer families. This has been possible because of improved communications and means of transportation, and has been caused by factors such as the fear of crime and poor urban environments. Later termed "white flight", the effect is not restricted to cities with a high ethnic minority population. When the residential area shifts outward, this is called suburbanization. Some research suggests that suburbanization has gone so far to form new points of concentration outside the downtown both in developed and developing countries such as India.[33]

Urbanization can be planned or organic. Planned urbanization, (e.g., planned communities), is based on an advanced plan, which can be prepared for military, aesthetic, economic, or urban design reasons. Organic urbanization is not organized and happens haphazardly. Landscape planners are responsible for landscape infrastructure (e.g., public parks, sustainable urban drainage systems, greenways, etc.) which can be planned before urbanization takes place, or afterward to revitalize an area and create greater livability within a region.

Additional Reading edit

The International Handbook of the Demography of Race and Ethnicity Series: International Handbooks of Population, Vol. 4 Sáenz, Rogelio, Embrick, David G., Rodríguez, Néstor P. (Eds.) 2015, XXIII, 708 p. 91 illus., 41 illus. in color.

International Handbook of Rural Demography Series: International Handbooks of Population, Vol. 3 Kulcsár, László J., Curtis, Katherine J. (Eds.) 2012, XIV, 406 p.

International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality Series: International Handbooks of Population, Vol. 5 Baumle, Amanda K. (Ed.) 2013, VI, 429 p. 46 illus.

Discussion Questions edit

  • Do you think the world is over-populated?
  • If you think the world is over-populated, what could be done about it?
  • How will your life decisions effect your life expectancy?
  • How will your life decisions effect your fertility rate?

References edit

  1. Dudley L. Poston, Michael Micklin. 2006. Handbook of Population. Springer.
  2. a b carr, deborah. 2009. “worries over a population implosion.” Contexts 8:58-59.
  3. a b Mare, R.D., & Maralani, V. (2006). The Intergenerational Effects of Changes in Women's Educational Attainments. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 542-564.
  4. a b carr, deborah. 2007. “the cost of kids.” Contexts 6:62.
  5. Maruf, Ramishah. 8/29/2022. CNN.
  6. Stephanie Moller, Joya Misra, and Eiko Strader. 2013. “A Cross-National Look at How Welfare States Reduce Inequality.” Sociological Compass. 7(2): 135-146.
  7. a b Kolata, G. (2007). A Surprising Secret to a Long Life: Stay in School. The New York Times. Retrieved January 3, 2007. [2]
  8. Thompson, W. C. 1929. The American Journal of Sociology 34:959-75.
  9. Blacker, C. P. 1947. Eugenics Review 39:88-101.
  10. Notestein, F. W. 1945. Pp. 36-57 in Food for the World, Editor T. W. Schultz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  11. a b Becker, Gary S. 1960. "An Economic Analysis of Fertility." Pp. 209-31 in Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, Edited Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  12. a b Caldwell, John C. 1982. Theory of Fertility Decline. Sydney: Academic Press.
  13. Alvergne, Alexandra and Virpi Lummaa. 2014. Ecological variation in wealth–fertility relationships in Mongolia: the ‘central theoretical problem of sociobiology’ not a problem after all? Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Volume 281, Issue 1796.
  15. a b frost, ashley e., and f. nii-amoo dodoo. 2009. “men are missing from african family planning.” Contexts 8(1):44-49.
  16. a b Godfray, H. Charles J. et al. 2010. “Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People.” Science 327:812-818.
  17. a b c d Roberts, Sam. 2008. “Data Show Steady Drop in Americans on Move.” The New York Times, December 21 (Accessed December 1, 2009).
  18. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2008 Annual Social and Economic Supplement
  19. a b Neymotin, Florence. 2009. Immigration and Its Effect on the College-Going Outcomes of Natives. Economics of Education Review. 28, 5:538-550.
  20. Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). Public Attitudes Toward Immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17(1), 225–249. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-102512-194818
  21. The Associated Press. February 26, 2008. UN says half the world's population will live in urban areas by end of 2008. International Herald Tribune.
  23. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision, Pop. Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN
  24. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 revision.
  25. Hobsbawm, Eric. 2005. The Age of the Revolution: 1789–1848. Chapter 11.
  26. Grant, Ursula (2008) Opportunity and exploitation in urban labour markets [3] London: Overseas Development Institute
  27. Glaeser, Edward. 1998. "Are Cities Dying?" The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 12(2):139–160
  28. Park, H.-S. (1987). Variations in the urban heat island intensity affected by geographical environments. Environmental Research Center papers, no. 11. Ibaraki, Japan: Environmental Research Center, The University of Tsukuba.
  29. "Heat Island Effect"
  30. "Heating Up: Study Shows Rapid Urbanization in China Warming the Regional Climate Faster than Other Urban Areas" [4]
  31. Brand, Stewart. Whole Earth Discipline.
  32. Rollwagen, Heather. 2014. “The Relationship Between Dwelling Type and Fear of Crime.” Environment and Behavior 0013916514540459.
  33. Sridhar, K. 2007. Density gradients and their determinants: Evidence from India. Regional Science and Urban Economics 37(3):314-344

External Links edit

Aging edit

“I feel like I did this backwards, you know, I felt so old – filled with worry, fear, regret, and stress – until suddenly at about 35 I finally got to feel like a teenager, you know, excited, passionate, and ready to party,” Tom explained in the middle of an interview. I smiled, knowing the answer already since I had heard similar experiences from all of the gay men (all over the age of 50 and from rural areas) I had spoken with in the course of this particular project. I then asked, “What changed?” Erupting into a grin that would likely make any teenager proud, Tom offered his version of a common experience: “AOL my man, AOL came and suddenly I realized there were other gay people, there were people like me, hell even in my own church right here in this little town if you can believe it. I was not alone! AOL man, and my life began, and I had my first date, my first kiss, my first boyfriend, and I lived in those chat rooms man and felt so alive. AOL man, it was my own Sweet Sixteen party that just happened to be 20 years late if you know what I mean.” Smiling, I assured him that I knew exactly what he meant, and as I did every time I heard a similar version of this story, I wondered what it would be like to be a 35 year old teenager.

Introduction edit

Aging is both biological and sociological.

Aging (often alternatively spelt as ageing) is both a biological and sociological process wherein human beings experience and accomplish stages of biological and social maturation. Aging may be seen as a relatively objective biological process whereby one becomes older and experiences varied biological developments. Aging may also be seen as a subjective series of social processes whereby people interpret, negotiate, and make sense of biological development in relation to existing conceptualizations of what it means to be a certain age.[1]

Aging is Both Biological and Sociological edit

An example of the bio-social and objective/subjective nature of aging may be useful. Take, for example, a social being born into the United States in 1980. This person will likely experience a biological development characterized by the addition of years from birth and by biological understandings of the time (e.g., a being born in 1980 would have a life expectancy, medical and legal definition, and contextual series of economic, educational, and other possibilities based upon birth at this time). As such, our person born into the United States during the 1980’s can be expected to follow relatively stable patterns of biological development that will be interpreted in similar ways to others born at the same time.

However, this child born in the United States in 1980 will experience social development characterized by many factors. For instance, was this child raised in a family or an orphanage? What kind of education did this child receive, public or private? What types of educational funding and other educational opportunities did this child receive? Was this child born lower, middle, or upper class? Did this child begin full time work and adopt adult responsibilities as an adolescent, a young adult, an adult, or never? Given the many possible answers to these questions, this person can be expected to follow relatively varied patterns of social development that will be interpreted in different ways by others born at the same time. As a result, this child’s biological age (how far from birth one is) may or may not match this child’s subjective age (how old he/she feels and what responsibilities develop at what age). Additionally, this child may not align with societal age norms by not doing what society expects the child to do at certain ages.

Aging is a complex process of subjective biological and social realities intertwined with relatively objective biological and social standards that shift within and between historical and cultural periods.

Dividing the Lifespan edit

Human life is often divided into various age spans, like the following:

These divisions are somewhat arbitrary, but generally capture periods of life that reflect a certain degree of similarity. In many countries, such as Sweden, adulthood legally begins at the age of eighteen. This is a major age milestone that is marked by significantly different attitudes toward the person who undergoes the transition.

Socially Constructed Interpretations of Aging edit

While aging, itself, is a bio-social process, the ways people and cultures interpret ages (e.g., "old," "young," "mid-life") and the ways these interpretations are distinguished by varied biological age markers vary dramatically. In Western societies, where youth is highly valued, people are considered "old" at much younger ages than in Eastern societies where age is often seen to beget wisdom. This emphasis on youth translates into considerable expenditures on makeup, cosmetics, and surgeries to hide signs of aging, particularly among women, but also among men. Ironically, among adolescents, just the opposite approach is taken, as adolescents often try to appear "older", though obviously not too much older.

The labels of "old" and "young" also vary by life expectancy. In societies where lifespans are relatively short (e.g., Chad) or in areas within a given society where violence or other means of "early" death are common, one could be considered "old" or "middle-aged" by her mid-twenties, whereas in countries and social settings with longer lifespans (e.g., Japan) and lower levels of "early" death, mid-twenties is still considered young-adulthood.

The activities that are expected of one at different ages is also socially constructed and relative to culture. For instance, retirement only became a "universal" American ideal in the post-World War I era, as the growth of Social Security and private pensions dramatically expanded the safety net available to aging workers who were leaving the labor market.[2] Likewise, the idea of childhood being an age of innocence when children should be kept from adult worries and spend their time pursuing education and recreating is only widely held in highly developed countries and is a relatively recent invention, following the industrial revolution and the introduction of child-labor laws.[3][4]

Differential Treatment by Age or Ageism edit

Ageism is prejudice on the grounds of age.[5] While it can be targeted toward individuals of any age, two groups that are often targeted are the young and the elderly.

Treatment of the Young edit

While most people are aware of the mistreatment of the elderly (see below), few people seem to realize that young people are often subjected to discrimination because of their age. Discrimination against young people is primarily in the area of behavioral restrictions, often by parents,[6] but also in public places like malls and stores.[7] Some stores have gone so far as to limit the hours young people can be in their stores.[8]

While the above are clear examples of discrimination, there are other restrictions placed on young people based on the assumption that they are unable to make decisions for themselves. Examples of such restrictions include:[5]

  • inability to vote in elections
  • inability to legally imbibe alcohol or smoke cigarettes
  • inability to legally engage in sexual activity (this varies by region)
  • inability to hold public office
  • inability to determine whether or not one can marry
  • inability to determine whether or not one can get an abortion (varies by region)

All of the above restrictions hinge upon the idea that young people lack the maturity required to make such important decisions. While this is likely true for some young people, there are also some young people who are mature enough to make these decisions. The above restrictions are tied to specific ages for legal reasons, but such restrictions may not always be followed, vary substantially by region and culture, and may not always make sense. However, it is also the case that young people can lack the maturity to make important decisions. Legally, when young people make poor decisions, the defense of infancy is used to argue that such individuals are too immature to be held responsible for their decisions.

Another way in which the young are treated differently is in the marketing practices of corporations. Most children and teenagers have little money of their own, but of the money they have most of it is available for buying consumer goods (despite the existence of children that provide for themselves as early as age 10, most children experience a world where their parents or guardians cover their basic living needs). Children can also be heavily influential on how their guardians' (parental or otherwise) spend their discretionary income.[9] Manufacturers of consumer goods and providers of services (e.g., Disney[10]) are aware of the buying power of young people and target them specifically. The elderly are also targeted as a consumer demographic, but the approaches are different.[11]

Young people are also stereotyped as being both amusing, but at the same time potentially dangerous and disturbing.[12] It is stereotypes like these that translate into the discrimination toward young people described above, and the concerted efforts of social institutions and groups to "tame," "train," or "civilize" youthful self-expression by enforcing existing social norms.[13][14]

Treatment of the Elderly edit

While discrimination toward the young is primarily behavioral restrictions, discrimination toward the elderly ranges from behavioral restrictions to the realm of physical abuse. Elder abuse is a serious problem in the U.S. There are nearly 2 million cases of elder abuse and self-neglect in the U.S. every year.[15] Abuse refers to psychological/emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, caregiver neglect or financial exploitation while self-neglect refers to behaviors that threaten the person's own health and safety.

Elderly individuals who are subjected to abuse have at least two times higher risk of premature death than do other seniors.[15] And elders who suffer from self-neglect have an even higher risk (up to 5 times higher) of premature death than do elders who do not suffer from self-neglect. The higher risk of death associated with elder abuse effects both those who are physically and cognitively impaired and those who are more capable.[15]

Additionally, the elderly are often stereotyped. One stereotype of the elderly is that they are inflexible in their attitudes and that they tend to only become more conservative with time. This is not the case - the elderly are quite adept at changing their views and often they become more tolerant as they age.[16] Another stereotype of the elderly is that they are poorer drivers than younger people. This stereotype is also not backed by evidence, with some caveats. Up to about the age of 75, older drivers are actually safer than drivers of other ages. Beyond age 75 response times and visual acuity do begin to decline, leading to increases in accidents. Thus, many older drivers are actually much safer than the youngest drivers (under 18).[17]

Age and Income edit

Prior to the introduction of Social Security in the U.S. and other programs for the needy, the elderly were the poorest age group in the U.S. Social Security (technically Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or OASDI) is an income redistribution program that takes taxes from those working and distributes it to those who cannot work or who are elderly enough to be considered past the age at which they can retire. With the introduction of Social Security, the poverty rates of the elderly in the U.S. dropped dramatically, as illustrated in the figure below.


Despite the success of the Social Security program in reducing poverty among the elderly, one unforeseen consequence has been the increasing poverty of people under 18. Conflict theory provides a clear theoretical argument to explain this: Since there are limited resources - in this case limited tax revenue - if those resources go to one group, they must necessarily come from another group. If the elderly see an increase in their total share of tax revenue, it is likely that some other age group will see a decrease in its total share of tax revenue. Individuals under 18 have seen some programs cut that would have otherwise helped maintain their lower levels of poverty. Poverty rates across all three age groups depicted in the figure above have declined from what they were prior to the introduction of tax redistribution policies like Social Security.

While generally considered a highly successful program at reducing poverty among the elderly, Social Security is currently experiencing problems. The chart below illustrates the problems with Social Security payments for retirees in the U.S. Currently, less money is received from Social Security taxes than is distributed to retirees. However, the Social Security Trust Fund, which is the money that was collected when there was a surplus in tax revenue, will make up the difference in payments for a while, until about 2038. At that point, the Social Security Trust Fund reserves will be exhausted and payments to beneficiaries will drop to about 77% of what they would normally receive.


Of additional concern is where the Trust Fund reserves were invested - in Federal bonds. While Federal bonds are backed by the U.S. Federal Government, it is the Federal Government that borrowed the money. The Federal Government of the United States actually owes itself the money - over $2 trillion. If the Federal Government is unable to or decides not to pay this money back, the reserves will run out sooner, reducing the payments to beneficiaries at an earlier date.

While the Social Security program in the U.S. is in trouble, the situation of Social Security is not as dire as is that of Medicare, which is a healthcare program for the elderly. The chart below replicates the chart above, but for Medicare. Medicare is worse off as tax income in 2014 was already insufficient to cover the expenses of the program and the Trust Fund reserves are already being tapped to offset the costs. The Trust Fund for Medicare will be exhausted by 2030, at which point the Federal Government will only be able to cover about 85% of the costs of medical treatments of senior citizens. That percentage will gradually decline to 75% by 2046 and remain roughly level from then on.


This is resulting from the lower ratio of employed workers to benefit recipients, a ratio that continues to decrease as the U.S. population grows more elderly (as shown in the figure below).


Age and Gender edit

While the elderly have seen substantial improvements in their economic situation in recent decades, those improvements have not equally affected men and women. Women, whether working or not, are more likely to fall below the federal poverty line than are men, as depicted in the figure below. The figure below illustrates that female led households with no spouse present are the most likely to fall below the federal poverty line in the US.


This is of special concern considering women live longer than men, as illustrated in the next figure.

This chart depicts the increasing life expectancy at birth in the USA.

Why women live longer than men is not perfectly understood. Several factors may contribute to this. For instance, men do engage in riskier behaviors than women, reducing their life expectancy.[18] Men are also more "successful" when attempting suicide, which increases the rate of death among men of suicide.[18] Another factor that may contribute to the greater life expectancy of women is the different types of jobs men and women tend to have during their lifetimes.[19] Other biological factors likely play a role, including greater heart health among women,[20] though how much they contribute to the greater longevity of women is not entirely clear.[21] Finally, recent studies and meta analyses reveal that two primary elements in this relationship include men's occupational risk taking combined with women's greater willingness to seek healthcare. In fact, such analysis have noted that the age gap appears to be shrinking, and some suggest this is likely due to both more women entering traditionally male-dominated occupational fields, and more men becoming active in their approach to healthcare access.[22] The combined effect of all these differences may or may not account for the longevity gap between men and women, but it is clear that women do live longer than men and that holds true around the world.

Age and Sexuality edit

Although a relatively new field of social science research, relationships between sexualities and aging are quite intriguing. Rather than a monolithic sexual career delimited between stages of aging, for example, researchers have revealed a wide variety of sexual practices, patterns, and cultural debates throughout the life course. These findings have complicated previous assumptions regarding aging and sexual activity.[23][24][25] Researchers have demonstrated that people - as early as ages 3 and 4 - receive constant sexual messages throughout the life course and engage in meaningful cognitive activities attempting to explain, explore, and negotiate these messages in their daily lives. Similarly, researchers have shown that people - as late as ages 70 and 80 - often maintain and desire active sexual lives. Whereas contemporary cultural discourses often paint children and older people as asexual beings, empirical findings consistently demonstrate that such beliefs are false assumptions dependent on socio-cultural commentaries and specified within specific historical, cultural, and (especially) religious understandings of the world. Researchers (dating back to at least the 1940's) have consistently demonstrated that sexualities shift and change in varied and nuanced ways throughout the life course, and that people establish, maintain, and adapt sexual beliefs, identities, practices, and desires via ongoing biological and social experiences throughout their lives.

Building on the aforementioned observations, researchers have also noted tremendous variation between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, and asexual (LGBTIQA) aging processes. Whereas most cultural assumptions and norms about aging are built upon socially constructed heterosexual ideals, research consistently shows that sexual and gender minority groups experience the life course in vastly different ways, which often include earlier social maturation (often due to early experiences with familial and social discrimination), later sexual experimentation and activity (often due to early experiences attempting to or being forced to change or hide non-heterosexual and non-cisgendered sexual desires), and greater commitment to sexual health, education, and safe-sex practices than their heterosexual counterparts (often due to the lack of education and information available to them in mainstream society as well as the lingering lessons and educational protocols that grew out of the AIDS crisis). Researchers have shown that biological and to a lesser extent self-perceived or social age often heavily influences the political stances, practices, and beliefs of sexual and gender minorities with older LGBTIQA people often mirroring "don't ask don't tell" approaches of the past, middle-aged LGBTIQA people often adopting a "politics of respectability" (e.g., seek to be as normal as possible through inclusion into marital, religious, and familial heterosexual institutions), and younger LGBTIQA people typically promoting more radical, queer, feminist, and social justice approaches to sexual politics (see also heteronormativity and LGBTQIA movement histories for further elaboration on the relationship between historical context and sexual politics and for a basic introduction to some sexual political history).[26][27][28] Finally, recent research reveals similar influences upon sexual and gender politics among heterosexual respondents, but to date, little systematic research has explored this topic.[29]

Age and Race edit

Aging does not result in similar outcomes for members of different races. There is evidence that black senior citizens are more likely to be abused - both physically and psychologically - and suffer greater financial exploitation than do white senior citizens.[30] Recent demographic profiles suggest that social aging varies across racial groups, and demonstrates that minority elders (especially Hispanic and African American identified) typically enter later life with less education, fewer financial resources, and less access to health care than their white counterparts.[31] Finally, researchers have noted that minority groups' greater likelihood of facing patterns of structural disadvantage throughout the life course, such as racial discrimination, poverty, and fewer social, political, and economic resources on average, create significant racial variations in the stages or age-related trajectories of racial minorities and majorities that may be observed at all points of the life span, and contribute to disparities in health, income, self-perceived age, mortality, and morbidity.[32] Sociologists often explore the timing of varied life events within and between racial groups while exploring ways that age-related disparities influence the structural realities and bio-social outcomes of people located within different racial groups.

Aging in the US edit

The geography of age in the US is quite intriguing. The map below illustrates that the elderly are not equally distributed throughout the U.S.

This map depicts the median age of the population by county from the 2010 Census.

There are concentrations of the elderly in the Midwest and in the South, particularly in Florida. While the high concentration of the elderly in Florida may not come as much of a surprise to most Americans who are aware of the high rate at which people who retire move to Florida, the high concentration of the elderly in the Midwest may be more surprising. This higher concentration is not because the elderly are moving to the Midwest but rather because the young are moving out of the Midwest as they search for jobs. Thus, the two regions with the highest concentrations of the elderly in the US have high concentrations of elderly people for very different reasons.

The city of Pittsburgh offers an intriguing case study of the effects of an aging population on a city.[33] As of 2008 more people are dying in Pittsburgh than are being born.[33] Add to this the fact that many young people are moving away from Pittsburgh to find jobs, and you have the perfect recipe for both population decline and an aging population. One result of this demographic shift is that there is a greater demand for health care provision. Health care has replaced steel as Pittsburgh's biggest industry.[33] Another result of these trends is the decline in students attending Pittsburgh schools. In the 1980s there were nearly 70,000 students in the public school; by 2008 there were only about 30,000 and the number is declining by about 1,000 every year.[33] In short, as populations in specific locations age, the entire social structure must change to accommodate the new demographic, which supports the notion of equilibrium in structural-functionalist theory.

Global Aging Trends edit

Globally, most countries are seeing the average life expectancy of their populations increase. This translates into a greater percentage of the world's population falling above the age of 65, as illustrated in the figure below.

This chart shows the median ages for select countries from 1950-2021.

However, the rate at which the world's population is aging is not uniform across countries, and some countries have actually seen decreasing life expectancies, largely as a result of epidemics and pandemics, along with war and other turmoil The varied life expectancies and younger populations are illustrated in the map below, which depicts the percentage of each country's population that is over 65.

This map illustrates global trends in aging by depicting the median age of each country's population (2015 UN data). More developed countries have older populations as their citizens live longer. Less developed countries have much younger populations.

It is pretty clear from the map that more developed countries have much older populations and a greater percentage of their population is aged 65+. The least developed countries are also the youngest countries as life expectancies are substantially lower.

Aging and Health edit

While aging is often associated with declining health, current research suggests there are some things people can do to remain healthy longer into old age. For instance, maintaining a positive attitude has been shown to be correlated with better health among the elderly.[34] Older individuals with more positive attitudes and emotions engage in less risky behavior and have lower levels of stress, both of which are correlated with better health.[34]

Additional Reading edit

  • Live for ever This article in The Guardian discusses efforts by both scientists and wealthy individuals (who are providing the funding for those scientists) to extend the human lifespan.

Ueno, Koji. 2010. “Mental Health Differences Between Young Adults With and Without Same-Sex Contact: A Simultaneous Examination of Underlying Mechanisms.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 51(4):391-407.

Dillaway, Heather E. 2005. Menopause is the "good old": Women's thoughts about reproductive aging. Gender & Society 19(3): 398-417.

Aronson, Pamela. 2008. The markers and meanings of growing up. Gender & Society 22(1):56-82.

Rosenfeld, Dana. 2009. Heteronormativity and homonormativity as practical and moral resources: The case of lesbian and gay elders. Gender & Society 23(5): 617-638.

Martin, Lauren Jade. 2010. Anticipating infertility: Egg freezing, genetic preservation, and risk. Gender & Society 24(4): 526-545.

Utrata, Jennifer. 2011. Youth privilege: Doing age and gender in Russia's single-mother families. Gender & Society 25(5): 616-641.

Barrett, Anne E. 2003. “Socioeconomic Status and Age Identity: The Role of Dimensions of Health in the Subjective Construction of Age.” Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 58B: S101-S109.

Discussion Questions edit

  • What does it mean that aging is socially constructed?
  • How do you determine when someone is "old"?
  • If the elderly and the young are treated "differently," what does that mean about those who are middle-aged?
  • How are the elderly typically depicted in movies and on TV? Why?
  • How are children and youth typically depicted in movies and on TV? Why?

References edit

  1. Settersten, Jr., Richard A., Angel, Jacqueline L. (Eds.). 2011. Handbook of Sociology of Aging. Springer.
  2. Graebner, William. 1980. A History of Retirement: The Meaning and Function of an American Institution 1885-1978. Yale University Press.
  3. Parker, David. 2007. Before Their Time: The World of Child Labor. Quantuck Lane.
  4. Coontz, Stephanie. 2000. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. Basic Books.
  5. a b Bytheway, B. (1995). Ageism. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  6. Matthews, H., & Limb, M. (1999). Defining an agenda for the geography of children: Review and prospect. Progress in Human Geography, 23(1), 61-90.
  7. Breitbart, M. M. (1998). "Dana's mystical tunnel": Young people's designs for survival and change in the city. In T. Skelton & G. Valentine (Eds.), Cool places: Geographies of youth culture (pp. 305-327). London: Routledge.
  8. Lee, Louise. 2006. “Kick out the kids, bring in the sales.” BusinessWeek 42.
  9. The Economist. 2006. “Trillion-dollar kids..” Economist 381:66.
  10. Barnes, Brooks. 2009. “Disney Expert Uses Science to Draw Boy Viewers.” The New York Times, April 14 (Accessed October 7, 2009).
  11. Williams, Kimberly D. 2007. “How to target older demos.” Advertising Age 78:8.
  12. Amit-Talai, V., & Wulff, H. (Eds.). (1995). Youth cultures: A cross-cultural perspective. London: Routledge.
  13. Cahill, Spencer E. 1987. Children and Civility: Ceremonial Deviance and the Acquisition of Ritual Confidence. Social Psychology Quarterly 50: 312-321.
  14. Postman, Neil. 1994. The Disappearance of Childhood. Random House.
  15. a b c Dong, XinQi et al. 2009. “Elder Self-neglect and Abuse and Mortality Risk in a Community-Dwelling Population.” JAMA 302:517-526.
  16. Danigelis, Nicholas L., and Stephen J. Cutler. 2007. “Population Aging, Intracohort Aging, and Sociopolitical Attitudes..” American Sociological Review 72:812-830.
  17. Horswill, Mark S. et al. 2009. “A comparison of the hazard perception ability of matched groups of healthy drivers aged 35 to 55, 65 to 74, and 75 to 84 years..” Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 15:799-802.
  18. a b Williams, David R. 2003. “The Health of Men: Structured Inequalities and Opportunities.” Am J Public Health 93:724-731.
  19. Luv, Marc. 2003. “Causes of Male Excess Mortality: Insights from Cloistered Populations..” Population & Development Review 29:647-676.
  20. The Economist. 2005. “The stronger sex..” Economist 374:75.
  21. Reebs, Stéphan. 2005. “Female Radicals..” Natural History 114:14.
  22. Chloe E. Bird (Editor), Peter Conrad (Editor), Allen M. Fremont (Editor), Stefan Timmermans. 2010. Handbook of Medical Sociology, Sixth Edition. Vanderbilt University Press.
  23. Schrock, Doug, Sumerau, J. Edward, and Ueno, Koji. 2014. Sexual Inequalities. The Handbook for the Social Psychology of Inequalities. Edited by McLeod, Jane, Lawler, Edward, Schwalbe, Michael. Springer.
  24. Katz, Jonathan Ned. 2007. The Invention of Heterosexuality. University of Chicago Press.
  25. Abi Taylor and Margot A. Gosney. 2011. Sexuality in older age: essential considerations for healthcare professionals. Age and Ageing 49(1).
  26. Dana Rosenfeld. 2009. Heteronormativity and Homonormativity as Practical and Moral Resources The Case of Lesbian and Gay Elders. Gender & Society 23(5): 617-638.
  27. Schrock, Doug, Sumerau, J. Edward, and Ueno, Koji. 2014. Sexual Inequalities. The Handbook for the Social Psychology of Inequalities. Edited by McLeod, Jane, Lawler, Edward, Schwalbe, Michael. Springer.
  28. Duggan, Lisa. The Twilight of Equality?: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack On Democracy. Beacon Press, 2003.
  29. BRIAN POWELL CATHERINE BOLZENDAHL CLAUDIA GEIST LALA CARR STEELMAN. 2012. Counted Out Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family. Russell Sage Foundation.
  30. Beach, Scott R, Richard Schulz, Nicholas G Castle, and Jules Rosen. 2010. “Financial exploitation and psychological mistreatment among older adults: differences between African Americans and non-African Americans in a population-based survey.” The Gerontologist 50(6):744-757. Retrieved January 19, 2012.
  31. David R. Williams and Colmick H. Wilson. 2001. Race, Ethnicity, and Aging. Handbook of aging and the social sciences, edited by Robert H. Binstock, Linda K. George. New York: Academic Press.
  32. Linda George (Editor). 2010. Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, Seventh Edition. Academic Press.
  33. a b c d Roberts, Sam, and Sean D. Hamill. 2008. “As Deaths Outpace Births, Cities Adjust.” The New York Times, May 18 (Accessed January 30, 2010).
  34. a b Ong, Anthony D. 2010. “Pathways Linking Positive Emotion and Health in Later Life.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 19:358 -362.

External links edit

Deviance and norms edit

Introduction to deviance edit

Picking one's nose is an example of informal deviance

Deviance is any behavior that violates cultural norms. Norms are social expectations that guide human behavior. Deviance is often divided into two types of deviant activities. The first, crime is the violation of formally enacted laws and is referred to as formal deviance. Examples of formal deviance would include: robbery, theft, rape, murder, and assault, just to name a few. The second type of deviant behavior refers to violations of informal social norms, norms that have not been codified into law, and is referred to as informal deviance. Examples of informal deviance might include: picking one's nose, belching loudly (in some cultures), or standing too close to another unnecessarily (again, in some cultures).

As the last two examples in the preceding paragraph illustrate, deviance can vary quite dramatically from culture to culture. This makes sense given that cultural norms are relative. If norms are relative, what is required to deviate from those norms (i.e., deviance) is relative as well. For instance, in general U.S. society it is uncommon for people to restrict their speech to certain hours of the day. In the Christ Desert Monastery there are specific rules about when the residents can and cannot speak, including a specific ban on speaking between 7:30 pm and 4:00 am. The norms and rules of the Christ Desert Monastery are examples of how norms are relative to cultures.

Sociological interest in deviance includes both interests in measuring formal deviance (statistics of criminal behavior; see below), examining how people (individually and collectively) define some things deviant and others normative, and a number of theories that try to explain both the role of deviance in society and its origins. This chapter will cover the theories of deviance used by sociologists and will also cover current crime statistics.

Theories of Deviance edit

Psychological and Biological Explanations edit

While the focus of this chapter is on sociological explanations of deviance, there are explanations from other disciplines as well. For instance, recent research in neurology and psychology finds that boys with conduct disorder have differences in their brain structure and that those differences exist during childhood and adolescence.[1] These differences likely contribute to their deviant behavior, but whether or not these differences exist before deviant activities is widely debated.

Some biologists have also explored the possibility that the human tendency to follow norms may have evolved as it facilitates group cohesion. In simulations, individuals who did not conform to social norms were typically punished by others in the group, leading to substantial pressure to conform to social norms.[2] This research raises the possibility that humans have evolved - due to selection pressures - to more readily accept social norms and avoid deviance. Part of the reason why biological and evolutionary explanations for conformity to social norms seems somewhat compelling is because of the extreme length to which some people are willing to conform, including causing themselves physical harm in order to avoid breaking the norms of some groups.

Social-Strain Typology edit

Robert K. Merton, in his discussion of deviance, proposed a typology of deviant behavior. A typology is a classification scheme designed to facilitate understanding. In this case, Merton was proposing a typology of deviance based upon two criteria: (1) a person's motivations or his or her adherence to cultural goals; (2) a person's belief in how to attain his or her goals. These two criteria are shown in the diagram below. According to Merton, there are five types of deviance based upon these criteria:

  • conformity involves the acceptance of the cultural goals and means of attaining those goals (e.g., a banker)
  • innovation involves the acceptance of the goals of a culture but the rejection of the traditional and/or legitimate means of attaining those goals (e.g., a member of the Mafia or street gang values wealth but employs alternative means of attaining her wealth)
  • ritualism involves the rejection of cultural goals but the routinized acceptance of the means for achieving the goals (e.g., a disillusioned bureaucrat - like Milton in the movie Office Space, who goes to work everyday because it is what he does, but does not share the goal of the company of making lots of money)
  • retreatism involves the rejection of both the cultural goals and the traditional means of achieving those goals (e.g., a homeless person who is homeless more by choice than by force or circumstance or a commune established separately from dominant social norms)
  • rebellion is a special case wherein the individual rejects both the cultural goals and traditional means of achieving them but actively attempts to replace both elements of the society with different goals and means (e.g., a communist revolution or social movement activities)

What makes Merton's typology so fascinating is that people can turn to deviance in the pursuit of widely accepted social values and goals. For instance, individuals in the U.S. who sell illegal drugs have rejected the culturally acceptable means of making money, but still share the widely accepted cultural value in the U.S. of making money. Thus, deviance can be the result of accepting one norm, but breaking another in order to pursue the first.

Structural-Functionalism edit

The structural-functionalist approach to deviance argues that deviant behavior plays an important role in society for several reasons. First, deviance helps distinguish between what is acceptable behavior, and what is not. In a sense deviance is required in order for people to know what they can and cannot do. It draws lines and demarcates boundaries. This is an important function as it affirms the cultural values and norms of a society for the members of that society.

In addition to clarifying the moral boundaries of society, deviant behavior can also promote social unity, but it does so at the expense of the deviant individuals, who are obviously excluded from the sense of unity derived from differentiating the non-deviant from the deviants.

Finally, and quite out of character for the structural-functionalist approach, deviance is actually seen as one means for society to change over time. Deviant behavior can imbalance societal equilibrium. In the process of returning societal equilibrium, society is often forced to change. Thus, deviant behavior serves several important functions in society.

Conflict Theory edit

A clear example of how deviance reflects power imbalances is in the reporting and tracking of crimes. White-collar crimes are typically committed by individuals in higher social classes.[3][4] Examples of white-collar crimes include[5]:

  • antitrust violations
  • computer, credit card, phone, telemarketing, bankruptcy, healthcare, insurance, mail, and government fraud
  • tax evasion
  • insider trading
  • bribery and public corruption
  • counterfeiting
  • money laundering
  • embezzlement
  • economic espionage
  • trade secret theft

As of 2022, the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics do not provide clear statistics on white-collar crime, like they do with other types of crime. Most of the statistics provided are estimates of losses resulting from white-collar crime, which include:

  • unclear amount of money lost from corporate crime, but totaling in the billions[4]
  • at least $50 billion lost every year in the U.S. from health care fraud[4]
  • unclear amount of money lost from financial institution fraud, but totaling in the billions[4]
  • unclear amount of money lost from money laundering, but also totaling in the billions[4]
  • at least 10% of government funds for domestic programs may be lost to fraud every year, totaling in the billions[4]
  • unclear amount of money lost from insurance, telemarketing, and investment fraud every year, but also totaling in the billions[4]

That such crimes are not tracked more clearly suggests that there is less of an emphasis placed on prosecuting white collar crime than there is on prosecuting other types of crime (property and violent crime) in the U.S. It may also be the case that it is difficult to collect such statistics, but that is also likely due to the fact that a system for tracking such crimes has not been put into place because such crimes are not seen as warranting the same amount of attention as exists for other types of crimes.

That white-collar crimes are less likely to be tracked, less likely to be reported, less likely to be prosecuted, and are more likely to be committed by people in higher social classes suggests that the way crimes are punished in the U.S. tends to favor the affluent while punitively punishing the less affluent. Additionally, men benefit more from white-collar crime than do women, as they are more likely to attempt these crimes when they are in more powerful positions, allowing them to reap greater rewards.[6]

Another illustration of how criminal behavior is tied to inequality and power is in the oft-stated motivation for committing property crimes - a lack of money and resources. Many individuals who commit property crimes do so because they are in need of money. Additionally, many of those individuals, and many people who are less affluent, lack education in how to manage money and finances, which can result in a cycle of poverty and crime.[7]

Labeling Theory edit

Labeling Theory refers to the idea that individuals become deviant when two things occur:

  1. a deviant label is applied to them (e.g., loner, punk)
  2. they adopt the label by exhibiting the behaviors, actions, and attitudes associated with the label

This approach to deviance recognizes its cultural relativity and is aware that deviance can result from power imbalances. But it takes the idea of deviance further by illustrating how a deviant identity develops through the application and adoption of labels. Labeling theory argues that people become deviant as a result of people forcing that identity upon them and then adopting the identity.

Labels are understood to be the names associated with identities or role-sets in society. Examples of more innocuous labels might include father or lover. Deviant labels refer to identities that are known for falling outside of cultural norms, like loner or punk.

There are two additional ideas related to the labeling theory approach to understanding deviance. First, once a deviant identity is adopted, it is often the case that the past behaviors of the now deviant individual are re-interpreted in light of the new identity. The process of re-casting one's past actions in light of a current identity is referred to as retrospective labeling. A very clear example of retrospective labeling can be seen in how the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were re-cast after the incident took place. Much of their behavior leading up to the school shootings has been re-interpreted in light of the deviant identity with which they were labeled as a result of the shootings.

Another important element of labeling theory involves the idea of stigma. Stigma refers to the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance because of some mark of infamy or disgrace or a label that is often difficult to hide or disguise.[8] Stigma extend the idea of labeling theory by illustrating how individual characteristics can be the basis for attaching labels that can be life-altering. A good example of a stigma that is now increasingly difficult to hide is the publishing of convicted sex offender identities and information on websites (see here for an example). The stigma is the past behavior - the sex offense - but this identity is relatively easily hidden as it impossible to pick a sex offender out of a crowd. By pushing the sex offender identity into public purview, sex offenders, regardless of current behavior, are stigmatized; they are stuck with a deviant identity that overwhelms any other identity they may have. In sum, labeling theory argues that the application of labels (role-sets) to individuals is an important element leading to deviant behavior.

Crime Statistics edit

Crime statistics are usually data collected by governments for the reporting of incidents of criminal activity. They are useful for a number of reasons, beyond simply giving an awareness of the extent of criminal activity. Presented below are statistics on criminal activity and the criminal justice system for both the U.S. and selected nations around the world (for comparisons). The statistics included in this section were chosen to provide a sampling of how crime statistics can be useful beyond simply reporting incidents of criminal behavior.

It is important to understand that crime statistics do not provide a perfect view of crime. Government statistics on crime only show data for crimes that have been reported to authorities. These crimes represent only a fraction of those crimes that have been acted upon by law enforcement, which in turn represents only a fraction of those crimes where people have made complaints to the police, which in turn represents only a fraction of the total crimes committed. However, it should also be noted that television presents an unrealistic picture of the frequency of crime, particularly violent crime.[9] Heavy viewers of crime dramas on TV (e.g., CSI, Law & Order, etc.) estimate that there are 2 1/2 times as many real world deaths due to murder than do non-viewers.[9] Thus, while crimes are under-reported, they do tend to receive disproportionate attention in the media, leading people to think that crime is more prevalent than it actually is.

Incarceration Rates and Populations edit

One of the more interesting features of the U.S. is the extensive number of people who are currently in the correctional system. One explanation for this is the increasingly punitive approach of the criminal justice system. According to Western (2007),[10] those who break laws in the U.S. today are twice as likely to be imprisoned as criminals a generation ago. While debated, the percentage of prison inmates who have been wrongly convicted of crimes is estimated to be somewhere between less than 1% all the way up to 9%, which could mean hundreds of thousands of prison inmates are actually innocent.[11] The figure below breaks down the correctional system population by the status of individuals in the correctional system, including:

  • prison
  • probation
  • jail
  • parole

While the population of the United States is the third largest in the world (behind China and India), the percentage of the population that is in prison is the highest in the world, as illustrated by the map below.

World map of prison population rates by country from World Prison Brief.

This map illustrates that the U.S. has both a lot of people in prison in sheer numbers but also as a percentage of the population. Comparing incarceration rates by countries goes beyond just reporting incidents of criminal activity (incidents of crime are not much higher in the U.S. than elsewhere) by highlighting differences in the correctional systems of countries. Countries differ in the restrictiveness of their laws and prison sentences. Differences of these types are seen when comparing incarceration rates and populations.

Recidivism rates in the U.S.

The U.S. has a relatively high recidivism rate. Recidivism refers to the frequency of repeat offenses. More than half (some estimate around 67%) of prison inmates will be convicted on another charge within three years of having been released and return to prison.[12] This statistic is revealing of the nature of the prison system in the U.S.: it is more interested in keeping people who commit crimes away from the rest of the population than it is in attempting to reform or resocialize individuals to make them productive members of society. One factor that contributes to the high recidivism rates is the social stigma that accompanies having been convicted of a felony in the US. van Olphen et al. (2009)[13] found that individuals convicted of drug offenses were very likely to be reincarcerated, largely due to punitive punishments that accompanied their "convicted felon" stigma. For instance, they were often denied access to public housing and food stamps, which led many of the participants in the study to sell drugs to survive, leading to future arrests and convictions. The lack of help given to convicts released from prison increases the odds of those convicts returning to prison. Another factor that significantly increases the odds of convicts returning to prison is their return to their former neighborhoods.[14] Convicts who move away from their old neighborhood are substantially less likely to commit another crime; distancing themselves from the social environment that encouraged their criminal activity in the first place reduces their odds of reincarceration. Finally, the stigma associated with spending time in prison leads to substantially worse physical and mental health for ex-cons,[15] including higher rates of chronic illness, disability, psychiatric disorders, major depression, and anxiety.

A relatively recent innovation in criminal justice that has been shown to moderately reduce recidivism rates is "drug courts," or alternative sentencing systems that mandate treatment and therapy rather than jail time for drug offenses. Drug courts appear to reduce recidivism by somewhere between 8 and 10 percent.[16] That drug courts reduce recidivism is not all that surprising consider there is an actual intent to modify behavior rather than simply removing individuals from society.

Another interesting characteristic of the U.S. is the amount of money that is spent on the correctional system. Policing the nations streets is the most expensive component of the correctional system, followed by housing prison inmates. The average annual cost for one federal prisoner exceeds $20,000.[12] The judicial process is the least expensive, but the combined expenses of all three elements total over $300 billion annually (when you combine state, local, and federal expenditures).[12]

Government expenditures on police, judicial, and corrections systems in the US from 1997-2017.

Even though billions of dollars are spent on the criminal justice system every year in the U.S., the financial outlays actually account for only part of the cost of mass incarceration. Millions of additional jobs and even lives are lost as a result of the stigma that follows prison inmates when released (which also explains the high recidivism rate). Convicted felons are barred from working in certain industries, have limited access to educational opportunities, and have limited access to welfare and housing benefits from the government.[12] All of these problems combine to concentrate former inmates in poor urban neighborhoods that have limited opportunities to move out of criminal circles. Reducing the consequences of felony convictions and providing occupational and drug counseling would go a long way toward alleviating the high recidivism rates.[12]

Gender edit

Another way crime statistics can go beyond simply reporting incidents of criminal activity is in highlighting differences between different groups. One difference in criminal activity is seen in the number of violent crimes committed by gender; men are more likely to commit violent crimes than are women.

Another telling crime statistic that is traditionally seen as highlighting power imbalances is the number of rapes in society. While the focus of this chapter is not on exploring the motivations behind rape, the number of rapes in the U.S. and internationally can be seen to reflect power imbalances between men and women as men are far more likely to rape women than vice versa. The figures below shows the rape rate in the US relative to other violent crime rates.

This figure shows rapes/sexual assaults, robberies, and assaults as rates (per 1,000 individuals 12+) in the US in 2020.

Race edit

Regardless of one's views on the War on Drugs in the U.S., one thing is certain, the war disproportionately targeted African Americans. Since the inception of the war on drugs in 1980, millions of drug related arrests have been made. African Americans are no more likely to use drugs than are white individuals,[16] but between 1980 and 2003, the arrest rates for African Americans for drug offenses rose at three times the rate as it did for white individuals, 225% vs. 70%.[17] The reason: drug use and trafficking in the inner-city as opposed to suburbs has been the focus of the war.[17] Additionally, penalties for using drugs that are more often found among minorities have traditionally been harsher than for drugs used by white individuals. Crack and powder cocaine are very similar in effect, but possession of crack cocaine carried harsher penalties from the 1990s through the early 2000s and was more likely to be used by black individuals, who account for nearly 80% of crack convictions, than white individuals.[18] These laws were enacted in 1986 and mandated minimum sentencing: 5 years for possessing five grams of crack; 10 years for 10 grams. The thresholds for powdered cocaine were 100 times as high - 500 grams of powdered cocaine got you just 5 years.[18] The discriminatory prosecution of African Americans for drug offenses is just one way in which the criminal justice system in the U.S. works against African American equality.

The criminal justice system in the U.S. has a significant impact on the life chances of racial and ethnic minorities, in particular, people of African descent. Serving time in prison has become a normative event for young, lower-class African-American males.[10] The average African-American, male, high-school dropout born in the 1960s in the U.S. had a nearly 60% chance of serving time in prison by the end of the 1990s. This probability dropped precipitously for college-educated African-Americans. A disproportionate percentage of African-Americans serve time in prison; African-Americans make up ~12% of the U.S. population but nearly 46% of prison inmates.[10] States with larger African-American populations tend to incarcerate more people, have more punitive policies toward juvenile offenders, and have worse conditions of confinement as well.[19] The long-lasting effects of criminal conviction and imprisonment (convicted felons are barred from many jobs), results in the disenfranchisement of many African-Americans - time spent in prison is time spent away from education and on-the-job training. As a result, many African-Americans end up unskilled and with criminal convictions and felony records. Additionally, many African Americans are disenfranchised as a result of their unequal treatment by the criminal justice system. About 2.5% of Americans are not allowed to vote because of felon disenfranchisement, but 7.7% of African Americans cannot vote because of felon disenfranchisement (in Florida, it's 23.3% of African Americans).[19]

Some scholars argue that the disproportionate imprisonment of African-Americans in the U.S. actually countermands the achievements of the civil rights movement. The criminal justice system in the U.S. is arguably a massive machine that results in the production of racial inequality.[10] In fact, the inequality in the prison system is unmatched by that in other elements of society, as the following ratios indicate:

  • ratio of African-American unemployment to European-American unemployment - 2 to 1
  • ratio of African-Americans born to unwed mothers compared to European-American children born to unwed mothers - 3 to 1
  • ratio of African-American infants who die compared to European-American infants who die - 2 to 1
  • ratio of African-American to European-American wealth - 1 to 5
  • ratio of African-American incarceration rate to European-American incarceration rate - 8 to 1

Another result of the disproportionate imprisonment of African-Americans in the U.S. is that imprisoned African-Americans are not included in calculations of unemployment rates. African-American are substantially more likely to be unemployed than European-American, but most statistics do not include prison populations.

Another illustration of the disparity in punishment in the US based on race is tied to the death penalty. Only 10% of individuals in the US sentenced to death are ever actually executed, but which ones are executed is intimately tied to race. Individuals convicted of killing a European-American are five times more likely to be executed than individuals who killed a racial or ethnic minority.[20] This suggests that the criminal justice system in the US values white victims above minority victims.

All of these elements combined lead to the conclusion that one of the most racially disparate elements of U.S. society is the criminal justice system.

Homicide edit

The chart below tracks homicide rates in the U.S. for the past 100 years. There has been an increase over time, though it is not clear whether that increase represents an actual increase in homicides or an increase in confounding factors, such as: stricter law enforcement, an increased willingness to report crimes, or changes in the definition of homicide itself.


The U.S. does not have the highest homicide rates in the world, but the rates in the U.S. are still relatively high compared to other countries. Homicide rates vary substantially around the world. A new, interactive website, Homicide Monitor, provides detailed statistics on homicide rates for dozens of countries around the world.

Homicide rates also vary by the age of the victim, as shown in the chart below.

Homicide rates by age group, 1970-2002.

High Crime Neighborhoods edit

Traditionally people have thought of crime as being the result of negative characteristics of a neighborhood (e.g., low incomes, high residential turnover rates, etc.).[21] However, there is some evidence to suggest that crime and the negative characteristics that were believed to cause high crime reinforce each other.[21] This research finds that higher crime rates actually lead to more concentrated poverty, declining retail presence, and more residential turnover. This findings suggests that it is crime that drives away businesses and residents who have more money to safer areas, which then concentrates poverty and crime in that area.

Social Control edit

Social control refers to the various means used by a society to bring its members back into line with cultural norms. There are two general types of social control:

  • formal social control refers to components of society that are designed for the resocialization of individuals who break formal rules; examples would include prisons and mental health institutions
  • informal social control refers to elements of society that are designed to reinforce informal cultural norms; examples might include parental reminders to children not to pick their nose.

Some researchers have outlined some of the motivations underlying the formal social control system. These motivations include:

  • retribution - some argue that people should pay for the crime they committed
  • deterrence - some argue that punishments, e.g., prison time, will prevent people from committing future crimes
  • rehabilitation - some argue that formal social controls should work to rehabilitate criminals, eventually turning them into productive members of society
  • societal protection - finally, some argue that the motivation for formal social controls is nothing more than removing the deviant members of society from the non-deviant members

Current Research edit

Video Games and Deviance edit

Another area of current research that is of great interest to many people is the alleged effects of violent video games on behavior. Karen Sternheimer[22] explains that a lot of the concern around video games is illustrative of the social construction of deviance.[23] According to Sternheimer, "Politicians and other moral crusaders frequently create "folk devils," individuals or groups defined as evil and immoral. Folk devils allow us to channel our blame and fear, offering a clear course of action to remedy what many believe to be a growing problem. Video games, those who play them, and those who create them have become contemporary folk devils because they seem to pose a threat to children" (p. 13). The assumption is that playing violent video games will lead children to act out violently. However, there is a growing body of literature that is either inconclusive on this issue or that contradicts this assumption: it does not appear as though playing violent video games results in violent behavior.

The reason why the assumption that playing violent video games is not accurate is because it decontextualizes violence. Those who claim violent video games lead to violence fail to realize that violence is context dependent and most players of video games are fully aware of this. Individuals who play video games recognize that violence in the context of the game is okay and that it is not okay to be violent outside of that context. Additionally, many of the studies that have claimed to have found a connection between playing video games and violent behavior have failed to control for other influences on violent individuals, influences that are more likely to translate into violent behavior: neighborhood violence and instability, family violence, and even mental illness. Seldom is a connection made between adult shooting sprees in the workplace (which are far more common than school shooting sprees)[22] and video games. Instead, people look toward contextual influences like those described above (i.e., job loss, family problems, etc.). In other words, violent video games are the folk devils for violent behavior in children, but not for adults.

Finally, the video game explanation is also illustrative of social-conflict and racial discrimination. Seldom is the explanation of a black violent offender's behavior playing violent video games. The assumption is that black culture encourages violence; as a result, violent behavior by young black men is not "shocking," so it does not require a folk devil to explain it. This is, of course, discriminatory. In contrast, it is generally white, middle-class violent offenders whose behavior is explained by alleging a video game connection. The fact that these violent offenders are white and middle class threatens the "innocence and safety of suburban America," (p. 17),[22] which means it requires a folk devil culprit, absolving white, middle-class America of the blame.

Tattoos edit

One area of current research into deviance that highlights the socially constructed nature of norms is tattoos. In 2003 a survey found that 15% of the U.S. adult population had at least one tattoo; that number jumps to 28% for adults under 25.[24] However, tattoos are a very complicated illustration of the intricacies of deviance. Many of the individuals getting tattoos do not fit the stereotypes of individuals who get tattoos (e.g., soldiers, sailors, bikers, etc.); many of those tattooing their bodies are high-achieving students.[24] Additionally, tattooing is on the rise among women - 15% of women have tattoos while 16% of men do. Intriguingly, men and women get tattoos for different reasons. For men it is to reinforce their masculinity and for women it is to enhance their femininity. This differences illustrates another way in which gender is an action.

Another interesting aspect of tattoos is their changing meanings. While it is probably not the case that the meaning (think symbolic interactionism) of tattoos to those who get them is changing (tattoos have traditionally been used to express one's self or commemorate events), how tattoos are viewed is changing. In the early 1900s tattoos were so stigmatized that they could literally result in prosecution and served as evidence of ill intent and disrepute.[24] Such extreme stigmatization is no longer the case, probably because 88% of Americans know someone with a tattoo. As a result, tattoos are decreasingly seen as deviant. But tattoos also illustrate that deviance is not determined by the action but by those perceiving the action. While a tattoo may mean one thing to the person with the tattoo, it is still the case that others interpret the tattoo in a multitude of ways, and those don't always align with the intended meanings. Still, tattoos are often equated with: drug use, troublemakers, and gang affiliation. This is probably why many people who get tattoos get them in locations that can easily be covered in regular business attire - that way they can still pass when not in the company of those who are more understanding of their tattoos. Tattoos, then, illustrate the sociological understanding of deviance quite well.

Sexual Violence on College Campuses edit

There has been a great deal of attention concerning sexual violence on college campuses in recent years. The US Federal government has raised concerns about this issue and various reports have found that colleges and universities are not addressing sexual violence as they should. For instance, many universities fail to investigate allegations of sexual assaults, they fail to encourage victims to report sexual assaults, they fail to provide adequate sexual assault training, and there are inadequate resources for the survivors of sexual assault. The figure below suggests that sexual assaults are relatively rare on college campuses. However, fewer than 5% of people raped on college campuses report their sexual assault to law enforcement, which suggests the numbers in the figure may be substantially higher than the figure reports. Further, official figures like the one below limit their reporting to "forcible sexual assault" despite mounting evidence that the vast majority of sexual assaults on college campuses do not fit this narrow definition, and typically involve more subtle forms of sexual violence and coercion.[25][26] In fact, in-depth analyses of sexual violence on college campuses generally reveal that sexual assault has become a normal aspect of college experience, culture, and structure for many American women, that on average 1 in 5 college women will be sexually victimized in some way during their college careers, and that common forms of college leisure activity, such as Greek life, parties, and drinking cultures and habits on campuses often facilitate the normalization of college sexual assault.[27][28]


Notes edit

Two additional theories that might be discussed in future versions of this text include:

  • differential association
  • deviant subcultures theory

Additional Reading edit

Becker, Howard. 1983 (second edition). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 1998. Fighting Words: Black Women and the Search for Justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1991. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cmabridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon

Halberstam, Judith M. 2005. In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. NY: Routledge.

Embodied Resistance Challenging the Norms, Breaking the Rules Edited by Chris Bobel and Samantha Kwan Publication Year: 2011

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. October 2013. Arrests by Sex, 2012. Washington, DC: Dept of Justice.

Chilton, Roland and Susan K. Datesman . 1987. Gender, Race, and Crime: An Analysis of Urban Arrest Trends, 1960-1980. Gender & Society 1 (2): 152-171.

Joe, Karen A. and Meda Chesney-Lind. 1995. “Just Every Mother’s Angel”: An Analysis of Gender and Ethnic Variations in Youth Gang Membership. Gender & Society 9(4): 408-431.

Madriz, Esther I. 1997. Images of Criminals and Victims: A Study on Women's Fear and Social Control. Gender & Society 11(3): 342-356.

Discussion Questions edit

  • Can you think of something you've done that would be deviant in one situation but not in another?
  • Is everything that is illegal deviant?
  • Is everything that is deviant illegal?
  • Can you measure how deviant something is?

References edit

  1. Fairchild G, Passamonti L, Hurford G, Hagan CC, von dem Hagen EA, van Goozen SH, Goodyer IM, Calder AJ (2011), “Brain structure abnormalities in early-onset and adolescent-onset conduct disorder.” Am J Psychiatry 168(6):624-33
  2. Sergey Gavrilets and Peter J. Richerson. 2017. "Collective action and the evolution of social norm internalization," PNAS.
  3. Velez, Maria B., Lauren J. Krivo, and Ruth D. Peterson. 2003. “Structural Inequality and Homicide: An Assessment of Black-White Gap in Killings.” Criminology 41:645-672.
  4. a b c d e f g
  6. Daly, Kathleen. 1989. “Gender and Varieties of White-Collar Crime.” Criminology 27:769-794.
  7. Call, Lindsay Larson, W. Justin Dyer, Angela R. Wiley, and Randal D. Day. 2013. “Inmate Perceptions of Financial Education Needs: Suggestions for Financial Educators.” Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning 24(1):45–60.
  8. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity.
  9. a b Sparks, Glenn and Susan Huelsing Sarapin. October 2009. The CSI Effect: The Relationship Between Exposure to TV Crime Dramas and Perceptions of the Criminal Justice System. Paper presented at the International Crime, Media & Popular Culture Studies Conference. Indian State University, Terre Haute, Indiana.
  10. a b c d Western, Bruce. 2007. Punishment and Inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation Publications.
  11. Liptak, Adam. 2008. “Consensus on Counting the Innocent: We Can’t.” The New York Times, March 25 (Accessed March 25, 2008).
  12. a b c d e Silver, Howard. 2008. “The Costs of Mass Incarceration Examined by Congressional Panel.” Footnotes, February 2008, 5.
  13. van Olphen, Juliana, Michele Eliason, Nicholas Freudenberg, and Marilyn Barnes. 2009. “Nowhere to go: How stigma limits the options of female drug users after release from jail.” Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 4:10.
  14. Kirk, David S. 2009. A Natural Experiment on Residential Change and Recidivism: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. American Sociological Review. 74(3):484-500.
  15. massoglia, michael, and jason schnittker. 2009. “no real RELEASE.” Contexts 8:38-42.
  16. a b Eckholm, Erik. 2008. “Courts Give Addicts a Chance to Straighten Out.” The New York Times, October 15 (Accessed February 19, 2010). Invalid <ref> tag; name "Eckholm2008" defined multiple times with different content
  17. a b King, Ryan S. 2008. Disparity by Geography: The War on Drugs in America's Cities. The Sentencing Project. Washington. D.C.
  18. a b Eckholm, Erik. 2010. “Congress Moves to Narrow Sentencing Disparities for Crack and Powdered Cocaine.” The New York Times, July 28 (Accessed August 18, 2010).
  19. a b Neill, K. A., J. E. Yusuf, and J. C. Morris. 2014. “Explaining Dimensions of State-Level Punitiveness in the United States: The Roles of Social, Economic, and Cultural Factors.” Criminal Justice Policy Review.
  20. Jacobs, David; Qian, Zhenchao; Carmichael, Jason T. and Kent, Stephanie L. 2007. Who Survives on Death Row? An Individual and Contextual Analysis. American Sociological Review. 72:4, 610-632.
  21. a b Hipp, John R. 2010. “A Dynamic View of Neighborhoods: The Reciprocal Relationship between Crime and Neighborhood Structural Characteristics.” Social Problems 57:205-230.
  22. a b c Sternheimer, Karen. 2007. "Do video games kill?." Contexts: Understanding People in Their Social Worlds 6:13-17.
  23. Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda. Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance (Blackwell, 1994).
  24. a b c Kang, Miliann, and Katherine Jones. 2007. “Why Do People Get Tattoos?.” Contexts: Understanding People in Their Social Worlds 6:42-47.
  25. Rose Corrigan. 2013. Up Against a Wall: Rape Reform and the Failure of Success. NYU Press
  26. Heather R. Hlavka. 2014. Normalizing Sexual Violence Young Women Account for Harassment and Abuse. Gender & Society 28(3): 337-358.
  27. Laura Hamilton & Elizabeth A. Armstrong. 2009. Gendered Sexuality in Young Adulthood Double Binds and Flawed Options. Gender & Society 23(5): 589-616.
  28. ELIZABETH A. ARMSTRONG, LAURA HAMILTON, and BRIAN SWEENEY. 2006. Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel, Integrative Approach to Party Rape. Social Problems 53(4): 483-499.

Stratification edit

Every semester, I use an activity to introduce my students to economic inequalities. First, I split them into groups of 3 to 5 people. Next, I put a series of average costs for living in our county on the board in the form of an easily readable Powerpoint slide (i.e., average rent, average cost of transportation with and without a car, average utility bill, average health insurance cost, etc., etc.). Then, I assign each group a household income (i.e., an income the 3 – 5 of them make together and must live off of as a family). The household income I give them varies due to official variations, but it is always just barely above the cutoff for receiving aid so the students have to try to “make due” without any handouts. Finally, I have the students design a budget for their family based upon the combination of average costs and their total income. After they are finished, we discuss their budgets as a class.

While this exercise is rudimentary and will not actually cause them any real world trouble, I find it fascinating that the most “just work harder,” “self made American,” and “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” students very quickly decide they will run meth labs out of their houses, figure out ways to scam other people out of money, beg for money on the streets, or otherwise suggest the only way they could survive managing wages and costs typical among the working poor of America would be by breaking the law or (in the words of more than one student so far) “living like an animal.” After a bit of discussion, I ask them why don’t they “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and they very quickly realize that’s not really possible when you can’t even afford the bootstraps. Finally, I ask them how the money their families had (or didn’t have) contributed to the difference between them sitting in a college classroom and starting their own meth lab.

Introduction edit

Picture 1. Cape Verde is geographically and economically isolated from the rest of the world.
Picture 2. Most of the population in Cape Verde collects water at public water channels.
Picture 3. Corn is crushed with pestle and mortar in Cape Verde. Women’s daily chores in the rural areas consist of crushing corn, collecting water, cleaning fish, and washing clothes by hand.

Stratification affects our everyday lives.[1][2]

Stratification refers to the hierarchical arrangement of people in a society. This chapter focuses on economic stratification; meaning how people are differentiated based upon their wealth (and/or power). Sociology has a long history of studying stratification and teaching about various kinds of inequality, including economic inequality, racial/ethnic inequality, gender inequality, and other types of inequality. Inequality means people have unequal access to scarce and valued resources in society. These resources might be economic or political, such as health care, education, jobs, property and land ownership, housing, and ability to influence government policy.

Statistics on United States and global inequality are widespread and alarming. Consider this:

  • Just 400 Americans have the same wealth as half of all Americans combined[3]
  • Just 25 Americans have a combined income almost as great as the combined income of 2 billion of the world’s poor.[4]
  • In 2007, more than 37 million U.S. citizens, or 12.5 percent of the population, were classified as poor by the Census Bureau.[1]
  • In 2007, CEOs in the fortune 500 received an average of $10.5 million, 344 times the pay of the average worker.[1]
  • Four of the wealthiest people in the world come from one family, the Walton’s. They are the four children who inherited Sam Walton’s company Wal-Mart. Together, they are worth $83.6 billion.[5]
  • Half of American children will reside in a household that uses food stamps at some point during childhood.[6]
  • Life expectancy in Harlem is shorter than in Bangladesh.[6]

Although inequality is everywhere, there are many controversies and questions about inequality that sociologists are interested in such as where did inequality come from? Why does it continue? Do we justify inequality? Can we eliminate inequality? Can we make a society in which people are equal? Before answering these complex questions, we will broadly define socioeconomic status and social class in America. The chapter then turns to dominant theories on stratification, and explores class, race, and gender inequality in more detail. We look at how capitalism is an important context in inequality. We end with consequences of inequality and theories explaining global inequality.

Socioeconomic Status edit

Building on the ideas of Max Weber, who saw three main dimensions of stratification (class, status, and party), contemporary sociologists often define stratification in terms of socioeconomic status (or SES). There are a variety of ways to measure SES, including educational attainment, income, wealth, and occupational prestige. These measures reflect three characteristics of individuals: power, property, and prestige. These three characteristics combine to indicate someone’s social class or socioeconomic status.

Power edit

Power refers to someone’s ability to get others to do his/her will, regardless of whether or not they want to. Legitimate power, power given to individuals willingly by others, is called authority. Illegitimate power, power taken by force or the threat of force, is called coercion.

Property edit

Property, as used in this context, refers to the sum total of one’s possessions as well as their regular income. Property goes beyond income as a measure of social class as it reflects the accumulated wealth (e.g., homes, stocks, bonds, savings and how many children you have) in addition to one’s earning potential and accumulated debt. Property is a better overall measure of social class than income as many individuals who are considered wealthy actually have very small incomes.

Prestige edit

Prestige refers to the reputation or esteem associated with one’s position in society. Prestige used to be associated with one's family name, but for most people in developed countries, prestige is now generally tied to one's occupation. Occupations like physicians or lawyers tend to have more prestige associated with them than occupations like bartender or janitor. An individual’s prestige is closely tied to their social class – the higher the prestige of an individual (through their occupation or maybe family name), the higher the social class.

These three indicators tend to go hand-in-hand or lead to each other, such as a Supreme Court justice who is usually wealthy, enjoys a great deal of prestige, and exercises significant power. In some cases, however, a person ranks differently on these indicators, such as funeral directors. Their prestige is fairly low, but most have higher incomes than college professors, who are among the most educated people in America and have high prestige.[7]

Social Class in the United States edit


Sociologists Dennis Gilbert and Joseph Kahl developed a model of the American class social class structure. Briefly, the upper class in America (3% of the population) is divided into upper-upper class (1% of the U.S. population), earning hundreds of millions to billions in income per year while the lower-upper class (2%) earns millions in annual income. The middle class (40%) is divided into upper-middle class (14%) earning $76,000 or more per year while the lower-middle class (26%) earns $46,000 to $75,000. The working class (30%) earns $19,000 to $45,000. The lower class (27%) is divided into working poor (13%, earning $9000 to 18,000) and underclass (14%, earning under $9000).[7]

Among America’s working class and working poor are hotel housekeepers, waitresses, house maids, and retail clerks. In Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, Barbara Ehrenreich describes her experience of working a series of low-wage jobs in 1998 and trying to survive on her wages. Among other low-wage jobs, she worked in Wal-Mart, earning $6.00 per hour. In addition to trying to survive on her wages, she described how working overtime without pay was the custom at Wal-Mart. Managers informed workers to punch out of the time clock and to begin some additional work (without pay).[8]

Because of the Great Recession from 2007-2009, the gap between the rich and poor has increased in America. Today, the richest one percent of Americans earn nearly a quarter of the country’s income and control 40 percent of its wealth. The gap between the wealth of white families and the wealth of African-American families and Hispanics has also increased. The average wealth of a white family in 2009 was 20 times greater than that of the average black family, and 18 times greater than the average Hispanic family. In other words, the average white family had $113,149 in net worth, compared to $6,325 for Hispanics and $5,677 for African-Americans.[9]

Let’s take a step back now and see where inequality really began.

Origins of Inequality and Private Property edit

The origins of inequality can be found in the transition from hunter/gatherer societies to horticultural/pastoralist societies. Here, it might be useful to describe a few characteristics of these societies.

In hunter/gather societies, (around 50,000 B.C.), small groups of people gathered what they could find and they also hunted and fished. People grew and collected their food for all of their needs. There was very little trading between the groups and there were not many inequalities between groups. There was not a surplus of goods. Everyone possessed basically the same as everyone else. The division of labor was small. People did almost the same jobs as each other. Food gathering and food production was the focus of work.

In horticultural/pastoralist societies (around 12,000 B.C.), groups grew to be very large and humans settled down in one place. For the first time, people had more time to do other work besides producing food, such as making leather and making weapons and other special skills. This new division of labor led to surplus of goods. The groups then traded with each other. This led to inequality because some people accumulated more possessions than others.

Fast forward many millennia later to just before Industrialization began. In the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries, there was collectivity in the space and land in Europe. Life was brutal and harsh, but there was a joint and shared responsibility in the way people lived their lives and went about their work. People farmed land in a collective way because they saw it as something for everyone to take care of and for everyone to enjoy the fruits of their labor.[10]

The concept of private taking and private property began to flourish in the late 15th century beginning in Europe and spreading around the world. Jean-Jacques Rousseau linked private property with inequality in his book, Discourse on Inequality. Collective land and space, once shared by all, began to be divided up into private takings and private ownership (and this continues today). Land, oceans, and air, once shared by everyone in the world, began being bought and sold like products in a store. The great land masses of the world were reduced to private property. Laws and regulations were created that allowed a country to claim a certain amount of water for exploitation. Air was divided into air corridors that were bought and sold for commercial traffic for airplanes. Today, the right to private property is an important value in most societies. With deregulation, privatization, and free trade, we continue to see a private taking and private ownership of entities once shared by everyone.[10]

The idea that there should be equality in society emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries in the writings of Hobbes and Locke. Their thinking helped people consider that inequality was the result of the actions and intentions of social institutions and specific groups and not the will of God. Even so, the question of the origin of inequality remains today in addition to why inequality continues.

The Persistence of Inequality edit

Sociologist Joel Charon[11] offers a few reasons why inequality continues in society. His arguments reflect social reproduction theory, which focuses on the roles of institutions and cultures in the perpetuation of inequality and the process by which the social class structure is maintained. First, the rich and powerful protect the system of inequality. They are typically the owners of the means of production (factories, machinery, land, transportation) and have the resources to protect themselves and their positions. This control is heightened in societies with advanced technology as more developed technology facilitates the ability of the wealthy to pass on their wealth to their offspring.[12] For instance, in modern societies, the transition of wealth is basically as simple as changing the names on the bank accounts or transferring stock from parents to children, which can be done at the push of a button. But in less developed economies - like hunter-gatherer or pastoralist - the transmission of wealth is far more difficult as it involves the physical transferring of goods. Thus, technology has the potential to substantially heighten inequality by facilitating the intergenerational transmission of wealth.

Karl Marx argued that the rich and powerful have control over the means of production, which is economic power, and they also have great influence on government power, including the rules governments follow, the people who work for the government, and the laws governments make. The rich and powerful also have control over the media, the schools, the courts, and many other parts of society and they support institutions (religion, economy, and education) that favor them. For example, the Walton family made $3.2 million in political contributions in 2004.[13] The Waltons have great economic power and also the ability to influence government through large donations to political actors that protect their positions and their businesses. Inequality continues because those at the top protect their positions and use their power to influence other parts of society.[11]

Second, culture teaches the acceptance of inequality. Research shows that Americans believe in equality. Research also shows that Americans view inequality as justified.[1] One belief system that people commonly embrace--mistakenly, according to contemporary economic research - is that the rich and powerful are more talented, hardworking, and intellectually superior and thus more deserving.[14] (Recent research shows that the most wealthy are not any smarter than those just below them in the economic hierarchy.)[14] The poor are poor because they are lazy or irresponsible or unmotivated. If they can’t make it, it is their fault. These are ideologies that protect the system of inequality. These ideologies legitimatize the position of the rich and powerful and explain and justify the position of the poor.[11][15] People tend to accept inequality, not because they are happy with their situation, but because over time people believe their situation is natural and normal and it is what they expect from life.

In the United States, important cultural values are taught early on which support the system of inequality. These include a focus on the individual, a value of hard work, measurable achievement, and the ‘sacred’ ideal of equal opportunity. People accept as truth these beliefs: ‘If you work hard, you can rise to the top.’ ‘You can be anything you want to be.’ ‘Where there’s a will, there’s a way.’ ‘America is the land of opportunity; anyone can make it if they try hard enough.’ ‘Work hard, get an education, and don’t give up when the going gets rough.’ These values support the inequality that already exists and these values deny the impacts of inequality.[11][15]

The American dream contains the belief that every individual can achieve prosperity and success through hard work and self discipline. For example, U.S. President Barack Obama said in a speech in 2005, “…whether chance of birth or circumstance decides life’s big winners and losers, or whether we build a community where, at the very least, everyone has a chance to work hard, get ahead, and reach their dreams.”[16] While these might be inspirational words, they focus on the individual and leave out the social structural causes of inequality and poverty, such as the high unemployment rate, inheritance laws that allow families to pass on wealth, lack of state supported child care or health care, and tax policies that favor the wealthy. As a startling example, the Walton family received a federal tax cut of $91,500 per hour during the 2004 tax year.[13]

Third, people are socialized to accept their position in life. The rich and powerful socialize their children to expect wealth and power. Parents, teachers, and friends show us our position in society and teach us to expect that same level.[11] Parents who attended prestigious boarding schools and Ivy League colleges such as Harvard, Yale, or Princeton expect their future offspring will attend such schools. Harvard researcher Michael Hurwitz found that legacy students were 45% more likely to be admitted to elite colleges.[17]

A 2015 analysis of schools in the District of Columbia illustrates how wealth perpetuates wealth.[18] The very best schools in the District of Columbia were located in areas where median home prices were very high, close to $800,000. The worst schools were located in areas where median home prices were very low. In other words, in order to send a child to a top school, parents had to live in a home that cost close to $800,000 to purchase it, otherwise the students would get an inferior education. This illustrates how inequality and stratification get passed on from generation to generation, as children raised in wealthy families get the best education.

Ivy League colleges, private country clubs, debutante balls (a formal introduction and presentation of young women to society) and the social register (a book listing the most important and famous American families) are ways that the wealthy maintain their cohesion and pass on their prestigious positions to their children.[19]

In addition, education helps to reinforce an acceptance of inequality and education prepares each social class differently, depending on the roles they will play when leaving school.[11] This means teaching the appropriate skills but also the appropriate values for each social class. Elementary and high schools in the U.S., in particular, teach different values to different social classes. Working-class students learn obedience; upper-middle class students learn leadership and creativity.[1] Upper-middle class students participate in activities that focus on public performance and skill development. Working-class students participate in informal play, visiting family, and ‘hanging out.’[20] Socialization brings the acceptance of a culture that justifies inequality, and it normally brings an acceptance of one’s relative position in the system of inequality.

Finally, police, courts, and prisons work together to protect the system of inequality. Research has shown that the criminal justice system in the U.S. is biased against the poor from start to finish, from the definition of what constitutes a crime through the process of arrest, trial, and sentencing.[21]

Much of society seems to encourage and protect the system of inequality. Given all of these ways inequality is perpetuated in a society, is it at all possible to eliminate it?

Eliminating Inequality edit

Inequality and poverty didn’t just drop down from the sky, like an apple does from a tree. The previous section shows it is embedded in society in many ways, but if the conditions that generate social inequality are conscious and intentional creations of human actions, they can be changed. We will examine this complex issue in the next section.

Dominant Perspectives edit

Two classic approaches to stratification provide interesting insights into this phenomenon, structural-functionalism and conflict theories.

Structural-Functionalism on Stratification edit

The structural-functional approach to stratification asks the same question that it does of the other components of society: What function or purpose does it serve? The answer is that all parts of society, even poverty, contribute in some way to the larger system’s overall stability, according to this theory. Stratification and inequalities are inevitable and beneficial to society. The layers (sorting of unequal people. The layering is useful because it ensures that the best people are at the top and those who are less worthy are further down the pyramid and therefore have less power and are given fewer rewards than the high quality people at the top. Inequality ensures that the most functionally important jobs are filled by the best qualified people. In other words, it makes sense for the CEO of a company whose position is more important functionally to make more money than a janitor working for the same company. A job’s functional importance is determined by the degree to which the job is unique, meaning whether few other people can perform the same function adequately. Garbage collectors are important to public sanitation, but do not need to be rewarded highly, because little training or talent is required to perform their job. Doctors should be rewarded highly, because great training is required to do their job. It is logical that society must offer greater rewards (e.g., income, vacations, promotion) to motivate the most qualified people to fill the most important positions.[1]

There are several obvious problems with this approach to stratification. First, it is difficult to determine the functional importance of any job, as the accompanying specialization and inter-dependence make every position necessary to the overall operation. The engineers in a factory for example are just as important as the other workers in the factory to the success of a project. In another example, a primary school teacher in the U.S. earns $29,000 per year whereas a National Basketball Association Player can earn as much as $21 million per year. Are basketball players more essential to society than teachers? Are basketball players more functionally important than teachers? In 2009, comedian Jerry Seinfeld earned $85 million. Do his earnings demonstrate his contribution to society? If NBA players or famous comedians went on strike and decided not to work, most people would not notice. However, if teachers, bus drivers, nurses, cleaners, garbage collectors, or waitresses stopped working, society would close down. There is little connection between income and jobs that are functionally important in a society.[1][7]

Second, this approach assumes that the system of stratification is fair and rational, and that the ‘best’ people end up on top because of their superiority. But, in real life, the system does not work so easily or perfectly. Former U.S. president George W. Bush, for example, was not the smartest or most politically talented individual but he was well connected and born at the top of the stratification system (white, male, wealthy, American, heterosexual), and therefore was elected to a position with great power – the U.S. presidency.

Another problem with this approach is that it assumes that only a few ‘chosen’ people should have all the power and all the material wealth, rather than distributing it equitably, or distributing it to those who need it most. Sociology is the change of society.

Conflict Theorists on Stratification edit

Conflict theorists argue that stratification is dysfunctional and harmful in society. Stratification benefits the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor. For example, many wealthy families pay low wages to nannies to care for their children, gardeners to attend to their rose gardens and maids to pick up their dirty socks. Capitalism, in particular, benefits the rich. Corporate welfare is one example where an arrangement of direct subsidies, tax breaks, and other support that the government has created for big businesses.[7] As mentioned previously, the Walton family receives enormous tax breaks. Inequality is inevitable within a system that has individual competition at its core, and therefore, ‘winners’ and ‘losers.’ Conflict theorists believe that this competitive system, together with the way the game is ‘fixed’, ends up creating and perpetuating stratification systems. Competition and inequality are not inevitable but are created and maintained by people.

Functionalists criticize this approach by arguing that people do not always act largely out of economic self-interest. For example, Chuck Feeney, the creator of Duty Free Shoppers, has given $4 billion to charities.[7] Bill Gates has given 58% of his wealth to charity. In contrast, the Walton family has given less than 1% of their wealth to charity.[13] Functionalists also argue that conflict theorists underestimate people’s ability to move upward in society. They argue that if people really want to succeed, they can do so through hard work.[7]

Towards a More Egalitarian Society edit

Societies could be redesigned so that they are based on cooperation. Marxists argue that a central component of a more equitable and humane society would be based on the idea, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” In other words, each person should produce or work to the best of their ability according to their talents, and each person should receive the fruits of this labor according to their need, irrespective of what they have produced. Conflict theorists also believe that democracy or some sort of group decision making is more humane and more effective. Stratification systems that concentrate decision making and power in the hands of a few are destined to not serve the interests of most people at the bottom of the pyramid.

Intersections of Class, Race, and Gender edit

Economic class, in conjunction with race and gender, shape the opportunities, the privileges, and the inequalities experienced for individuals and groups. The United States continues to be greatly stratified along these three lines. This was seen when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. In New Orleans, the roles of class, race, and gender were made apparent to the U.S. public. Many of the televised images showed poor, African Americans, many who were women and their children, abandoned in the storm, without resources for several days and without basic necessities of food and water. Though the storm displaced hundreds of people from all backgrounds, classes, colors and gender ‘equally,’ all were not affected the same.[22] The wealthy had cars to leave New Orleans, and credit cards and bank accounts for emergency hotels and supplies. They also had insurance policies for rebuilding. The unequal impact of this tragedy was not unique. In the sinking of the Titanic in 1912 for example, 60% of first class passengers survived, while only 24% of third class passengers survived. One child in first class died, while 49 children in third class died. The poor in the U.S. and around the world are most likely to suffer from ‘natural’ and human tragedies.[23][24]

Capitalism, class, privilege, and oppression edit

Class plays an important role in the forms of privilege and oppression. Capitalism produces enormous amounts of wealth, in addition to increasing levels of inequality, both within the U.S. and around the world. These inequalities result from a class system based on increasing gaps in income, wealth, and power between the few people on top and the masses of people at the bottom. Capitalism is a system that produces cruel consequences. For those at the bottom, the costs are great, with living conditions among the poor comparable to those found in developing countries. Capitalism causes competition, stress, and anxiety among members of the working class and middle class, as people do not have any control over their work and whether they can keep their jobs.[15] Despite the myth that hard work leads to getting ahead and making it, for the most part people have little power to improve their class position. Research shows people are as likely to move downward as they are upward in the class system. Currently, corporate downsizing, the loss of industrial jobs going overseas, the expansion of low-paying service occupations, and the Great Recession beginning in 2007, have combined to result in many people struggling to keep the jobs that they have, rather than being able to move upward.[15]

Capitalism, race and gender inequality edit

The increase of immigrants in the U.S. and the loss of jobs to other countries illustrate a core belief that the greatest problem American workers experience is unfair competition from immigrants in the U.S. and workers abroad. The belief, ‘they are taking our jobs’ ignores the capitalist system itself, which by its nature increases the wealth of the few owners by controlling workers and keeping wages as low as possible, and it allows a few owners to control the majority of wealth, leaving a tiny share to be distributed among everyone else.[15]

Capitalism also takes advantage of gender inequality. Women workers are exploited for cheap labor as nannies and maids in New York, in clothing sweatshops in Los Angeles, and on rose farms in Ethiopia which pay women a dollar a day. Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, in particular has been accused of discrimination against women. Although over seventy percent of Wal-Mart’s hourly workers are female, they account for only a third of all management. Wal-Mart has been sued for unfair practices in the training, payment, and promotion of its female employees.[25] Capitalism would no longer function if the mass of women stopped doing the shopping, cooking, cleaning, and caretaking. For the most part, women raise the next generation of workers on which capitalism depends. Women do this work without receiving any extra pay or benefits.[15]

Points of View: Micro-Meso-Macro edit

We now turn to three levels of analysis on stratification.

Micro-level Prestige and Influence edit

Stratification occurs in small groups and face-to-face interaction. At the beginning of the chapter, we looked at how stratification begins when we are young. Clothing, expensive toys, a new bicycle, a fancy car, and what job our parents had (and even whether or not we had parents) were symbols that differentiated us and separated us in elementary schools and impacted which friends we played with and the interactions we had.

Throughout our lives, wealth, power, and prestige are given to individuals who have knowledge and access to important information and influential people in society. Gender and race influence our degrees of networks, as well as individual qualities of leadership, self confidence, and physical attractiveness.[2]

Meso-level Access to Resources edit

Our positions and connections in organizations and institutions lie within the stratification system. This impacts how we experience life and how we interact with other individuals and groups.[2] As mentioned earlier, parents, teachers, and friends show us our position in society and teach us to expect that same level. Education prepares each social class differently, with different skills and values taught to each class. The police, courts, and prisons reinforce the stratification system. Our position in the system reflects the type of health care we receive. All of these institutions support the stratification system by favoring the rich and powerful.

Macro-Level Factors Influencing Stratification edit

Our position in the international economic system in the world shapes our opportunities throughout our life and our access to important resources. Let’s look at Cape Verde as an example. Located 450 kilometers off the coast of Senegal, West Africa, it is geographically and economically isolated from the rest of the world. (See Picture 1.) About one quarter of the population remains unemployed and an additional 26 percent are underemployed. The poverty rate in 2003 was 37 percent including 20 percent who are identified as extremely poor. The country is ranked 38 in the Human Poverty Index by the United Nations. Cape Verde is a debtor nation with a total external debt of $360 million at the end of 2002. Besides being in debt to countries of the North, (the U.S. and Europe) Cape Verde is part of the global economy in other ways. The country’s major industries are owned by nations of the North. Forty-nine percent of the banks, hotels, airlines and shipping lines formerly owned by the Cape Verdean government have been sold to foreign investors. In addition, Portuguese investors own forty percent of the state telecommunications company. The dominance of foreigner investors in even the industries that supply the most basic needs, such as water, are a result of policies of privatization, a key element of neoliberal and Washington Consensus economic “reforms.” (See Picture 2). And the International Monetary Fund continues to push its privatization drive demanding that Cape Verde privatize its few remaining public enterprises, including the national airlines, the national oil supply company, the national transportation company, and others. Both the country’s private sector business class and low-income households have been greatly impacted, experiencing job loss and price hikes. On one island, the increased cost of privatized energy has forced people who cannot afford the electricity to return to traditional oil lamps. Low-income women especially have been impacted from structural adjustment programs, which have cut governmental provisions on health, education, and food. Macro level factors such as policies implemented by the World Bank and International Monetary fund impact the job opportunities, prices of food, water, and electricity, and day to day life for citizens in Cape Verde and around the world.[26] (See picture 3).

Consequences of Inequality edit

In the opening paragraph and throughout this chapter, we presented many consequences of inequality. What class we belong to directly relates to our individual life chances. Let’s look at a few more points in detail. The wealthy and well-educated are much more likely to be in good health, and have access to good medical care than the poor. The poor have shorter life expectancies and are at greater risk for chronic illnesses. Children born into poor families are at much greater risk of dying during their first year of life from disease, accidents, or violence. When medical attention is needed, its huge cost prevents the poor from seeking care. For many, the high cost of insurance prevents Americans from having good medical care. Approximately 45.7 million people in the United States were without health insurance coverage in 2007. Hunger is also connected to class. It is estimated that 13 percent of children under age 12 are hungry or at risk of being hungry. Among the working poor, almost 75% of the children are thought to be in this category. In addition to the high cost of food, the lack of affordable housing is a critical concern for poor families and many families live in weekly hotels which are cheaper than paying monthly rent. In Orange County, California, low-income parents working full-time at Disneyland for $9 per hour still struggle to find affordable housing, so parents with young children live across the street in motels.[27][28]

The poor are not able to provide the same educational opportunities for their children as the wealthy are. School districts in wealthy suburban areas tend to pay higher teachers’ salaries, have newer buildings, and provide sophisticated equipment. Students in central city schools and poverty stricken rural areas often attend rundown schools that lack necessary equipment and teaching materials.[28] Poverty and thoughts related to poverty may take up so many cognitive resources for the poor that it actually impedes cognitive functioning, which accounts, in part, for the lower IQs measured among poor people.[29]

Private tutors, SAT preparation courses, and charter schools allow children from wealthy families to gain entrance to elite colleges and find jobs more quickly after graduation. And, as previously mentioned, their children have a good chance of attending the same elite college. The cycle of wealth, power, and prestige continues.

Our final section explores global inequality.

Percentage of countries' population living on less than $2 per day, 2009.
Percentage of countries' populations living below their respective poverty lines.

Global Inequality edit

Picture 4. Children enjoying traditional bread during a celebration in Ethiopia.

Almost half the world, over 3 billion people, lives on less than $2.50 a day. 78 percent of Ethiopians earn less than $2.00 a day. (See Pictures 4, 5, and 6). 86% of the population in Zambia lives in poverty while 4% of the population in Belgium lives in poverty.[30][31] Why is there such a large gap between Zambia and Belgium? Why are the poor still poor? Who is to blame for poverty? Social scientists offer a few theories which help to explain the causes and consequences of global inequality.

Development and Modernization edit

This theory blames tradition for global poverty. These theorists argue poor societies stay poor because they hold onto traditional attitudes and beliefs, technologies and institutions, such as traditional economic systems and forms of government. In contrast, in the modern world, the rise of capitalism brought modern attitudes, modern technologies such as machinery and electronics, and modern institutions which helped countries progress and have a higher standard of living. Given enough time, modernization will occur everywhere in the world. Eventually global capitalism and its modern corporations will hold these modern ideas, technical innovations, and efficient institutions everywhere. Modernists believe large economic growth is the key to reducing poverty in poor countries.

Dependency edit

Picture 5. Traditional huts near Wondo Genet, Ethiopia.

This theory blames colonialism and neocolonialism (continuing economic dependence on former colonial countries) for global poverty. Countries have developed at an uneven rate because wealthy countries have exploited poor countries in the past and today through foreign debt and transnational corporations (TNCs). Historically, wealthy nations have taken a great quantity of materials from poor countries such as minerals and metals necessary to make automobiles, weapons, and jewelry in wealthy countries. In addition, large amounts of agricultural products that can only be grown in the hot climates of the poor countries have been taken and exported and manufactured in the wealthy countries such as coffee, tea, sugar, and cocoa. Wealthy countries would not be as rich as they are today if they did not have these materials. Also, wealthy countries increased their own profits by organizing cheap labor through slavery. King Leopold II, for example, who was King of Belgium from 1865-1909, forced hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children to work as slaves in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The invention of the bicycle tire in the 1890’s and later the automobile tire meant that rubber was in high demand, and wild rubber vines were widespread in the Congo, earning Leopold millions.[32] The Democratic Republic of Congo is still suffering today from the plunder of resources and the torture and killing of millions during Leopold’s rule.

Dependency theorists believe large economic growth is not necessarily the key to reducing poverty and developing. Instead, poor countries are trapped by large debts which prevent them from developing. For example, between 1970 and 2002, the continent of Africa received $540 billion in loans from wealthy nations and from the World Bank and IMF. African countries have paid back $550 billion of their debt but they still owe $295 billion. The difference, of course, is a result of compound interest. Countries cannot focus on economic or human development when they are constantly paying off debt. In addition, economic relationships between countries tend to benefit the wealthier countries. Some of the land in Cape Verde for example, could be planted and harvested to feed people but is planted instead with cash crops for foreign exchange. Due to indebtedness and foreign dependence, fresh produce is regularly sold or changed to a nonperishable type such as canned tuna for export rather than consumed by the population. Widespread malnutrition is one of the effects of this foreign dependency.[26] This is common around the globe. Brazil is the second largest exporter of agricultural products but 50% of its population is malnourished. Although Ethiopia has one of the largest populations of cattle in Africa, and much of the population suffers from malnutrition, the government continues to export large numbers of cattle to the Middle East. Even during the peak of the infamous 1985 famine, the government was sending dried meat to Egypt. Sen and Grown[33] call this denationalizing of the Global South. Foreign trade and business get in the way of the freedom of local governments.

World Systems Theory edit

Picture 6. A simple house in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

This theory, similar to dependency theory, suggests that wealthy countries benefit from other countries and also exploit their citizens. This reflects Immanuel Wallerstein’s theory that suggests that how a country is integrated into the capitalist world system is the key feature in determining how economic development takes place in that country. The world economy is a system divided into a hierarchy of three types of countries: core, semiperipheral, and peripheral. Core countries (e.g., U.S., Japan, Germany) are dominant capitalist countries characterized by high levels of industrialization and urbanization. Semiperipheral countries (e.g., South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Brazil, India, Nigeria, South Africa) are less developed than core nations but are more developed than peripheral nations. Peripheral countries (e.g., most African countries and low income countries in South America) are dependent on core countries for capital, and have very little industrialization and urbanization. Core countries own most of the world’s capital and technology and have great control over world trade and economic agreements. Semiperipheral countries generally provide labor and materials to core countries. Semiperipheral countries exploit peripheral countries, just as core countries exploit both semiperipheral and peripheral countries. Core countries extract raw materials with little cost. They can also set the prices for the agricultural products that peripheral countries export regardless of market prices, forcing small farmers to abandon their fields because they can’t afford to pay the labor and fertilizer. The wealthy in peripheral countries benefit from the labor of poor workers and from their own economic relations with core country capitalists.[7][28]

The New International Division of Labor theory edit

Based on the changing nature of the world economy, production is divided into small pieces, each of which can be moved by a Transnational Corporation (TNC) to any country in the world that can provide the best deal on capital and labor. When moving businesses and factories to cheap labor locations, effort is not made to create better quality of living and development projects in poor countries. Strict laws protecting the environment and the rights of workers, which must be followed in the U.S. and Europe, do not have to be followed in many poor countries. This is attractive for a TNC so that bottom line profits can increase. In many factories, workers are often exploited by low wages, long hours, and poor working conditions. Wal-Mart factory workers in China report working fourteen hours a day for less than $3 per day in a hot room with only one fan. One woman described that rent was deducted from her wages, even after she moved out of the dormitory. During official inspection from outsiders, workers were taught how to lie about working hours and how to present fake pay slips. Workers also faced the threat of physical harassment from managers.[13] There are about 65,000 TNCs across the world today. TNCs continue to take materials and cheap labor from underdeveloped countries.

Additional Reading edit

Discussion Questions edit

  • Think about the jobs you have held. What factors do you think led you to getting the job and what factors affected the salary that you received?
  • How do you think your gender, race, and socioeconomic position have affected your path through life so far?
  • How does a functionalist understand inequality? How does a conflict theorist understand inequality?
  • If our actions and behaviors mostly reproduce the condition in which we live, how can we change inequality?
  • What can be done to lessen the negative effects of inequality on people’s lives?

Applying Knowledge edit

Students studying sociology can apply their knowledge of inequality and poverty by serving in a number of organizations in the U.S. and around the world. Check out the following organizations:

  • AmeriCorps helps those in need through organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, the American Red Cross, and Big Brothers Big Sisters.
  • The Hunger Project is committed to ending hunger around the world.
  • CARE International assists the world’s poor in their efforts to achieve social and economic well-being.
  • Peace Corps volunteers help individuals and communities around the world improve their quality of life.

Also, the U.S. Census Bureau collects data on income and poverty in the United States. Check out their site at

References edit

  1. a b c d e f g Hurst, E., 2010. Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  2. a b c Roberts, K., 2007. Our Social World. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
  3. Moore, M., 2011. America is NOT broke. [Online]. Available at: [accessed August 26, 2011].
  4. Sernau, S., 2005. Worlds apart: social inequalities in a global economy. Newbury Park: Pine Forge Press.
  5. Aulette, J.R. & Wittner, J., 2011. Gendered Worlds, 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University.
  6. a b Rank, M., 2011. Rethinking American poverty. Contexts, 10 (2), 16-21.
  7. a b c d e f g Benokraitis, N., 2010. SOC, 2nd edition. Belmont: Wadsworth.
  8. Ehrenreich, B., 2002. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. New York: Henry Holt.
  9. Rakesh K., Fry, R., & Taylor, P., 2011. Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics. [Online]. Available at: Pew Research Center. [accessed September 5, 2011].
  10. a b Achbar, M., Abbott J., & Bakan J., 2004. The Corporation. Zeitgeist Video.
  11. a b c d e f Charon, J., 2007. 10 questions. A Sociological Perspective, 6th edition. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
  12. Mulder, Monique Borgerhoff et al. 2009. “Intergenerational Wealth Transmission and the Dynamics of Inequality in Small-Scale Societies.” Science 326(5953):682–88.
  13. a b c d Wal-Mart-the high cost of low price, 2005. Brave new films.
  14. a b Keuschnigg, Marc, Arnout van de Rijt, and Thijs Bol. 2023. “The Plateauing of Cognitive Ability among Top Earners.” European Sociological Review jcac076. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcac076.
  15. a b c d e f Johnson, A. 2006. Privilege, Power, and Difference, 2nd edition. Boston: McGraw Hill.
  16. Obama, B., 2005. [Online]. Available at [accessed August 1, 2011].
  17. Huwitz, Michael. 2011. Legacy students up to 45% more likely to be admitted to elite colleges. [Online]. Available at: [accessed August 1, 2011].
  18. The cost of a guaranteed spot in a DCPS elementary school. July 20, 2015.
  19. Higley, S., 2003. The U.S. Upper Class. In J. Henslin, ed. Down to Earth Sociology,12th edition. New York: The Free Press. 347-359.
  20. Lareau, A., 2000. Social class and the daily lives of children: a study from the United States. Childhood, 7 (2), 155-171.
  21. Reiman, J., 2006. The rich get richer and the poor get prison: ideology, class, and criminal justice, 8th edition. London: Pearson.
  22. Andersen, M., & Collins, P.H., 2007. Why race, class, and gender still matter. In M. Andersen & P.H. Collins, eds. Race, Class and Gender. An Anthology, 6th edition. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
  23. Bowman, J., 2008. Guided Fantasy: The Titanic Game. In K. McKinney & B. Heyl, eds. Sociology through active learning: student exercises. Newbury Park: Pine Forge Press. 105-108.
  24. The Titanic Page. [Online]. Available at: [accessed September 10, 2011].
  25. Hunt, J., 2001. Perspective: Barbara Ehrenreich on the Wal-Mart Suit. Time U.S. [Online]. Available at:,8599,132362,00.html [accessed September 8, 2011].
  26. a b Carter, K., & Aulette, J., 2009. Cape Verdean women and globalization: the politics of gender, culture and resistance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  27. Pelosi, A., 2010. Homeless: The motel kids of Orange County. HBO Summer Series. [Online]. Available at: [accessed August 29, 2011].
  28. a b c Kendall, D., 2011. Sociology in our times, 8th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
  29. Mani, Anandi, Sendhil Mullainathan, Eldar Shafir, and Jiaying Zhao. 2013. “Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function.” Science 341(6149):976–80.
  30. Empowering women and men to end their own hunger. [Online]. Available at: [accessed September 7, 2011].
  31. Ferrante, J., 2011. Seeing Sociology: an Introduction. Belmont: Wadsworth.
  32. Genocide and crimes against humanity. [Online]. Available at: [accessed August 30, 2011].
  33. Sen, G. & Grown, C., 1987. Development, crises, and alternative visions. New York: Monthly Review.

External links edit

Relevant Research edit

  • Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite.
  • Wright, Erik Olin. 1997. Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis.
  • Lareau, Annette. 2002. “Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in black Families and white families.” American Sociological Review 67: 747-776.
  • Schwalbe, Michael, Sandra Godwin, Daphne Holden, Douglas Schrock, Shealy Thompson, and Michele Wolkomir. 2000. “Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: An Interactionist Analysis.” Social Forces 79: 419-452.
  • Kang, Millann. 2003. The managed hand: The commercialization of bodies and emotions in Korean immigrant–owned nail salons. Gender & Society 17(6): 820-39.
  • Massoni, Kelley. 2004. Modeling work: Occupational messages in seventeen magazine. Gender & Society 18(1): 47-65.
  • Meyer, Madonna Harrington. 1994. Gender, race, and the distribution of social assistance: Medicaid use among the frail elderly. Gender & Society 8(1): 8-28.
  • Brush, Lisa D. 1997. Worthy widows, welfare cheats: Proper womanhood in expert needs talk about single mothers in the United States, 1900 to 1988. Gender & Society 11(6): 720-746.
  • McCrate, Elaine and Joan Smith. 1998. When work doesn’t work: The failure of current welfare reform. Gender & Society 12(1): 61-80.
  • Pearson, A. Fiona. 2007. The new welfare trap: Case managers, college education, and TANF policy. Gender & Society 21(5): 723-48.
  • Clark, Candace. 1987. “Sympathy Biography and Sympathy Margin.” American Journal of Sociology 93: 290-321.
  • Snow, David A. and Leon Anderson. 1987. “Identity Work among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction and Avowal of Personal Identities.” American Journal of Sociology 92: 1336-1371.
  • Adler, Patricia A. and Peter Adler. 1989. “The Glorified Self: The Aggrandizement and the Construction of the Self.” Social Psychology Quarterly 52: 299-310.
  • Kohn, Melvin L. 1969. Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. Oxford: Dorsey.
  • Elder, Glen H. 1974. Children of the Great Depression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Duneier, Mitchell and Harvey Molotch. 1999. “Talking City Trouble: Interactional Vandalism, Social Inequality, and the ‘Urban Interaction Problem.” American Journal of Sociology 104: 1236-1295.
  • Ainsworth, James W. and Vincent J. Roscigno. 2005. “Stratification, school-work linkages and vocational education.” Social Forces 84(1): 257-284.
  • Alon, Sigal. 2009. “The Evolution of Class Inequality in Higher Education: Competition, Exclusion, and Adaptation.” American Sociological Review 74(5): 731-755.
  • Archbald, D.A. 2004. “School choice, magnet schools, and the liberation model: An empirical study.” Sociology of Education 77(4): 283-310.
  • Arum, Richard. 1996. “Do private schools force public schools to compete?” American Sociological Review 61(1): 29-46.
  • Arum, Richard. 1998. “Invested dollars or diverted dreams: The effect of resources on vocational students’ educational outcomes.” Sociology of Education 71(2): 130-151.

Race and ethnicity edit

In Bulgaria and Guam, I am considered simply as “other.” However, in Australia, I am labeled more specifically as “non-aboriginal other.” In Canada, it is somewhat more complex; I am labeled as “non-aboriginal Southeast Asian who is not a member of an Indian Band or First Nation or a Treaty Indian or Registered Indian as defined by the Indian Act of Canada.” In Mexico, my non-aboriginal background is once again emphasized simply as “non-indigenous.” In Brazil, I am categorized not by my origins, but by my skin tone as “yellow.” Across the Atlantic, I am categorized as “any other Asian background” in England and as “Indian or Asian” in South Africa. In the United States today, recent attempts to be more specific have resulted in giving me the opportunity to indicate that I am a “non-Hispanic Chinese Vietnamese” person. However, in the United States in the past, I would have been forced to exclusively identify as “Chinese” from 1890 to 1970 and “Vietnamese” from 1980 to 1990.

These preceding statements are responses to actual census questions on race and ethnicity from different countries around the globe as well as across time in the United States. Why is there so much variation in my racial and ethnic identity if, in fact, race and ethnicity are assumed to be “natural” and “absolute”? The mutability of my racial and ethnic identity over time and space illustrates that race and ethnicity are very much socially-constructed concepts, and that the racial and ethnic options afforded to me are dependent on the circumstances of a particular society at a particular point in time. What about the options for my son who is mixed-race? Will his identity as half-Asian take precedence over his half-white identity in the U.S. given the legacy of the “one-drop rule,” in which the minority status will always take precedence? Take for example, President Barack Obama, who is similar to my son in that he is mixed-race. However, more often than not, President Obama is identified in public discourse simply as black. Likewise, Tiger Woods, who self-identifies as “Cablinasian” in an attempt to be recognized as Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian by others, is still nonetheless simply labeled as black in mainstream media despite his multi-racial background.

The complexity of my identity, in addition to my son’s, Obama’s, and Woods’ identities, exemplifies the need to move beyond mutually-exclusive and inflexible interpretations of race and ethnicity, especially considering that interracial marriages are observably on the rise in the United States. This chapter on race and ethnicity first illustrates the social construction of these two highly-contested concepts, and then discusses the many pitfalls, such as prejudice and discrimination, associated with them.

Barack Obama at a campaign stop in New Hampshire in 2007. Despite having a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, Barack Obama is almost universally considered "black."

Race and Ethnicity edit

A race is a human population that is believed to be distinct in some way from other humans based on real or imagined physical differences.[1] Racial classifications are rooted in the idea of biological classification of humans according to morphological features such as skin color or facial characteristics. An individual is usually externally classified (meaning someone else makes the classification) into a racial group rather than the individual choosing where they belong as part of their identity. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity and how those identities influence someone's position in social hierarchies (see identity politics).

Ethnicity, while related to race, refers not to physical characteristics but social traits that are shared by a human population. Some of the social traits often used for ethnic classification include:

  • nationality
  • tribe
  • religious faith
  • shared language
  • shared culture
  • shared traditions

Unlike race, ethnicity is not usually externally assigned by other individuals. The term ethnicity focuses more upon a group's connection to a perceived shared past and culture. An example of an ethnic group in the U.S. is Hispanic or Latino.


The Changing Definitions of Race edit

The division of humanity into distinct races can be traced as far back as the Ancient Egyptian sacred text the Book of Gates, which identified four races according to the Egyptians. This early treatment merged racial and ethnic differences, combining skin-color with tribal and national identities. Ancient Greek and Roman authors also attempted to explain and categorize visible biological differences between peoples known to them. Medieval models of race mixed Classical ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth, the three sons of Noah, producing distinct Semitic (Asian), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (European) peoples. The first scientific attempts to categorize race date from the 17th century; these early attempts developed along with European imperialism and colonization around the world.[1]

In the 19th century a number of natural scientists wrote on race: Georges Cuvier, James Cowles Pritchard, Louis Agassiz, Charles Pickering, and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. These scientists made three claims about race:

  1. races are objective, naturally occurring divisions of humanity
  2. there is a strong relationship between biological races and other human phenomena (such as social behavior and culture, and by extension the relative material success of cultures)
  3. race is therefore a valid scientific category that can be used to explain and predict individual and group behavior

Races were distinguished by skin color, facial type, cranial profile and size, and texture and color of hair. Races were almost universally considered to reflect group differences in moral character and intelligence.

These early understandings of race were usually both essentialist and taxonomic; essentialism refers to unchanging and inherent characteristics of individuals and taxonomic refers to classificatory (also usually hierarchical) in nature. The advent of Darwinian models of evolution and Mendelian genetics, however, called into question the scientific validity of both characteristics and required a radical reconsideration of race.[1]

The table below illustrates both how early definitions included essentialist and taxonomic elements and how definitions have changed over time.

Biological definitions of race (adapted from Long & Kittles 2003).[2]
Concept Reference Definition
Essentialist Hooton (1926)[3] "A great division of mankind, characterized as a group by the sharing of a certain combination of features, which have been derived from their common descent, and constitute a vague physical background, usually more or less obscured by individual variations, and realized best in a composite picture."
Taxonomic Mayr (1969)[4] "An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."
Population Dobzhansky (1970)[5] "Races are genetically distinct Mendelian populations. They are neither individuals nor particular genotypes, they consist of individuals who differ genetically among themselves."
Lineage Templeton (1998)[6] "A subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. This definition requires that a subspecies be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; that is, the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation."

Because racial differences continue to be important issues in social and political life, racial classifications continue. The United States government has attempted its own definitions of race and ethnicity (see for example U.S. Census) for such classifications and comparisons.

Social Construct or Biological Lineage? edit

Social Construction edit

Debates continue in and among academic disciplines as to how race should be understood. Some sociologists and biologists believe race is a social construct, meaning it does not have a basis in the natural world but is simply an artificial distinction created by humans.[1] As a result of this understanding, some researchers have turned from conceptualizing and analyzing human variation by race to doing so in terms of populations, dismissing racial classifications altogether. In the face of the increasing rejection of race as a valid classification scheme, many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word ethnicity to refer to self-identifying groups based on shared religion, nationality, or culture.

The understanding of race as a social construct is well-illustrated by examining race issues in two countries, the U.S. and Brazil.

Constructing Race in the U.S. edit

Since the early days of the United States, racial classifications have varied and various groups, like Native Americans, African-Americans and European-Americans, were classified as belonging to different races. The table below details some of the different racial and ethnic classifications that have been used by the US Census.[7] The fact that these classifications have changed over time illustrates that race is socially constructed.

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990[8]
White White White White White White White White White White White
Black Black Black Black Negro Negro Negro Negro Negro or Black Black or Negro Black or Negro
Mulatto Chinese Mulatto Mulatto Mexican Indian American Indian American Indian Indian (Amer.) Japanese Indian (Amer.)
Quadroon Japanese Chinese Chinese Indian Chinese Japanese Japanese Japanese Chinese Eskimo
Octoroon Indian Japanese Japanese Chinese Japanese Chinese Chinese Chinese Filipino Aleut
Chinese Indian Indian Japanese Filipino Filipino Filipino Filipino Korean Asian or Pacific Islander (API)
Japanese Other Other Filipino Hindu Other Hawaiian Hawaiian Vietnamese Chinese
Indian Hindu Korean Part Hawaiian Korean Indian (Amer.) Filipino
Korean Other Aleut Other Asian Indian Hawaiian
Other Eskimo Hawaiian Korean
Other, etc. Guamanian Vietnamese
Samoan Japanese
Eskimo Asian Indian
Aleut Samoan
Other Guamanian

The criteria for membership in different races have been very different. For Africans, the government considered anyone with African appearance to be purely African. Native Americans, on the other hand, were classified based on a certain percentage of Indian blood. Finally, European-Americans had to have purely white ancestry. The differing criteria for assigning membership to particular races had relatively little to do with biology; it had far more to do with maintaining a group's defined roles and position.


Some researchers and historians have proposed that the intent of the differing criteria for racial designations was to concentrate power, wealth, privilege, and land in the hands of European-Americans.[9][10] As a result, the offspring of an African slave and European master or mistress would be considered an African. Significant in terms of the economics of slavery, the mixed-race child of a slave mother also would be a slave, adding to the wealth of the slave owner.

Contrast the African criteria with that of Native Americans; a person of Native American and African parentage automatically was classified as African. But the offspring of only a few generations of Native Americans and Europeans were not considered Indian at all - at least not in a legal sense. Native Americans had treaty rights to land, but individuals with only one Indian great-grandparent were no longer classified as Native American, disenfranchising them from their claims to Native American lands. Of course, the same individuals who could be denied legal claim to Native American lands because they were too White, were still Native American enough to be considered half-breeds and were stigmatized as a result.

In an economy benefiting from slave labor, it was useful to have as many African slaves as possible. Conversely, in a nation bent on westward expansion (commonly referred to as illegal immigration or ethnic conquest today), it was advantageous to diminish the numbers of those who could claim title to Indian lands by classifying them out of existence. Both schemes benefited the third group, the racially pure whites. The point being, of course, that the classifications of race in the early U.S. were socially constructed in a fashion that benefited one race over the others.

The earliest black individuals in the U.S. were brought from Africa as slaves primarily to help in agriculture in the southern U.S. Although European immigrants to the Americas initially attempted to enslave Native people, their efforts were often subverted due to Native understandings of the land. As a result, slave labor from other parts of the world was deemed more efficient for the production of American land so European immigrants began importing African people while exporting Natives to other parts of the Americas (see Loewen's work for more of this historical record). While migration since then has substantially altered the distribution of African American individuals in the U.S., African American individuals remain concentrated in the southern U.S., as depicted in the map below.


Native Americans in the U.S. are concentrated on reservations following 200 years of relocation policies instituted by the U.S. government (see the documentary film Broken Rainbow for a detailed examination of the latest relocation phase in the 1970's), as depicted in the map below:


Constructing Race in Brazil edit


The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics classifies the Brazilian population in five categories: white, black, pardo or (brown), yellow, and Indigenous, based on skin color as given by the individual being interviewed in the census.

  • White (47.7% of the population):[11] usually a Brazilian of full or predominant European ancestry or other ancestry (such as German Brazilian) who considers themself to be White.
  • Pardo or Brown (43.1%):[11] usually a Multiracial Brazilian of mixed-race features who considers themself to be "Pardo". In practice, most of the "Pardo" people are of mixed European and African (mulatos), but this category also includes people of mixed European and Amerindian (caboclos) and Amerindian and African (cafusos) genetic ancestry[12].
  • Black (7.6%):[11] usually a dark-skinned Brazilian of full or predominant Black African ancestry who considers themself to be Black.
  • Yellow: (1.1%) usually a Brazilian of East Asian descent, mostly Japanese.
  • Indigenous (0.4%):[13] usually a Brazilian of full or predominant Amerindian ancestry who considers themself to be Amerindian.

Of particular interest to the discussion of race in this chapter is the fact that there is a racial classification that falls between "white" and "black": "pardo" or "brown." That Brazilians have more racial classifications than do people in the United States illustrates the socially constructed nature of race. Additionally, racial classification in Brazil, because it is based on self-classification and there are no objective criteria for what it means to belong to one race or another, is inconsistent.[14] Because of the mixing of the races, race is not inherited but determined purely by physical characteristics (i.e., a white father and black mother could have a "white", "black," or "pardo" child). Additionally, because race is self-determined and there is discrimination based on race (white are favored),[14] Brazilians have a tendency to "self-lighten,"[15] or report their race as being lighter than an independent observer may suggest. That people can "self-lighten" illustrates that race is not a fixed construct but rather that it is socially constructed.

Biology and Genetics edit

The social constructionist approach has not completely occluded other perspectives. Some sociologists (and other researchers) still believe that race is a valid and useful measure when understood as fuzzy sets, clusters, or extended families.

Based on these beliefs as well as the development of genetic modeling software programs, some scientists argue that genetic data can be used to infer population structure and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry (e.g., African, Asian, etc.). Recent research within this tradition argues that self-described race is a very good indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. For example, using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005)[16] utilized a software program called Structure[17] to identify 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that corresponded with their self-described race (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). Based on their modeling, these researchers argued that ancient ancestry/geography, which correlates highly with self-described race and not current place of residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the US population. While the implications of their argument have been deemed significant by some researchers and could be helpful in studies of racial disparities in health (see extended discussion below), it is important to note that their argument actually demonstrates the social construction of genetic racial categories rather than the empirical existence of such categories. Specifically, their study utilized a software program that requires researchers to first decide how many clusters or groups they want the program to produce before it can analyze the data. After the researchers have decided how many races they think or believe exist, the program then sorts all of the data into the pre-established number of genetic clusters. Thus, if the researchers decide upon 5 categories the program will sort all data into 5 categories, but if the researchers decide on 26 categories the program will sort all data into 26 categories; the program does this without any concern for whether or not these "clusters" or the "number of clusters" are in any way empirically real. Rather than demonstrating the genetic foundations of race, then, such studies merely demonstrate that a computer program may be used to confirm the existing beliefs of researchers about how many racial clusters there may or could be. Other researchers, using the same data, found a different number of clusters from the same genetic data.[18][17] While some researchers ignore the role of the researcher in the creation of genetic clusters, other researchers point to these studies as the latest examples of an ongoing historical pattern of scientific racism.[19] In short, a very strong argument can be made that what clustering studies do is verify the socially constructed nature of even biological and genetic explanations of race, racism, and racial similarity and difference rather than illustrate that race is "real."

Even within the aforementioned studies, genetic research reveals that genetic variation within racial groups is generally greater than genetic variation between them.[1] However, the existence of genetic differences among races is well accepted by some and heavily debated by others across scientific fields. Those who believe in genetic differences will point to the genetic clusters created in the aforementioned types of studies, which correspond tightly to the census definition of race and to self-identified ancestry, to support their claims. On the other hand, non-believers in genetic racial difference (and/or significance) will point to the socially constructed nature of these genetic studies to support their claims. Researchers across disciplines regularly find certain genetic conditions are more common among certain races. For example, approximately 1 in 29 individuals of Northern European descent are carriers of a mutation that causes cystic fibrosis, whereas only about 1 in 65 African Americans is a carrier (source). There is a subset of conditions for which individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent are at increased risk (see here). Based on this knowledge individuals can be offered genetic testing based on their race, which can determine whether they are at increased risk to have a child with one of these conditions. While these associations are important areas of analysis, these associations - between race and genetics - often break down for some groups, such as Hispanic individuals, who exhibit a pattern of geographical stratification of ancestry.

There is an active debate among biomedical researchers about the meaning and importance of race in their research. Proponents of using race in biomedical research argue that ignoring race will be detrimental to the health of minority groups. They argue that disease risk factors differ substantially between racial groups, that relying only on genotypical classes - differences in genes - ignores non-genetic racial factors that impact health (e.g., poverty rates and robust neighborhood and environmental effects) and that minorities would be poorly represented in clinical trials if race were ignored. However, some fear that the use of racial labels in biomedical research runs the risk of unintentionally exacerbating health disparities (as happened throughout the history of Western medical science[20]), so they suggest alternatives to the use of racial taxonomies.

The primary impetus for considering race in biomedical research is the possibility of improving the prevention and treatment of diseases by predicting hard-to-ascertain factors on the basis of more easily ascertained characteristics. The first medication marketed for a specific racial group, BiDil was recently approved by the U.S. FDA. A large study of African American males showed a 43% reduction in deaths and a 39% decrease in hospitalizations compared to a placebo. Interestingly, this drug would never have been approved if the researchers had not taken note of racial groups and realized that although the medication was not effective in previous clinical trials, it appeared to be effective for the small proportion of African-Americans males who were part of the study (source). Despite the controversy, it is clear that race is associated with differential disease susceptibility. Examples of some of these differences are illustrated in the table below. The challenge is in developing clinical and public health interventions capable of using racial patterns to alleviate disease while remaining vigilant against the scientific and medical racism of the past.

Diseases that differ in frequency by race or ethnicity (adapted from Halder & Shriver, 2003).[21]
Disease High-risk groups Low-risk groups Reference(s)
Obesity African women, Native Americans South Asians, Pacific Islanders, Aboriginal Australians Europeans McKeigue, et al. (1991)[22]; Hodge & Zimmet (1994)[23]
Non-insulin dependent diabetes South Asians, West Africans, Peninsular Arabs, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans Europeans Songer & Zimmet (1995)[24]; Martinez (1993)[25]
Hypertension African Americans, West Africans Europeans Douglas et al. (1996);[26] Gaines & Burke (1995)[27]
Coronary heart disease South Asians West African men McKeigue, et al. (1989)[28]; Zoratti (1998)[29]
End-stage renal disease Native Americans and African populations Europeans Ferguson & Morrissey (1993)[30]
Dementia Europeans African Americans, Hispanic Americans Hargrave, et al. (2000)[31]
Systemic lupus erythematosus West Africans, Native Americans Europeans Molokhia & McKeigue (2000)[32]
Skin cancer Europeans   Boni, et al. (2002)[33]
Lung cancer Africans, European Americans(Caucasians) Chinese, Japanese Schwartz & Swanson (1997)[34]; Shimizu, et al. (1985)[35]
Prostate cancer Africans and African Americans   Hoffman, et al. (2001)[36]
Multiple sclerosis Europeans Chinese, Japanese, African Americans, Turkmens, Uzbeks, Native Siberians, New Zealand Maoris Rosati (2001)[37]
Osteoporosis European Americans African Americans Bohannon (1999)[38]

Combining Approaches edit

Perhaps the best way to understand race is to recognize that the socially constructed boundaries and biological/genetic elements overlap. There are clearly biological differences between races, though they are small and, as noted above, there is greater variation within races than between races. But the actual criteria used for racial classifications are artificial and socially constructed, as was shown in the cases of the U.S. and Brazil.

By recognizing the overlap between the two, we are presented with a better understanding of race. However, distinctions between racial groups are declining due to intermarriage and have been for years. For instance, self-described African Americans tend to have a mix of West African and European ancestry. Shriver et al. (2003)[39] found that on average African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. Likewise, many white Americans have mixed European and African ancestry; ~30% of whites have less than 90% European ancestry. If intermarrying of races and ethnicities continues, the biological and genetic distinctions will grow increasingly minute and undetectable. If a completely heterogeneous population ultimately develops, any racial classifications in that population would be nothing more than a social construct.

Controversies surrounding the definition of race will likely continue for some time. But there are important considerations that go beyond the definition of race. Race and race-related issues continue to impact society. Racial discrimination in employment and housing still occurs.[40] Because race remains a significant factor in social life, sociologists feel compelled to study its effects at multiple levels.

Prejudice, Bias, and Discrimination edit

Prejudice is, as the name implies, the pre-judging of something. Prejudice involves coming to a judgment on a subject before learning where the preponderance of evidence actually lies. Alternatively, prejudice can refer to the formation of a judgment without direct or actual experience. Prejudice generally refers to negative views of an individual or group of individuals, often based on social stereotypes. At its most extreme, prejudicial attitudes advocate denying groups benefits and rights without warrant and based solely on the unfounded views of the individual. It should be kept in mind that prejudice is a belief and may not translate into discrimination, which is the actual mistreatment of a group or individual based upon some criteria or characteristic. Although prejudice can lead to discrimination, the two are separate concepts.

Technically, prejudice should be differentiated from viewpoints accumulated through direct life experience. Such viewpoints or beliefs are not pre-judgments but post-judgments. If the assertion is made that no amount of experience ever entitles a person to a viewpoint then this precipitates a logical absurdity since anyone who opposes strongly-held views must, by their own definition, also be prejudiced, invalidating their own proposition on the grounds of... prejudice. Post-judgments or beliefs and viewpoints derived from experience that maintain unfair or stereotypical perspectives on a group of people is more accurately referred to as bias. Prejudice can be taught, socialized, or conveyed through other means, like mass media. Bias can develop through pronounced negative interactions with the stereotyped groups.

Both bias and prejudice are generally viewed as negative. However, some sociologists have argued that prejudices and biases can be seen as necessary human adaptations facilitating survival. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that humans have an innate or basic preference for people who are like them, specifically when it comes to race.[41] Humans express more empathy when members of their own racial group experience pain compared to when individuals of other racial groups experience pain. This suggests prejudice and biases may have a biological component, but this line of research has been heavily critiqued by racial scholars that point out that there is no way to establish a baseline, biological system of beliefs or prejudices, and thus such studies may merely reveal early childhood socialization, which has been shown to contain racial training prior to pre-school age.[42] Since humans do not always have sufficient time to form personal views on every other group of people, particularly people in opposition to one's own group(s), however, prejudices and biases (regardless of their source) may facilitate interactions. Prejudice may also be detrimental to the individual personally by pre-judging a potential ally (e.g. refusing to patronize the only doctor in a town because they are black). Despite some arguments about the existence of innate preferences towards individuals who look like we do, there is substantial evidence that suggests most prejudicial attitudes and biases are learned and can be unlearned.

Racism edit

Racism can refer to any or all of the following beliefs and behaviors:

  • race is the primary determinant of human capacities (prejudice or bias)
  • a certain race is inherently superior or inferior to others (prejudice or bias)
  • individuals should be treated differently according to their racial classification (prejudice or bias)
  • the actual treating of individuals differently based on their racial classification (discrimination)
An African-American drinks out of a water cooler designated for use by colored patrons in 1939 at a streetcar terminal in Oklahoma City.

Racism is recognized by many as an affront to basic human dignity and a violation of human rights. Racism is opposed by almost all mainstream voices in the United States. A number of international treaties have sought to end racism. The United Nations uses a definition of racist discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1965:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life (source).

Expressions of Racism edit

Racism may be expressed individually and consciously, through explicit thoughts, feelings, or acts, or socially and unconsciously, through institutions that promote inequalities among races.

Individual-Level Racism edit

Individual-level racism is prejudice, bias, or discrimination displayed in an interaction between two or more people. Examples of individual-level racism could include:

  • a person believing people of other races/ethnicities are intellectually inferior and that the inferiority is a characteristic of the race
  • a person holding the belief that all young African males are dangerous
  • an employer firing someone because of his/her race

Children develop an awareness of race and racial stereotypes quite young[43] and these racial stereotypes affect behavior.[44] For instance, children who identify with a racial minority that is stereotyped as not doing well in school tend to not do well in school once they learn about the stereotype associated with their race.[44] Another illustration of individual-level racism in society is the resistance of Americans to classify mixed-race individuals as white if they have even "one-drop" of black ancestry.[45] While most Americans may believe the "one-drop rule" is no longer relevant in society today, recent research suggests that it persists in racial classifications, even if they are informal.

Structural Racism edit

Structural racism refers to inequalities built into an organization or system. An example of structural racism can be seen in recent research on workplace discrimination.[46] There is widespread discrimination against job applicants whose names were merely perceived as "sounding black." These applicants were 50% less likely than candidates perceived as having "white-sounding names" to receive callbacks for interviews, no matter their level of previous experience. The researchers view these results as strong evidence of unconscious biases rooted in the country's long history of discrimination. This is an example of structural racism as it shows a widespread established belief system that treats people differently based upon their race. Additional examples of structural racism include apartheid in South Africa, the system of Jim Crow laws in the U.S., and the inequitable lending practices of banks (i.e., redlining). The figure below illustrates structural racism by illustrating how black and Hispanic individuals, even when they have the same income as white individuals, are less likely to be approved for home mortgages (as a result of practices like redlining).


Another example of structural racism is the discrimination faced by Asian Americans in attaining leadership positions in corporations. While Asian Americans are over-represented in professional occupations in the US, they are under-represented among corporate elite. Approximately 5% of the US population is Asian American, but just .3% of corporate officers are Asian American.[47] The under-representation of Asian Americans is particularly surprising considering they are perceived to be highly capable, particularly in technical occupations. But they are also perceived to be less capable leaders due to a perception that they lack charisma. The result is structural racism: corporate advancement is structured such that Asian Americans are over-looked for leadership positions.

Cultural Racism edit

Cultural racial discrimination, a variation of structural racism, occurs when the assumption of inferiority of one or more races is built into the culture of a society. In this perspective, racism is an expression of culture and is also passed on through the transmission of culture (i.e., socialization). An interesting twist on this type of prejudice can be seen in how high achieving secondary school students are treated. African American and Native American students with high GPAs are rejected by their peers while Asian American and white students with high GPAs experience greater social acceptance.[48] This suggests that different racial and ethnic groups are rewarded for academic achievement while others are punished, potentially leading members of those groups to pursue academic success while others are discouraged from doing so.

Historical Racism edit

Historical economic or social disparity is a form of inequality caused by past racism, affecting the present generation through deficits in the formal education and other kinds of preparation in the parents' generation, and, through primarily unconscious racist attitudes and actions on members of the general population. This perspective argues that African-Americans, in particular, in the U.S. have had their opportunities in life adversely affected due to the mistreatment of their ancestors (see slavery, Sundown Towns, Jim Crow, and The War on Drugs). Disparities in wealth, net worth and education lend credence to this idea.[49][50] The figure below illustrates how historical racism has resulted in lower odds of inter-generational transmission of wealth, which, in turn, reduces net worth for racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S.

Historical racism also relies upon the ongoing "whitening" of social history by educational, political, and economic elites.[51][52] American history textbooks offer an illustrative example of this process. In these textbooks, students are generally provided with heroic tales (often fictionalized) of white American founders free from deficit and their racial transgressions are typically either ignored or justified. Notable examples include the omission of Christopher Columbus as the founder of the slave trade, the racial basis of early American governmental decisions to support or oppose Independence and Freedom movements in other countries (e.g., anti-slavery administrations like that of John Adams that supported independence attempts by other colonies while pro-slavery administrations like that of Thomas Jefferson that opposed these attempts and provided support to colonial powers in these contests), and the re-segregation of the federal government that paved the way for many Jim Crow laws and Sundown Towns by Woodrow Wilson. Further, textbooks generally leave out of the American origin story anti-racist speakers and activists like Marie Stewart in the 1830's or Ida Wells Barnett in the 1890's and facts that demonstrate that American history has not been a steady movement toward racial progress, like the existence of African American major league baseball players in the 1800's well before Jackie Robinson or the existence of African-American political and economic institutions dating back to the late 1800's. These omissions give the impression that past racism occurred without opposition and always got better instead of different over time. This allows white individuals to avoid taking responsibility for historical racism. Elites construct an American story line that absolves contemporary white citizens from the ongoing historical construction and maintenance of racial disparities embedded within American history, culture, and structure.


One response to racial disparity in the U.S. has been Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is the practice of favoring or benefiting members of a particular race in areas such as college admissions and workplace advancement, in an attempt to create atmospheres of racial diversity and racial equality. Though lauded by many as a boon to society, giving the less privileged a chance at success and working to overcome historical social disparity, the practice is condemned as racially discriminatory by others.

Racial Profiling edit

Another type of racism is racial profiling. Racial profiling involves the singling out of individuals based upon their race for differential treatment, usually harsher treatment. Two examples of racial profiling in the United States are often discussed. The disparate treatment of minorities by law enforcement officials is a common example of racial profiling. Another example is the disparate treatment of young, male Arabs in airports who are more likely to be subjected to extensive screening. Many critics of racial profiling claim that it is an unconstitutional practice because it amounts to questioning individuals on the basis of what crimes they might commit or could possibly commit, instead of what crimes they have actually committed. A clear example of racial profiling can be seen in media depictions of Muslim and Hispanic individuals. One study found that major news programs in the US (including: ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Univision) described 81% of domestic terrorists - individuals committing acts of terror in the US - as Muslims. Yet, actual crime data suggest only 6% of domestic terrorists were Muslims; the majority are white supremacists or white fundamentalist Christians. Similarly, of immigrants accused of committing crimes on news shows, 97% were identified as Hispanic even though only 47% of immigrants who commit crimes are Hispanic.[53]

Color-Blind Racism edit

In the US, the avoidance of racial language by European-Americans has been used to suggest that racism is no longer an issue. However, the continued prevalence of institutional racism has led some scholars like Eduardo Bonilla-Silva to argue a "new racism" exists, that has arisen during the post-Civil Rights era. Bonilla-Silva suggests that a "color-blind racism" ideology supports racism while avoiding any reference to race. He outlines four frameworks of color-blind racism:

  • Abstract Liberalism - using liberal language divorced from context and history to deny racism exists (e.g., all Americans are free now so they can be whatever they want)
  • Naturalization - arguing that racial disparities, segregation patterns, and other racial phenomena are natural occurrences divorced from historical and structural socialization processes between races (e.g., whites just like to be around whites)
  • Cultural Racism - drawing on culture-based beliefs and arguments to explain racial inequalities in contemporary society (e.g., blacks have too many babies or Mexicans are just like that)
  • Minimization - arguing that discrimination is no longer prevalent in society (e.g., its not a big deal now like it was back then)[54]

A powerful tool in our current age of color-blind racism involves the depiction of racial minorities via media outlets. As Patricia Hill Collins notes, much of our contemporary media offerings (e.g., music videos, songs, films, television shows, magazine and newspaper materials, and online materials) rely upon and reproduce historical patterns of racial inequality, and derogatory depictions of racial minorities in relation to their white counterparts. Take, for example, magazine covers and videos that position African American athletes and singers in "jungle" themed decorations, costumes, and settings that mirror colonial depictions of African and Native American slaves long used to justify scientific, religious, and economic exploitation of racial minorities. While these depictions may be argued to be nothing more than creativity removed from the historical context, they continue a long line of images (see, for example, the experiences of Sarah Baartman) that depict racial minorities as "wild," "savage," and "more nature-oriented" than whites (for similar examples in relation to Hispanic people see Latinos Beyond the Reel and for similar examples in relation to Asian people see The Slanted Screen). Expanding on this theme, sociologists have begun to explore "cinethetic racism," which is defined as the portrayal of racial minorities in ways that appeal to white expectations of "good" racial minorities while reproducing the subordination of racial minorities to white needs, desire, and leadership.[55] The quintessential example of cinethetic racism occurs in what has been termed Magical Negro Films - like The Matrix, Bruce Almighty, and The Legend of Bagger Vance among many others - where a racial minority character (often echoing historical racism conceptions of racial minorities as magically inclined or deeply tied to nature) exists for the sole purpose of helping a white male accomplish and recognize his inner greatness. While such films are improvements over more explicitly white supremacist classic films (see, for example, still highly celebrated classic films promoting explicit racism like The Birth of a Nation or Gone with the Wind), they echo these films by casting racial minorities as the "servants," "assistants," and "natural guides" for white victory and celebration. These are manifestations of color-blind racism.[56][57]

Genocide edit

While not exclusively the result of racial or ethnic tension, genocide, the attempt to completely destroy a group of people based on a characteristic they share by another group of people who do not share that characteristic, is often the result of racism.[58] One technique that is often used by individuals engaged in genocide and even in war is racial epithets that dehumanize the enemy, making it easier to kill them.[58]

Minorities edit

Racism is usually directed against a minority population, but may also be directed against a majority population. The definition of a minority group can vary, depending on specific context, but generally refers to either a sub-group that does not form either a majority or a plurality of the total population, or a group that, while not necessarily a numerical minority, is disadvantaged or otherwise has less power (whether political or economic) than a dominant group. A majority is that segment of the population that outnumbers all others combined or one that is dominant.

The issue of establishing minority groups, and determining the extent of privileges they might derive from their status, is controversial. There are some who argue that minorities are owed special recognition and rights, while others feel that minorities are unjustified in demanding special rights, as this amounts to preferential discrimination and could hamper the ability of the minority to integrate itself into mainstream society (i.e. they may have difficulty finding work if they do not speak the predominant language for their geographic area).

The assimilation of minority groups into majority groups can be seen as a form of racism. In this process, the minority group sheds its distinctive traits and is absorbed into the dominant group. This presumes a loss of all characteristics which make the newcomers different. Assimilation can be voluntary or forced. Voluntary assimilation is usually the case with immigrants, who often adopt the dominant culture established earlier. Reasons that have been postulated for voluntary assimilation include:

  1. it is seen as an avenue to upward social mobility
  2. it is a way to escape prejudice and discrimination

Socially pressured to adapt, the immigrant is generally the one who takes the steps to integrate into the new environment, such as learning the language of the country or region, making new friends, new contacts, finding a job or going to school. The adaptation is made more difficult when the immigrant does not speak the language of their new home.

Assimilation can have negative implications for national minorities or aboriginal cultures, in that, after assimilation, the distinctive features of the original culture will be minimized and may disappear altogether. This is especially true in situations where the institutions of the dominant culture initiate programs to assimilate or integrate minority cultures. Many indigenous peoples, such as First Nations of Canada, Native Americans of the US, Taiwanese aborigines, and Australian Aborigines have mostly lost their traditional culture (most evidently language) and replaced it with the dominant new culture.

An example of a minority population discriminating against a majority population is seen in the racial apartheid that existed until the 1990s in South Africa. South Africans of European descent (the numerical minority) discriminated against the numerical majority indigenous African population. Additional examples of minorities discriminating against majorities include two instances of colonial rule:

Racial discrimination is and has been official government policy in many countries. In the 1970s, Uganda expelled tens of thousands of ethnic Indians. Until 2003, Malaysia enforced discriminatory policies limiting access to university education for ethnic Chinese and Indian students who are citizens by birth of Malaysia. Today, many other policies explicitly favoring bumiputras (Malays) remain in force. Russia launched anti-Semitic pogroms against Jews in 1905 and at later dates. During the 1930s and 1940s, attempts were made to prevent Jews from immigrating to the Middle East. Following the creation of Israel, land-ownership in many Israeli towns was limited to Jews, and many Muslim countries expelled Jewish residents, and continue to refuse entry to Jews.

Racial Stratification edit

While race itself is a social construction, race continues to play a prominent role in societies around the world. Race is often the basis for different types of stratification. Following are some of the ways society is stratified by race.

Race and Pollution edit

Pollution and polluting facilities are not evenly distributed in the U.S. Communities made up predominantly of racial minorities are significantly more likely to be polluted and to house factories and business that pollute extensively.[59] While it might seem that this is inadvertent and not intentionally racist, the evidence suggest otherwise: these communities are systematically targeted as locations for situating polluting businesses.[59]

Interracial Marriage edit

Not until 1967 were laws outlawing interracial marriage abolished in the United States. Prior to that time, an individual from one race who married an individual from another could be jailed and fined. These laws were referred to as miscegenation laws (miscegenation means "mixing races"). This was the experience of Mildred and Richard Loving, who married in 1958 in Washington D.C., a district in the US that no longer had a law against interracial marriage.[60] Mildred was black; Richard was white. When they moved to Virginia shortly after their wedding, law enforcement decided to prosecute them, breaking into their home in the middle of the night and carrying them off to jail.[60] Both Mildred and Richard were from Virginia, where their extended family still lived. The judge who heard their case, Leon M. Bazile, told the Lovings during their trial for miscegenation that, 'if God had meant for whites and blacks to mix, he would have not placed them on different continents.'[60] He also seemed to take pride in telling the Lovings, "as long as you live you will be known as a felon."[60] The Lovings eventually contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, who took their case to the Supreme Court in 1967, resulting in Loving v. Virginia, which abolished miscegenation laws in the U.S. Even so, as the diagram to the right indicates, attitudes toward interracial marriage did not immediately improve. Still as late as 2002, close to 10% of people in the U.S. favored a law prohibiting interracial marriage.


A Research Example edit

Devah Pager and Lincoln Quillian[61] compared employers' responses on questions involving race-related hiring practices to their actual hiring practices by sending matched pairs of young men to apply for jobs, either both of European descent or both of African descent, but one of the men had a criminal record. Pager and Quillian found that employers claimed they would be much more willing to hire an ex-offender than they were. Additionally, while the survey results showed no difference in hiring preferences between African-Americans and European-Americans, employers were more than three times as likely to call job applicants with a European lineage back in comparison to Americans with an African lineage. In short, Pager and Quillian found that employers, in their survey responses, were more open to the idea of hiring both African-Americans and ex-offenders than they were to the actual practice.

Conclusion edit

After the establishment of European colonialism, the ever-increasing contact between different societies around the globe eventually led to the burgeoning of academic scholarship on race and ethnicity. There were many attempts by scholars to understand the origins of societal differences. Were these perceived differences biological or social in origin? In the 1700s, a Swedish scientist by the name of Carolus Linnaeus was the first to publish on the human divisions of race. From there, scholars continued to use various physical differences, such as cranial size and body type, to classify individuals into discrete races and make assumptions regarding intelligence and other capacities based on those physical differences. Those perceived differences were a fertile breeding ground in manufacturing and maintaining racism across the globe and even attempted to justify the ill treatment of certain groups of people such as those enslaved. Despite more recent studies providing evidence for the social construction of race and ethnicity across time and space, racism in all its various forms is still prevalent today in the inequalities found in numerous aspects of society that continue to exist along racial lines.

Notes edit

  • The word race was introduced to English from the French in the late 16th century.
  • It is worth noting that many historical scientists, philosophers, and statesmen appear racist by late-20th century standards. Contextualizing these people, their views and opinions in the cultural milieu of their day should allow the astute reader to avoid the pitfall of judging historic figures from present moral standards (i.e., whiggish historicism).

Additional Reading edit

  • Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2009. Racism without Racists: Color Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America. Rowman and Littlefield.
  • Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Second Edition. New York: Routledge.
  • Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960’s to the 1990’s. New York: Routledge.
  • Masi de Casanova, Erynn. 2004. “No Ugly Women”: Concepts of Race and Beauty among Adolescent Women in Ecuador. Gender & Society 18(3): 287-303.
  • Hanser,Amy. 2005. The Gendered Rice Bowl: The Sexual Politics of Service Work in Urban China. Gender & Society 19(5): 581-600.
  • Harvey Wingfield, Adia. 2009. Racializing the Glass Escalator: Reconsidering Men’s Experiences with Women’s Work. Gender & Society 23(1): 5-26.
  • Marshall, Gul Aldikacti. 2005. Ideology, progress, and dialogue: A comparison of feminist and Islamist women’s approaches to the issues of head covering and work in Turkey. Gender & Society 19(1): 104-120.
  • Richards, Patricia. 2005. The politics of gender, human rights, and being Indigenous in Chile. Gender & Society 19(2): 199-220.
  • Feagin, Joe R. 1991. “The Continuing Significance of Race: Anti-Black Discrimination in Public Places.” American Sociological Review 56: 101-116.
  • Quadagno, Jill, 1994. The Color of Welfare: How Racism Undermined the War on Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Blee, Kathleen. 2002. Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  • Einwohner, Rachel. 2006. "Identity work and collective action in a repressive context: Jewish Resistance on the "Aryan side" of the Warsaw ghetto." Social Problems 53:38-56.
  • Bennett, Pamela R. and Amy Lutz. 2009. “How African American Is the Net Black Advantage? Differences in College Attendance Among Immigrant Blacks, Native Blacks, and Whites.” Sociology of Education 82(1): 70-99.
  • Carter, Prudence L. 2003. “‘Black’ cultural capital, status positioning, and schooling conflicts for low-income African American youth.” Social Problems 50(1): 136-155.
  • Foster, Gigi. 2008. “Names will never hurt me: Racially distinct names and identity in the undergraduate classroom.” Social Science Research 37(3): 934-952.
  • Goldsmith, PA. 2004. “Schools’ racial mix, students’ optimism, and the black-white and Latino-white achievement gaps.” Sociology of Education 77(2): 121-147.
  • Herman, Melissa R. 2009. “The Black-White-Other Achievement Gap: Testing Theories of Academic Performance Among Multiracial and Monoracial Adolescents.” Sociology of Education 82(1): 20-46.
  • Kao, Grace and Jennifer S. Thompson. 2003. “Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement and Attainment.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:417-42.

Discussion Questions edit

  • Do races actually exist?
  • Who determines someone's race?
  • Is there a way to verify someone's race?
  • Why are there differences in income and wealth by race?

References edit

  1. a b c d e Cavalli-Sforza, Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; and Piazza, Alberto. 1996. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.
  2. Long, J.C. and Kittles, R.A. 2003. Human genetic diversity and the nonexistence of biological races. Human Biology. 75:449-71.
  3. Hooton, E.A. 1926. Methods of racial analysis. Science 63:75-81.
  4. Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  5. Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1970. Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. Unknown.
  6. Templeton, A.R. 1998. Human races: A genetic and evolutionary perspective. American Anthropologist, 100:632-650.
  7. The US Census Bureau recently released an interactive chart illustrating changes in racial classifications over time. The chart is available here:
  8. Lee, S. (1993) “Racial classifications in the US census 1890-1990.” Ethnic and Racial Studies Volume 16 (1).
  9. Fields, Barbara Jean. 1990. Slavery, Race, and Ideology in the United States of America. New Left Review 181:95-118.
  10. Sider, Gerald. 1993. Lumbee Indian Histories: Race, Ethnicity, and Indian Identity in the Southern United States.
  11. a b c [ Sintese_2006_semlinks.indd
  13. [ Brazil - Brasil - BRAZZIL - News from Brazil - The life and death of Orlando Villas Boas - Brazilian Indians, Ecology, Amazon- January 2003
  14. a b Telles, Edward E. 2002. “Racial ambiguity among the Brazilian population..” Ethnic & Racial Studies 25:415-441.
  15. Mangels, Laura, and Laura Neves. 2007. “Racial Classification in Brazil: Discrepancies between Observed and Self-Identified Race..” Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association.
  16. Tang, H.; Quertermous, T.; Rodriguez, B.; Kardia, S.L.; Zhu, X.; Brown, A.; Pankow, J.S.; Province, M.A.; Hunt, S.C.; Boerwinkle, E.; Schork, N.J.; Risch, N.J. 2005. Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies. American Journal of Human Genetics. 76:268-75.
  17. a b Jonathan K. Pritchard, Matthew Stephens and Peter Donnelly. 2000. Inference of Population Structure Using Multilocus Genotype Data. Genetics 155: 945–959.
  18. Noah A. Rosenberg, Jonathan K. Pritchard, James L. Weber, Howard M. Cann, Kenneth K. Kidd, Lev A. Zhivotovsky, Marcus W. Feldman. 2002. Genetic Structure of Human Populations. SCIENCE VOL 298
  19. Collins, Patricia Hill. 2005. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. Routledge.
  20. Collins, Patricia Hill. 2005. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. Routledge.
  21. Halder, Indrani, and Mark D Shriver. 2003. “Measuring and using admixture to study the genetics of complex diseases.” Human Genomics 1:52-62.
  22. McKeigue, P M, B Shah, and M G Marmot. 1991. “Relation of central obesity and insulin resistance with high diabetes prevalence and cardiovascular risk in South Asians.” Lancet 337:382-386.
  23. Hodge, A M, and P Z Zimmet. 1994. “The epidemiology of obesity.” Baillière's Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 8:577-599.
  24. Songer, T J, and P Z Zimmet. 1995. “Epidemiology of type II diabetes: an international perspective.” PharmacoEconomics 8 Suppl 1:1-11.
  25. Martinez, N C. 1993. “Diabetes and minority populations. Focus on Mexican Americans.” The Nursing Clinics of North America 28:87-95.
  26. Douglas, J G, M Thibonnier, and J T Wright. 1996. “Essential hypertension: racial/ethnic differences in pathophysiology.” Journal of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians: The Official Publication of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians 7:16-21.
  27. Gaines, K, and G Burke. 1995. “Ethnic differences in stroke: black-white differences in the United States population. SECORDS Investigators. Southeastern Consortium on Racial Differences in Stroke.” Neuroepidemiology 14:209-239.
  28. McKeigue, P M, G J Miller, and M G Marmot. 1989. “Coronary heart disease in south Asians overseas: a review.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 42:597-609.
  29. Zoratti, R. 1998. “A review on ethnic differences in plasma triglycerides and high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol: is the lipid pattern the key factor for the low coronary heart disease rate in people of African origin?.” European Journal of Epidemiology 14:9-21.
  30. Ferguson, R, and E Morrissey. 1993. “Risk factors for end-stage renal disease among minorities.” Transplantation Proceedings 25:2415-2420.
  31. Hargrave, R, M Stoeklin, M Haan, and B Reed. 2000. “Clinical aspects of dementia in African-American, Hispanic, and white patients.” Journal of the National Medical Association 92:15-21.
  32. Molokhia, M, and P McKeigue. 2000. “Risk for rheumatic disease in relation to ethnicity and admixture.” Arthritis Research 2:115-125.
  33. Böni, Roland, Christian Schuster, Britta Nehrhoff, and Günther Burg. 2002. “Epidemiology of skin cancer.” Neuro Endocrinology Letters 23 Suppl 2:48-51.
  34. Schwartz, A G, and G M Swanson. 1997. “Lung carcinoma in African Americans and whites. A population-based study in metropolitan Detroit, Michigan.” Cancer 79:45-52.
  35. Shimizu, H, A H Wu, L C Koo, Y T Gao, and L N Kolonel. 1985. “Lung cancer in women living in the Pacific Basin area.” National Cancer Institute Monograph 69:197-201.
  36. Hoffman, R M et al. 2001. “Racial and ethnic differences in advanced-stage prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93:388-395.
  37. Rosati, G. 2001. “The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the world: an update.” Neurological Sciences: Official Journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology 22:117-139.
  38. Bohannon, A D. 1999. “Osteoporosis and African American women.” Journal of Women's Health & Gender-Based Medicine 8:609-615.
  39. Shriver, M.D. et al. 2003. Skin pigmentation, biogeographical ancestry, and admixture mapping. Human Genetics. 112:387-399.
  40. Reskin, Barbara. 2012. The Race Discrimination System. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 17-35
  41. Xu, Xiaojing, Xiangyu Zuo, Xiaoying Wang, and Shihui Han. 2009. “Do You Feel My Pain? Racial Group Membership Modulates Empathic Neural Responses.” J. Neurosci. 29:8525-8529.
  42. Van Ausdale, Debra and Joe R. Fegan. 1996. Using racial and ethnic concepts: The case of very young children. American Sociological Review 61: 779-793.
  43. Amanda Williams et al. Examining Children's Implicit Racial Attitudes Using Exemplar and Category-Based Measures, Child Development (2017). DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12991
  44. a b McKown, Clark, and Michael J. Strambler. 2009. “Developmental Antecedents and Social and Academic Consequences of Stereotype-Consciousness in Middle Childhood.” Child Development 80:1643-1659.
  45. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Levin, D. T. & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Evidence for Hypodescent and Racial Hierarchy in the Categorization and Perception of Biracial Individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 492-506.
  46. Bertrand, Marianne and Mullainathan, Sendhil. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” American Economic Review, September 2004, Vol. 94, No. 4, pp. 991-1,013.
  47. Sy, Thomas et al. 2010. “Leadership Perceptions as a Function of Race–occupation Fit: The Case of Asian Americans.” Journal of Applied Psychology 95(5):902–19.
  48. Fuller-Rowell, Thomas E., and Stacey N. Doan. 2010. “The Social Costs of Academic Success Across Ethnic Groups.” Child Development 81:1696-1713.
  49. Wilson, William Julius. 1978. The Declining Significance of Race.
  50. Wilson, William Julius. 1990. The Truly Disadvantaged.
  51. Loewen, James W. 1995. Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American History textbook got wrong. New Press.
  52. Collins, Patricia Hill. 2005. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. Routledge.
  53. Dixon, T. L., & Williams, C. L. (2014). The Changing Misrepresentation of Race and Crime on Network and Cable News. Journal of Communication, n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/jcom.12133
  54. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2009. Racism without Racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America. Rowman and Littlefield.
  55. Hughey, Matthew W. 2009. Cinethetic Racism: White Redemption and Black Stereotypes in "Magical Negro" Films. Social Problems 56(3): 543 - 577.
  56. Collins, Patricia Hill. 2005. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. Routledge.
  57. Hughey, Matthew W. 2014. The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption. Temple University Press.
  58. a b Hagan, John, and Wenona Rymond-Richmond. 2008. “The Collective Dynamics of Racial Dehumanization and Genocidal Victimization in Darfur.” American Sociological Review 73:875-902.
  59. a b Pellow, David Naguib, and Robert J. Brulle. 2007. “poisoning the planet: the struggle for environmental justice..” Contexts: Understanding People in Their Social Worlds 6:37-41.
  60. a b c d Martin, Douglas. 2008. “Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68.” The New York Times, May 6 (Accessed July 20, 2008).
  61. Pager, Devah and Quillian, Lincoln. 2005. Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do. American Sociological Review. 70(3):355-380.

Recommended Readings for Students edit

  • Dugger, Celia W. 2009. “Apartheid Legacy’s in South African Schools.” The New York Times, September 20 (Accessed September 20, 2009).
    • This article discusses the continuing legacy of racial discrimination in South Africa. The school system under apartheid favored whites, but even since the end of apartheid, the school system continues to favor whites and the few blacks who make it into the formerly white-only schools. As a result, blacks in South Africa who attend the formerly all-black schools remain poorly educated and unable to find good work.

External links edit

Gender edit

The speech today arose in a manner most Americans would find innocent enough, Jordin remarked as he began to speak to the assembled parents, kids and teachers. In his school class the previous month, his son, Junior, challenged inaccurate teachings common in American classrooms over the past 100 years. The teacher had said that boys have a penis and girls do not. Although Junior was only 7 years old, he grew up in a progressive, nonreligious household where his parents (both Native American biologists and activists by trade) encouraged him to ask questions, taught him all people were equal, and celebrated (rather than hiding) the human body by discussing it openly and embracing nudity at home. As a result, Junior tried to explain to his teacher that both Mommy and Daddy had penises – Mommy had an innie, Junior had an outie, and Daddy had an innie and an outie because he grew his own penis naturally when he was a teenager. The teacher was noticeably uncomfortable by what Junior said. (Junior described it to his father like this, “It looked like she wanted to yell at me, like when the Chicago Bears lose and Mommy gets loud.”) The teacher told Junior he was wrong and when he protested, the teacher sent him to the administration for discipline.

After relaying this story to the crowd, Jordin explained that as a child he had been born with a tiny “penis” that white American society – scientific or otherwise since the 1920’s though beginning in the late 1800's – would call a “clitoris.” He then explained that whether we call the same organ a “clitoris or a penis” is generally decided based on measurements created by biologists based on religious teachings common in the Western world.[1] He further explained that this was similar to the ways many religious people will call a book “scriptures” instead of a “book” because they believe it is important to distinguish between the two even though there is no empirical difference between the two – each one contains written words created by people the same way that both a “clitoris” and a “penis” contain roughly the same genetic components. Then, he explained how as a child he, like many other people in the world, turned his “clitoris” into a “penis” by ingesting specific chemical compounds, in much the same way people have for centuries. Similarly, he explained how other people consumed other chemical compounds to shrink their “penises” into “clitori.” He further explained that this was similar to other parts of the human body, like legs; the difference, of course, is that we don’t call “longer legs” by a new name, and we don’t call the legs of some people “legs” and the legs of other people “clegs.”

While Jordin offered many more examples of the ways we have created a mythology called “sex” by naming or emphasizing this or that body part in certain ways, he further asked parents to imagine that their son or daughter suddenly became not a son or a daughter because a small group of people decided that only brown-eyed people could be sons and daughters, and their child did not have brown eyes. Using another example, he asked the audience to imagine if instead of ovaries or vaginas, we decided people were essentially different (e.g., “sexed”) based on whether or not they could roll their tongues, digest vegetables or meats, or any other of a million tiny biological variations throughout human existence that do not have to create social differences in our world. Finally, he asked the audience what "sex" males who lose or have no use of their penises would be, and asked the same for females who are born without vaginal canals, ovaries, or other materials we decided matter. As Jordin illustrated, we still consider them members of the same "sex" categories even if they are missing what we say create the categories in the first place.

Introduction edit

Why do some people continue to teach children and adults beliefs about human anatomy that do not align with empirical reality? Why did we create two names for the same genital organ, and why does it matter to people which name we use for which person? Why do we promote an inaccurate version of human biological variation in our classrooms and research centers? By the same token, why do people – even many trained in critical inquiry and scientific traditions – believe in these social constructs and use them to explain so much of our world? Why did we choose genital variations instead of eye colors, hair colors or other biological variations to segregate people into different categories? And finally, what consequences do our beliefs in sex – and by extension gender – have for individuals and the larger social world?

While social scientists have tackled these questions in many ways,[2][3] the sex/gender system remains one of the most powerful belief systems in our world today among both religious and scientific populations. In this section, we introduce the components of sex/gender categorization systems, and explore some ways people make sense of these beliefs in their ongoing lives as well as the consequences of these social constructs have for the larger social world.

Gender vs. Sex edit

Transgender women performing in Thailand (known as Kathoey )

Sociologists make a distinction between gender and sex. "Gender" refers to a person's perceived or projected social location within culturally established designations between masculine and feminine behaviors. Gender refers to a person's attempt to signify a masculine or feminine self as well as a person's attempt to categorize someone else in terms of their presentation (intentional or otherwise) of masculine or feminine selfhood. Sex, however, refers to a person's assignment, usually by medical, religious, familial, and / or governmental authorities, into categories socially constructed on the basis of perceived genetic and biological factors (e.g., social elites place people into sex categories by interpreting genetic and biological components of said people).[3]

Cis vs. Trans edit

Sociologists further distinguish between cis sex/gender people and trans sex/gender people.[4] Cis sex/gender people are those who conform to the existing notions of sex and gender within a given social, historical, cultural, political, and scientific context. A cissex male, for example, will be assigned male at birth (based on the interpretation of biological material), and will seek to remain male throughout the course of his life. Similarly, a cisgender male will be assigned male at birth (based on the interpretation of biological material), and then seek to learn and display the symbols, codes, and cues (based upon existing gender norms in his society) to be interpreted (by himself and others) as first a boy and later a man; he will thus follow the script set forth for males in his social world.[2]

Trans sex/gender people are those who do not conform to the existing notions of sex and gender within a given social, historical, cultural, political, and scientific context. A transsex male (often referred to as a female-to-male transsexual), for example, will be assigned female at birth (based on the interpretation of biological material), but will seek to become male - via the use of hormones, bodily training, herbal mixtures, and/or surgeries - during the course of their life. Similarly, a transgender male (sometimes this person will also be a transsexual and other times this person will have no desire to transition sex categories) will be assigned female at birth (based on the interpretation of biological material), but then seek to learn and display the symbols, codes, and cues (based upon existing gender norms in his society) to be interpreted (by himself and others) as first a boy and later a man or as a boy/man sometimes and a girl/woman at other times. In some societies and historical periods, trans sex/gender people are accepted, celebrated, and affirmed, but in other societies and historical periods, they are faced with constant scrutiny, harassment, and discrimination that has been supported by scientific and religious institutions.[2]

To understand the dynamics of sex and gender as well as the distinctions between cis and trans experience, we will take a closer look at these elements within contemporary society throughout this chapter.

Sex edit

Scientific communities (especially since the late 1800's) have divided many species of living things into two mutually reinforcing categories based upon dominant interpretations (political, religious, and scientifically established) of genetic materials, reproductive capabilities, and genital composition. Typically, these classification schemes have promoted the idea of two sexes: "male" and "female." Within these schemes, females are defined as the sex that produces larger gametes (i.e., reproductive cells) and which bear the offspring. These schemes have therefore been built to match reproductive functions that an individual may perform during life cycles. To establish these schemes, scientists simplified the empirical realities of human biology by formulating a typology of sex chromosomes labeled X and Y. Within this typology, they assigned females two X chromosomes, and males an XY chromosome. In fact, this socially constructed typology has become so well established that most people interpret and perceive "sex" as a dichotomous state.

As noted previously, however, human biology is far more complex than this typology allows, and as a result, there are many genetic variations that are left out of these classification schemes (see the article on Intersex here as well as the citation outlining intersex experience earlier in this text). Further, most people are not genetically examined at birth, and standards for assigning people to male and female sexes are not uniform across social, situational, or historical contexts - generally, a doctor makes the decision as to what sex the child is, and the child is listed as such regardless of what genetic testing or other biological criteria might reveal. Most clinical research and debates on the subject, for example, suggest that males are people born with a urethra at the tip of the phallus whereas females have it in the perineum, but in reality, people are born with urethral openings in a wide variety of locations between the phallus and perineum despite the fact that only a fraction of these births are labeled intersex (similar observations have been made concerning distinctions based on genital size, gamete size, chromosomal makeup, and other biological markers). While the socially constructed dichotomy (e.g., male v. female) mirrors capitalistic hierarchies embedded within many post-industrial societies, it does not in fact match the biological reality of people, and thus sociologists examine what role the "myth of distinct, dichotomous sexes" plays in social patterning and structure.[5][6]

Alongside such complexity, human biology is incredibly susceptible to influence, mutation, and adjustment, and not surprisingly, "sex" is somewhat mutable. As a result, historians have documented "sex" transition or change throughout human history, and noted the ability for one to transform and change "sex" in many different ways.[7][8] Until the 1950's, for example, transitioning or changing "sex" categories was typically seen as a natural variation in human biology and experience in most of the world. In search of greater market share in the 1950's, however, American and European medical authorities defined transsexuality as a disorder that required intervention and treatment by licensed professionals, and facilitated the classification of transsexuality as a psychological disorder that necessitated a specific narrative and therapeutic protocol prior to transition.[9] As a result, support groups and community centers sprung up in the 1980's (forming a national Transgender movement in the 1990's) to (a) teach people the story they would need to tell to acquire transexual services and identities, and (b) lobby medical and psychological communities to remove these newly added (or newly socially constructed) "disorders" from the record books (this process has been somewhat successful as transsexuality has been reinterpreted repeatedly throughout the last two decades and in some countries gained legal recognition and protection).[4]

At present, both intersex and transexuality are hotly debated topics within and between scientific communities. While many (especially in the biological, psychological and medical sciences) still promote the "two sexes" or "XX/XY" model, these perspectives are increasingly demonstrated to be ideological rather than scientifically based forms of knowledge. As a result, debates continue wherein biological, medical, and psychological sciences attempt to maintain their hold on their models of sex while many scholars in these and others fields attempt to return scientific understandings of "sex" to an empirical rather than ideological basis.

Gender edit

Similar to "sex," gender is a socially constructed interpretation of human behavior patterns. Specifically, gender refers to the ascription (by self or others) of differential social statuses based upon shared understandings of what constitutes masculine and/or feminine behavior. As such, gender typically involves two interrelated components built upon the acceptance or rejection of societal norms concerning masculinities and femininities. First, gender may refer to an internal feeling that one is a male, female, both, neither, and/or somewhere in between or beyond these categories. Because gender is dependent upon behavioral expectations and norms, once individuals know those expectations and norms, the individual can adopt behaviors that project the gender he/she wishes to portray. One can think of this side of gender like a role in a theatrical play - there are specific behaviors and norms associated with genders just like there are lines and movements associated with each character in a play. Adopting the behaviors and norms of a gender leads to the perception that someone belongs in that gender category.

Similar to a play, however, there is another component of gender - the audience. In a play, performances are determined to be believable or not based upon audience reaction, and audiences typically arrive at performances with a pre-established set of expectations and ideas about what they will be witnessing. Gender is also the external perception others develop of us (e.g., Do other people think and believe we are men and/or women?). Since gender - like a play - is ultimately a human created fiction (e.g., a performance of shared understandings), it can only exist as long as others believe and approve of the performance. As a result, people "do gender" throughout their lives by (a) aligning their actions to the preconceived gender beliefs of others, and (b) developing an awareness (consciously or otherwise) that everything they do may be interpreted as evidence (or lack thereof) of their position within a specific gender category. Gender is thus an ongoing production dependent upon the reactions of others.

Some examples may help illustrate the ways people learn to accomplish gender. Parents may socialize children into what is perceived as a traditionally masculine role, which includes characteristics like independence, courage, and aggressiveness while constantly reminding the child they are supposed to be masculine by, for example, calling the child by gendered labels like "boy" or "son" and/or stopping the child when they act in non-masculine ways (e.g., boys don't do that). Likewise, parents may socialize children into what is perceived as a traditionally feminine role that includes characteristics like submissiveness, emotionality, and empathy while constantly reminding the child that it is supposed to be feminine through the same means noted above. Further, others in the child's environment (like siblings, strangers, and peers) will often reinforce these beliefs and social control mechanisms throughout the child's interactions. Assuming both of the aforementioned children never question their placement into these gender categories, the masculine child will learn to be a boy and a man and the feminine child will learn to be a girl and a woman by aligning their own behaviors to fit conventional gender norms over time. Such individuals will develop cisgender identities. For instance, the masculine child may play with toy soldiers, join athletic teams, and learn to prize appearing tough while the feminine child may play with dolls, bond with other feminine-behaving people, and learn that they are rewarded for appearing to care.

Traditional Gender Characteristics
feminine characteristics masculine characteristics
submissive dominant
dependent independent
emotional rational
receptive assertive
intuitive analytical
timid brave
passive active
sensitive insensitive

However, gender - like sex - is fluid and can change. This can be seen by continuing the above example. It is possible for the masculine-raised child to decide later in life - or without the parents knowledge earlier in life - to engage in feminine behaviors, and the same could happen with the feminine-raised child (in fact, many parents raise children in gender neutral ways that allow the children to make these decisions from the start). In so doing, the aforementioned children could adopt relatively varied behaviors that create an androgynous or gender neutral self, or they could simply adopt the opposite (raised masculine, but decide to live feminine sometimes or all the time and vice versa) gender performances (see the image of drag queens for male people that adopt feminine expressions and behaviors sometimes). Either change, however, would require (a) adopting different gender performances than those promoted and enforced by dominant social structures, and (b) risking ridicule, harassment, and discrimination at the hands of cisgender people (often referred to as cissexism or transphobia).

Men dressed in drag in Montreal, Canada.

Biological Differences edit

While much of this chapter focuses on the socially constructed differences between men and women, it is also important to note there are some clear physiological differences between sexes. While it is as yet unknown how or why these differences develop, scholars typically attempt to explain the differences in one of two ways. Scientific disciplines tied more firmly to existing gender norms within a society, for example, typically argue that biological distinctions create these differences, and use these differences to argue that there are inherent differences between women and men (non cis-gender people are generally ignored completely by these fields and within their arguments). On the other hand, more progressive and diverse scientific communities generally argue that these differences reflect existing gender inequalities within a given society, and thus merely demonstrate that the social construction of sex and gender has biological (as well as social) consequences. While the emergence of bio-social mathematical models and critical examinations of scientific texts may shed light on this debate in the decades to come, at present the answers remain beyond empirical reach. As a result, the following paragraphs outline these differences while also noting the ways that social factors may cause or influence such differences. Keep in mind, however, that since these studies ignore trans sex/gender experience, we must limit our commentary to cisgender results only.

In addition to different sex organs and sex chromosomes, the average male is 10 percent taller, 20 percent heavier, and 35 percent stronger in the upper body than the average female.[10] Some researchers believe that these physiological differences may have been influenced by social/cultural decisions in our evolutionary past.[11] Even so, when measured against their own body size, rather than on an absolute scale (e.g., how much females can carry relative to their body size versus how much males can carry relative to their body size), actual strength differences are minimal.[12]

Females, for reasons still somewhat undetermined, tend to outlive males. Female life expectancy in the U.S. is 79.8 years; for males it is 74.4.[13] Some believe this difference is due to the riskier lifestyles of males that identify as men (e.g., pursue masculine behaviors), especially earlier in life, combined with their typically more physically stressing occupations.[14] Others have noted the negative effects that stress and lack of emotional expression (a hallmark trait associated with masculinities) place on the body, and the tendency for females to seek help and treatment (traditionally feminine behaviors) as factors in this pattern.

Behaviorally, age of sitting, teething, and walking all occur at about the same time in females and males. However, males enter puberty on average two years later than females (it is important to note, however, that females have a clear sign (e.g., menarche) of puberty onset whereas males (and their parents) are generally uncertain of the exact onset of puberty, which could skew these interpretations).[15] There are no significant differences in intelligence, happiness, or self-esteem between males and females. However, females are, statistically, twice as vulnerable to anxiety disorders and depression (possibly due to their experience as a subordinate or minority group within many societies), but only one-third as vulnerable to suicide and one-fifth as vulnerable to alcoholism (potentially due to traditional definitions of masculinities that link violence and substance abuse to masculinities).[16] Females attempt suicide more often than males (mirroring patterns between other dominant and subordinate groups) but have lower rates of "success," because their preferred methods do not involve firearms, unlike males (potentially due to the association of violence with masculinities). Females are also less likely to suffer hyperactivity or speech disorders as children or to display antisocial personalities as adults (potentially due to gender socialization wherein femininities are associated with social behaviors and communication skills).[17] Finally, females have slightly more olfactory receptors on average and are more easily re-aroused immediately after orgasm (potentially due to traditional associations of femininities to the pursuit of sexual pleasure and intimacy in relation to masculine associations with sexual conquest and performance).[17]

Much evidence has shown that there are differences in male and female brains. In fact, the temporal lobe, which is the part of the brain associated with language and emotion, develops up to 4 years earlier in females in comparison to boys (which mirrors patterns of gender socialization for femininities).[18] On the other hand, the left parietal lobe, which is associated with mathematical and spatial reasoning, is thought to develop up to 4 years earlier in males (which corresponds to masculine socialization in terms of rationality and noted encouragement favoring male students in the physical sciences). This difference could account for the fact that females are sometimes thought to be better when it comes to language and are more emotional (following their gender socialization requirements), while males are thought to be better in math (following their gender socialization requirements). As well, some say that females are better at hearing than males. A typical teenaged female in a society with high levels of gender inequality hears up to 7 times better than a typical teenaged male in the same society. This (along with masculine socialization emphasizing acting out, being loud, and avoiding being controlled) could possibly explain why males are diagnosed with ADHD more often (and may be the result of feminine socialization emphasizing the care-taking of others).[19]. Lastly there is a difference between sight for young females and males. Females are able to see facial expressions / emotions better while males are able to see motion better (mirroring gender socialization emphasis on feminine care-taking and communication and masculine attention to action). Females use the p-cells in the retina, which are associated with texture and color, while males use m-cells, which are associated with motion.

Social and Psychological Differences edit

Gender differences (whether reflected in later physiology or not) typically vary by society, environment, historical context, and/or culture, indicating they are social constructions. For example, in work group situations in the U.S., men tend to focus on the task at hand whereas women tend to focus more on personal relationships,[20] but studies of trans people have demonstrated that these differences are often the result of differential treatment women and men receive in the workplace (e.g., transmen report being encouraged to focus more on the task at hand after transition).[4] When eating, women eating with men tend to eat fewer calories than when they are eating with women.[21] Both of these differences in behavior vary by culture and are therefore believed to be socially constructed. Two detailed examples of socially constructed gender differences are presented below: workforce differences and education.

Work and Occupations edit


An often discussed and debated difference between men and women involves work and occupations. Women's participation in the workforce has varied significantly over time. Prior to the development of capitalism and factory-type work, women played a significant role in food production and household maintenance. With the advent of capitalism and labor outside of the home, women continued to play a significant role, though their participation in paid labor outside the home initially diminished. Also, women's participation in the labor force varied (and varies) depending on marital status and social class.


Current U.S. labor force statistics illustrate women's changing role in the labor force. For instance, since 1971, women's participation in the labor force has grown from 32 million (43.4% of the female population 16 and over) to 68 million (59.2% of the female population 16 and over).[6] Women also make, on average, $17,000 less than do men.[7] Women tend to be concentrated in less prestigious and lower paying occupations[22] that are traditionally considered women's jobs (also referred to as pink collar jobs).[8] Finally, women are not paid the same wages as men for similar work, a pay gap that exists in every developed country in the world.[23] This difference is often illustrated as a ratio, as shown in the graph below. Women tend to make between 75% and 91% of what men make for comparable work, though it depends on how the comparison is made. For instance, college educated women between 26 and 45 earned 74.7 cents in hourly pay for every dollar men in the same group made in 2005.[24] However, if you compare women and men with similar profiles and qualifications, the gap is smaller: women make about 91% of what men make, at least they have since the 1980s.[24] In the 1970s, similarly qualified women made only 82% as much as their male counterparts.

However, at all educational and skill levels, women in the US still make less than men, as illustrated in the figure below. That women earn less than men with equal qualifications helps explain why women are enrolling in college at higher rates than are men - they require a college education to make the same amount as men with a high school diploma.

Ratio of Women's Earnings to Men's Earnings in 2012.

The gap between men's and women's wages narrowed during the 1980s and mid 1990s, but that momentum has fallen off and the distance now appears to have stagnated.[24] The gap in income between genders used to be similar between middle-class and affluent workers, but it is now widest among the most highly paid. A woman making in the 95th percentile in 2006 would earn about $95,000 per year; a man in the 95th earning percentile would make about $115,000, a 28% difference (and that's not including the highest earners, who are predominantly men).[24] The narrowing of the gap in pay has also been called into question.[25] While it appears there has been a narrowing of the gap in pay between men and women, Mulligan and Rubinstein[25] show that much of the narrowing is actually the result of the most able women entering the workforce and not decreases in the pay gap between men and women. Thus, even the apparent narrowing of pay between men and women likely overestimates the actual differences in pay.


It is quite difficult for women to climb to the top in the business world. For instance, only 3% of tech firms and just 1% of high-tech firms were founded by women and very few are headed by women.[26] But the women who do climb to the top of the organizational ladder in business also experience both overt and covert discrimination.[27] For instance, companies with women on the board of directors have lower stock evaluations than do companies with exclusively male boards.[27] This is likely a reflection of the lack of shareholder trust in women. Women are also often put into leadership positions in corporations when companies are in a crisis and have little hope for recovery, resulting in poorer evaluations of women in leadership positions.[28] The phenomenon of putting women into leadership positions when companies are in trouble is referred to as "the glass cliff" and is also observed in politics, as women are disproportionately chosen to run in elections when it is almost guaranteed that the incumbent male candidate will win.[29]

Researchers tend to focus on two factors that might contribute to the gender pay gap - how men and women are sorted into jobs and within-job differences. The first factor has to do with how people are tracked toward specific areas within occupations (e.g., women as dermatologists and men as surgeons) or different positions within a company (e.g., women working in family law and men working in corporate law within a law firm). This sorting of men and women into different jobs does account for some of the pay gap.[23] But the majority of the pay gap is actually due to differences in pay within jobs, and those differences vary by corporations and employers, with some employers having much smaller pay gaps than others.[23]

Why men and women are sorted into different jobs and why women are often paid less is often linked to a motherhood wage penalty,[30] regardless of whether or not women are actually mothers. You can think about this from the perspective of a potential employer: If you have two equally qualified candidates for a position, both are in their mid-twenties, married, and straight out of college, but one is a male and the other is female, which would you choose? Many employers choose men over women because women are "at risk" of having a child, even though they may not want to have children. And, of course, to the potential employer accommodating a pregnant woman and mother is more cumbersome than a male turned father (despite the obvious need for children to continue our species). Thus, women pay a penalty for their ability to give birth. Additionally, when women do have children, this often requires a period of time outside the workforce, whether it's six weeks or several months. Employers take the time off into account when considering raises. The "Mommy track" often results in women making less money than equally qualified men who have been in the same job for the same amount of time because women take time off to have children and are often responsible for taking care of children while men rarely do so. Thus, women are often paid less despite having the same qualifications because they are (1) at risk of having children or (2) do have children and are penalized for doing so.

Another possible explanation for the wage gap between men and women has recently been proposed - customer bias towards white males.[31] Hekman et al. (2009) found that customers who viewed videos featuring a black male, a white female, or a white male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19% more satisfied with the white male employee's performance and also were more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance, despite the fact that all three actors performed identical, read the same script, and were in the exact same location with identical camera angles and lighting. They provide further evidence to support this claim by noting that white male doctors are rated as more approachable and competent than other doctors. They interpret their findings to suggest that employers are willing to pay more for white male employees because employers are customer driven and customers are happier with white male employees. They also suggest that what is required to solve the problem of wage inequality isn't necessarily paying women more but changing customer biases. Additional reasons for disparity in pay are discussed below.

Another factor that may contribute to the higher wages of white men is the number of job leads they receive.[32] White men, particularly those in management positions, receive more job leads from friends and colleagues than do white women and Hispanic men and women. Black men and women receive about as many job leads and tips, but only for non-management jobs. As many jobs result from social networking, white males are advantaged by their higher number of job leads, potentially contributing to their higher salaries and more prestigious jobs.

Education edit

Another often studied difference between men and women is educational attainment. For a long time, higher education (undergraduate and graduate education) was an exclusively male bastion. Women did eventually gain access to institutions of higher learning, but parity or equality on a number of levels has still not been achieved. One measure of educational attainment where women have made great inroads is in college attendance. In 1960, 37.9% of female high school graduates enrolled in college, compared with 54.0% of male high school graduates. In 2002, more female high school graduates were enrolling in college than males, 68.4% of females vs. 62.1% males.[9] Women have, in fact, made significant progress in this respect. Women now earn more Bachelors and Masters degrees than do men, and for the first time in 2009, they earned more PhDs.[10] Women have made significant inroads into some of the traditionally most prestigious professions as well: 40% of medical school graduates are women and women make up large percentages of law school students as well.[24]

Despite the progress, there are still problems. While women are entering college at higher rates and even earning more degrees, the degrees are in less prestigious areas (e.g., social sciences and humanities compared to physical sciences) and women with degrees still earn less than do men with comparable degrees.[33] For instance, in medicine, women tend to concentrate in lower paying specialties (e.g., dermatology and family medicine). The highest paid specialties are dominated by men and will be for decades to come, based on the pipeline of residents: 28% of radiology residents in 2004-5 were women, and only 10% of orthopedic surgery residents were.[24]

At the primary and secondary levels, girls don't often do as well as boys, particularly in math and the sciences. One recent study offers a partial explanation for why this might be the case: highly math-anxious female teachers in elementary school pass their math-anxiety on to the girls in the classroom, but not to the boys.[34] At the beginning of the class, there were no differences in math anxiety between the boys and girls, but in classes taught by female math-anxious teachers, girls developed math anxiety and boys did not. This anxiety led girls to believe boys were better at math than girls, though there is no evidence to suggest that is actually the case.[34]

Sexism edit

Sexism is discrimination against people based on their perceived sex or gender. Sexism can refer to four subtly different beliefs or attitudes:

  • The belief that there are only two sexes.
  • The belief that one sex is superior to the others.
  • The belief that men and women (as well as other genders) are very different and that this should be strongly reflected in society, language, the right to have sex, and the law.
  • It can also refer to simple hatred of men (misandry) or women (misogyny) or trans people (transphobia).

Many peoples' beliefs on this topic range along a continuum. Some people believe that women should have equal access to all jobs. Others believe that while women are superior to men in a few aspects, in most aspects men are superior to women. Some believe that cisgender people are normal and better than transgender people while others do not even factor transgender people into their reasoning.

Women voting in Bangladesh.

Sexist beliefs are an example of essentialist thought, which holds that individuals can be understood (and often judged) based on the characteristics of the group to which they belong; in this case, their sex group (male, female, or intersex). Essentialism assumes that all individuals clearly fit into the category of male or female, which is not the case. It also assumes characteristics are immutable, which is also not the case.

A good example of sexism against women is a question that has been asked in numerous surveys over the years in the US, "Would you vote for a female candidate for president?" A 2005 Gallup poll found that 92% of Americans would vote for a female candidate, but follow-up research[35] found that this percentage was the result of response bias. When you use research techniques that allow people to express how they really feel toward women, the actual percentage who would not vote for a female candidate because she is female is closer to 26%.[35] Intriguingly, it is not just men who feel that way, but some women, too. In short, nearly 1/4 of cisgender Americans maintain sexist attitudes against women (trans people are not counted in the surveys).

Sexism against women is often called chauvinism, though chauvinism is actually a wider term for any extreme and unreasonable partisanship toward a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group. Many forms of radical feminism and cissexism can legitimately be referred to as chauvinism. This is not common usage, however, and the term is most often used to refer to male chauvinism.

While the view that women are superior to men is also sexism, only in recent years has an awareness of this reverse sexism begun to develop in public discourse. Certain forms of sexual discrimination are illegal in many countries, but nearly all countries have laws that give special rights, privileges, or responsibilities to one sex.

Recent research illustrates the pervasiveness of sexism in the media.[36] Messner et al.[36] found that sports coverage on major television networks focuses predominantly on men, despite the increase in female participation in sports since the passage of Title IX in 1972. In 1971, 294,000 high school girls played interscholastic sports, compared to 3.7 million boys. By 1989 that ratio changed substantially - 1.8 million girls played sports compared to 3.4 million boys. By 2004 the ratio had changed even more - 2.9 million girls compared to 4.0 million boys. At the collegiate level, the change was also substantial. In 1972, the average college in the U.S. had two women's sports teams. In just the four years between 2000 and 2004, universities in the U.S. added 631 new women's teams.

Despite the increase in participation in sports, major network news coverage of women's sports has changed very little over the last 15 years. In 1989 women garnered only 5% of air time; in 1999 that increased to 9%, but it fell back to 6% by 2005. Sports highlights shows (e.g., ESPNS's SportsCenter) are even less accommodating, giving only 2% to 3% of air time to women. What's more, the little amount of air time given to women often portrays women's sports as "novelties" or pseudo-sports and often includes gags, like the women's nude bungee jump in 1999. Additionally, much of the coverage of women in sports is sexualized, as attention is often only given to women deemed "attractive" by the news anchors (e.g., Anna Kournikova and Maria Sharapova). Whether this treatment of women in sport is intentional or not, it is a clear example of sexism in the media.

Oprah Winfrey is one of the wealthiest women in the world, an exception to the findings of Tickamyer.

Another example of gender discrimination is the disparity in wealth between men and women.[37] Using biographical data published in magazines and books as well as IRS income reports, Tickamyer found:

  • there are fewer wealthy women than there are wealthy men
  • it is not entirely clear as to whether sources of wealth differ, but it does appear that women are more likely than men to inherit their wealth (especially from husbands)
  • the forms of women's holdings differ from men's; many women have their money in trusts, which is a safer form of investment than those used by men (e.g., stocks and bonds)
  • women are less likely to have control over their wealth than men and are less likely to be actively engaged in increasing their wealth through investments as, say, the head of a company is engaged in growing his wealth

The author attributed the differences in wealth distribution to historical instances of gender discrimination. Up until the 19th Century most women could not own property and women's participation in the paid labor force outside the home was limited. It is possible that wealth among the elite may be redistributed toward a more equal balance between the sexes with increasing numbers of women entering the workforce and moving toward more financially lucrative positions in major corporations.

The differences in income between men and women mentioned above are partially due to discrimination, but also due, in part, to some women (including highly educated women) choosing to leave the labor force and stay home with their young children. Leaving the labor force doubly impacts income: (1) It takes away immediate income, and (2) reduces experience and tenure, lowering future earning potential. Additionally, while women have made significant inroads into many highly paid fields (e.g., medicine, law), the influx of women into those fields has slowed since 2000.[24] Reflecting sexism in US culture is a recent finding that when women are successful their male partners feel threatened, whereas women feel better about their relationships when their male partners succeed.[38]

Women in some organizations are suing their employers claiming gender discrimination.[24] For instance, Wal-Mart has faced lawsuits by female employees who alleged gender discrimination. Part of the plaintiffs' argument rests on the fact that, while roughly 75% of intra-store department heads are women, only 20% of store managers (who make close to $100,000 per year) are women. It is difficult to prove discrimination in such cases. In fact, many researchers point out that there may and probably are other root causes, including: differences in gender socialization (men believe they need to support their families as the primary breadwinners, leading to greater job commitment) and emphasis by the government on equality in pay and opportunity between genders.[24]

Violence edit

Sexism can take many forms, including preventing women from attending college and paying women less than men for comparable work. Another common form of sexism is violence, especially violence toward women and trans people. In 2002, women were the victims of over 900,000 violent crimes and over 200,000 rapes or sexual assaults.[11] Men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime, but far less likely to be the victims of rapes or sexual assaults. Similarly, recent reports show steady patterns wherein trans people suffer more gender related violence than any other social group.[4]

Theories of Gender Differences edit

Gender Socialization edit

Sociologists and other social scientists generally attribute many of the differences between genders to socialization (note that even physiological differences mirror existing gender socialization processes). As discussed in the chapter on socialization, socialization is the process of transferring norms, values, beliefs, and behaviors to future group members. In gender socialization, the groups people join are the gender categories, "cisgender women and men" and "transgender people". Thus, gender socialization is the process of educating and instructing potential males, females, and intersex children as to the norms, behaviors, values, and beliefs of group membership.

Preparations for gender socialization begin even before the birth of the child. One of the first questions people ask of expectant parents is the sex of the child. This is the beginning of a social categorization process that continues throughout life. Preparations for the birth often take the infant's perceived sex into consideration (e.g., painting the room blue if the child is a boy, pink for a girl). Many of the gender differences just described are attributed to differences in socialization, though it is possible that as yet undemonstrated genetic and biological factors play some role. It is important to keep in mind that gender differences are a combination of social and biological forces; sometimes one or the other has a larger influence, but both play a role in dictating behavior.[39]

One illustration of early life gender socialization can be seen in preschool classrooms. Children in preschool classrooms where teachers were told to emphasize gender differences saw an increase in stereotyped views of what activities are appropriate for boys and girls, while children with teachers who did not emphasize gender showed no increase.[40] This study supports the idea that subtle cues that surround us in our everyday lives strongly influence gender socialization.

Research[41] finds that gender differences in work and occupations begin with adolescents' first jobs:

  • first jobs are significantly segregated by sex
  • girls work fewer hours per week than boys
  • girls earn less per hour than boys
  • hourly wages are higher in job types dominated by males
  • girls are assigned more housework than are boys[42]

Researchers attribute these differences to gender socialization and differential opportunities for boys and girls.

Another example of research finding differences in