Author: Andre Coleman

Day by day, the occurrence of social problems seems to increase rapidly. Social problems are issues or problems that may affect the people in a society, no matter it is directly or indirectly, and social problems are mainly related to moral values. Some of the major social problems that often occur in today’s world are drug abuse, crime, bullying, rape, kidnap, poverty, illegal migration, unemployment, truancy, obesity, gay marriage, racism, discrimination, abortion, family issues, marginalization, HIV, pollution, pre-marital sex, sex slavery – prostitution, child pornography and many more. The main social problem that will be discussed in this social psychology assignment will be focused on racism and also about the Africans being the target of racism, which had actually happened in Australia lately in the month of March to April, year 2010.

Racism, according to the Cambridge dictionary, is defined as the belief that people’s qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, which results in other races being treated unfairly (Cambridge International Dictionary of English. [1889]-1894). Racism happens every day around the world regardless of any countries, even in Malaysia. Racism is a very sensitive issue as it discriminates and offends people of a certain race. Racism brings bad consequences as for it may result in causing racial destruction and disharmony among the people living in a particular country. Plus, racism also causes conflict and war, take the tragedy that happened on the 13th of May during the year 1969 in Malaysia for example. The problem caused is mainly due to racial politics, which is also related to racism. During an election on 1969, the Alliance tell off confidently that it would win more than two thirds of the 144 seats in the Dewan Rakyat or about two thirds of the 104 Peninsular Malaysia seats, take over Kelantan, and take control of all the other states. When the results were out, the Alliance had won only 66 seats, down from the 89 it won in 1964. Alliance also lost Penang, failed to take over Kelantan, and almost lose Perak, Selangor, Kedah and Terengganu. Even the Opposition was very surprised with the outcome, too. The Opposition supporters, especially the Chinese and Indians who had voted for the DAP and Gerakan were proud and joyful. They celebrated their “victories” by marching through Kuala Lumpur and shouted insulting and offending epithets at Malays, such as, “Melayu balik kampung, kita sudah berkuasa skarang” (“Malays, return to your villages, we are now in power”) and “Hei Sakai bolih balik ke hutan” (“Hey Sakai, you can return to the jungle”).and also showed vulgar gestures at the Malay women. Street clashes then broke out between the Malays with Chinese and Indian youths. Even parang – which is a type of big straight knife used in Malaysia and indonesia, sticks and iron pipes were used. Many lives were sacrificed on that day itself just because of a group of racist doing unnecessary acts. (www.malaysianbar.org.my)

Speaking of racism, the Africans living in Australia had, unfortunately, became the target of racism in the form of harassment by the Australian policemen. “The police picked me up, they put me in the back of the car. Then they took me to (locality withheld) and beat me up, and they left me there” a young African background said in a new study into the treatment of youths of African background by Australian police in Melbourne. It is shocking to know and realize the fact that young African-Australians in the country are overruled by Australian policemen. What’s worst and unfortunate is that the police harassment that were happening all the while is either not reported or insufficient investigates by the relevant oversight bodies, and those irresponsible and racist policemen often resort to hostility and aggression when young people assert their rights. Most of them had been experiencing terrible and often violent experiences with the Victoria state police officers which include harassment, racist comments and serious assaults. Other than that, one of the interviewee has reported being racially abused, bullied, spat on and slapped by the policemen before being taken to a police station where he was beaten up for about ten minutes. Right after the youth is being released at the back door of the police station, the youth re-entered the building once again at the front entrance, telling the officer who was on duty that time that he wanted to lodge a report and also make a complaint. According to the youth, the officer then called one of the policemen who had beaten the youth up. Instead another policeman went in and warned him that if the youth doesn’t get out of the police station at that very instance, he would pull him back in and beat him up again. Helplessly and disappointedly, the youth left the police station without a word (http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/04/12/5175).

Racism mainly happens due to the stubbornness and ignorance of a certain group of people from all races, be it Australians, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Africans and others. Those people who are racist most probably are feeling self-superior. They wanted to glorify their own races so badly that they discriminate and disrespect people of other races, in other words they are trying to bring down other races’ pride and image to feel satisfied and proud of their own races, which is related to the theory of aggression – an intentional behavior aimed at doing harm or causing pain to another person (Social Psychology Sixth Edition,2005). Hence, that is how racism occurs. In fact, most people also believe that racism is developed through one or two outcomes. It is either that some of the people were raised that way, or on the other case is that there may be someone from a different race did something really unpleasant hateful to a particular person of another race and the latter in turn take it out on all people of that particular race where the former belongs.

In order to overcome racism, one should judge other people by their actions, not by the color of their skin. Within all races, there are sure to have those people who would have bad intentions, steal from others or try to dominate others. Instead of seeing these people as part of a group based upon race, one should see and judge them as individuals with problems on their own. Besides that, one also has to be brave to speak up when others make insulting jokes and statements regarding racism towards others. By letting people around a particular person know that he or she do not agree to racist thoughts, he or she is actually giving the people permission to think for themselves, if it is possible, one can also explain why it’s wrong to judge people by their race without getting boiled up. Along the way, he or she should also help those people who are victimized by prejudice. If one came across an incident where someone is targeted by the color of his or her skin, he or she should take the initiative to confront those who are practicing racism and point out the error and consequences of their thoughts. Lastly, which is also most importantly, one must live his or her life as if he or she were born to be colorblind. One can do that by looking past one’s skin and into one’s heart. By all people doing so, everyone would not have racist thoughts and hence avoiding the occurrence of racism. That will also produce a healthier and peaceful environment for the younger generations as because they learn through what they see from the actions and thoughts of the elder generations. (www.ehow.com )

As a conclusion, racism is a negative issue that brings bad consequences to all people around the world. The theory that can be related to racism will be prejudice, which is a hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people, based solely on their membership in that group (Social Psychology Sixth Edition,2005). Racism is exactly about being prejudice. Being racist is equivalent to being unfair, rude, unpleasant, impolite, irresponsible, disrespectful and ignorant. Because of racism, many people had sacrificed their lives during the past. Some countries even had civil wars. Therefore, to avoid those unpleasant things from happening again and to avoid repeating the same old mistakes the older generations had done, racist thoughts in people’s minds should be avoided and stopped immediately, especially the people living in Malaysia, which consists of different races – Malays, Chinese, Indians and others. The world will certainly be a better place to live in if there are no more issues of racism.

APPENDIX
Rights-Australia: Africans Target of Racism, Harassment by Police

by Stephen de Tarczynski (Melbourne, Australia)

Monday, April 12, 2010

Inter Press Service

The police ‘picked me up, they put me in the back of the car. Then they took me to (locality withheld) and beat (expletive) me, and they left me there,’ a young person of African background said in a new study into the treatment of youths of African background by Australian police in Melbourne.

The ‘Interventions into Policing of Racialised Communities in Melbourne’ report, released in mid-March, is part of a project into racism here managed by three community legal services in Australia.

It found that young African-Australians in the country’s second-largest city are over-policed, that police harassment and violence is either under-reported or inadequately investigated by the relevant oversight bodies, and that police often resort to hostility and aggression when young people assert their rights.

Thirty youths, 27 males and 3 females aged 15 to 27, were interviewed for the study. Many had Sudanese or Somali backgrounds.

Most of them had been subjected to negative and often violent experiences with Victoria state police officers, including harassment, racist comments and serious assaults. None were identified in the study for fear of potential police retribution.

One interviewee reports being racially abused, spat on and slapped around the head by police before being taken to a police station where he was ‘beaten up for about ten minutes.’

After being released though the station’s rear exit, the youth re-entered the building at the front entrance, telling the officer on duty that he wished to make a complaint. According to the youth, the officer then ‘called one of the coppers that were beating me up. Another copper came in and goes to me, ‘If you don’t get out of here now, I’ll pull you back in’. And I left.’

Tredwell Lukondeh, president of the Sydney-based Federation of African Communities Council (FACC), says that he is not surprised by the report’s findings. ‘What is surprising is the degree to which the report highlights the problems. We do have concerns from various community leaders about the issue in question,’ Lukondeh told IPS.

The FACC, which groups African groups from around Australia, is now collating data regarding police treatment of African-Australians to present to both the police force and the state government. But Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Simon Overland argues that police have done much to strengthen relations with different ethnic communities, including the African community. These efforts include community forums, the appointment of more multicultural officers, police-youth camps and joint sports activities.

Overland says that tension between police and young immigrants ‘is not a new problem.’

‘With every wave of migration we’ve had problems with youths. If you go back far enough it was the Italian wave, the Greek wave, the Vietnamese wave and what we’re seeing now is a wave of migration coming out of Africa. And predictably we’re seeing tensions with youth,’ Overland told the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s local radio in March.

While no African nation was among the top 10 source countries of the more than 158,000 people migrating permanently to Australia in the 12 months prior to Jun. 30, 2009 – the latest period for which figures are available – Australia’s African community has swelled in recent years.

Africans have figured prominently among recent visa recipients under Australia’s humanitarian programme, which is reserved for refugees and others requiring protection.

Nationals of Sudan, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Liberia and Sierra Leone were among the top 10 countries of origin for humanitarian visas granted in the 2008-2009 year.

Although Lukondeh admits that police have taken positive steps to address issues with African-Australians, he believes that much more can be done. ‘We should establish that corridor of learning about the cultural background of new immigrants. It is very important because, in essence, it’s that ignorance that enflames these problems,’ said the FACC president.

Any progress made by police efforts to create better relations appears to be undermined by the report’s findings as well the revelation of a racist email circulating among Victoria police officers.

While Overland has vowed to take action against officers in the wake of the report ‘if there is evidence to support those allegations,’ up to 100 officers are purported to be under investigation in relation to the email, which local media have reported depicts a man being tortured.

The report into police treatment of youth of African backgrounds comes as the furore over allegedly racially motivated attacks on Indians in Australia – and Melbourne in particular – appears to be fading.

It follows November’s findings by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) – a statutory body responsible for media regulation – that three popular Melbourne television broadcasters breached the Commercial Television Codes of Practice in 2007 in reports regarding Sudanese refugees in Melbourne’s south-east.

ACMA found that the news reports of channels Ten, Nine and Seven, which focused on racial tensions, gangs and the decision by the government of former Prime Minister John Howard to reduce the intake of African refugees, were inaccurate.

Ten and Nine breached the regulatory body’s fair and impartial requirement for news presentations. ‘ACMA considered that both of their segments contained an unfair selection of material, were unfairly juxtaposed and created an unfair presentation, overall, of Sudanese people as being particularly prone to commit violence and crime,’ said ACMA’s statement.

© Inter Press Service (2010) – All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Domestic violence is the biggest social problem facing America today. It is among the most devastating experiences that adversely affect women and children in the US. Children who witness or experience, DV may become future abusers or victims themselves if society doesn’t get involved. The federal government needs to step in and assume responsibility in stemming the tide of domestic violence. Preventing abuse is more cost-effective than paying for the consequences of abuse. The widespread occurrence of such violence takes an immense toll on the lives of the victims in addition to most of society, because of numerous behavioral, health, psychological, and economic consequences.

Why women bear domestic violence?

Following are some justifications given by women to remain victim of domestic violence for the rest of the life:

Helplessness

A lot of women who are a victim of domestic violence are financially dependent on their abusers. There are numerous reasons for this; an abuser will often try to isolate the victim from anybody or anything that might offer support either emotionally or economically. This allows the abuser to have power over his victim, without interference from those who might give aid to the victim. This isolation causes the victim to become dependent on her abuser, and it insures that she will have nowhere to go. Even when a victim has the wish to escape the violence, the fundamental requirements of food, shelter, and clothing for her children usually surpass her need for security. To leave a domestic violence relationship, a woman needs a place to live, a source of income, childcare and transportation. Most victims are denied access to these things in a vicious relationship, leaving her escape resources insolvent.

The trickiest issue a victim must beat in order to get away is her fear of her abuser’s threats to kill her. Alas, this fear is not always baseless. Abusive men often shoot up violence after a victim flees to security and time and again he brings back his victim and her children. Indeed, as many as 75% of visits to medical emergency rooms by battered women occur after they have separated from the aggressive partner.

The Forms of Abuse

Physical Abuse includes hitting, shoving, choking, biting, kicking, slapping, punching, pulling hair, burning, bruising, twisting, preventing access to an exit, or using a weapon to bully and/or intimidate.

Emotional Abuse is the hardest for women to remain alive her self identify. Emotional abuse is the systematic degrading of the victim’s self-esteem. This may be accomplished by withholding of love, intimidation, mocking; cruelty to pets, using put-downs, giving the details of relationships, refusing to talk, showing jealousy, refusing to allow a partner to have/make friends, taking anger out on the children and pets, not allowing the victim financial access or convincing the victim that she (the victim) is crazy.

Sexual Abuse can include forcing sex against a partner’s will, forbidding birth control, physically hurting partner during sex, oral abuse including humiliating sexual comments, forcing unwanted sexual practices on partner, hiding a sexually transmitted disease from partner, and forced sex with objects.

Economic Abuse is accomplished by preventing the victim from working outside the home, not permitting the victim to make any economic decisions, having to justify all expenditure, baseless blaming for monetary troubles, withholding of financial information, and withholding access to finances.

Characteristics of an Abuser

*The majority of abusers are emotionally deprived.

*Abusers want to feel in control; they use aggression as a means to control their partner.

*Abusers are likely to behave normally toward other family members, friends and work acquaintances.

*They are generally very unconfident and insecure. Overwhelming their victim gives them a sense of power.

*Abusers are habitually very critical of their partner.

*They can be exceedingly jealous.

*Abusers often reject blame for their actions and can even deny that any abuse ever happened.

*They reduce the abuse and blame their partners for their violent behavior.

The Sequence Of Abuse

1. Tension Building

Minor incidents occur and tension begins to build. The victim generally tries to control the situation by apologizing, making promises and accepting blame. The victim will generally seek to “smooth things over” and solve the problem in order to reduce the aggression.

2. Attack

Tension rises until there is verbal abuse that will often lead to physical aggression. Victims often play down or reject the brutality of their injuries to pacify their perpetrators with the hope of preventing more violence. Pleading from the victim during this phase usually only serves to increase the violence.

3. Apologies and pardon

The abuser acts sorry and seems confused by his actions; generally the abuser starts to cry. The abuser promises to ‘never do it again’. The victim focuses on how loving her abuser can be. In relationships that do not have the ‘apology’ stage the victim is likely to leave their abuser sooner and is less likely to return to the relationship. Records show that there is a direct link between the apology stage and a victim’s willingness to stay in the relationship.

Occurrence of Domestic Violence

aˆ? Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year.

aˆ? Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.

aˆ? Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.

aˆ? Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 1999, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (671,110 total) and men accounted for 15 percent of the victims (120,100 total).

aˆ? The most rapid growth in domestic relations caseloads is occurring in domestic violence filings. Between 1993 and 1995, 18 of 32 states with three-year filing figures reported an increase of 20 percent or more.

Conclusion

It is clear from the facts collected that the solution to averting domestic violence is in education. It is particularly essential; to teach young people that violence is not an acceptable answer to any problem. We must bring domestic violence to the forefront of our society and not allow it to be a forbidden issue. We must definitely strengthen the value of each person in our society.

To help those already involved in violent relationships there must be more spotlights on the self-worth issues of the victim. Once a victim has confidence she is more likely to leave a violent relationship.

Economic programs must be prepared in a community in order to take away an abuser’s second biggest weapon- financial control. There is an enormous requirement for more ‘safe-houses’ in America. Domestic Violence Shelters provide a safe shelter for women and children to escape the violence.

Lastly we must teach our school children about domestic violence. They must be taught from an early age that violence is never allowable and give them the tools needed to identify domestic violence and how to get help if required.

It is understandable from all information that violence itself cannot be the subject of mediation and that mediation is not a substitute for counseling, education, and legal sanctions. This led to the clearest guideline, that no criminal cases involving domestic violence should be referred to mediation. The violent act or acts must be dealt with through the actual court procedure in order to highlight the gravity of the act and the fact that domestic violence, where proved, is indeed against the law.

Untouchability is the social practice of casting out a minority group by regarding them as “ritually polluted” and segregating them from the mainstream. The excluded group could be one that did not accept the norms of the excluding group and historically included foreigners, nomadic tribes, law-breakers and criminals. This exclusion was a method of punishing law-breakers and also protected against contagion from strangers. A member of the excluded group is known as an untouchable. The people who are said untouchable are from that section of society which is not only held in the lowest esteem, but which is behaved by the other castes as unclean. Who are found to be the sweepers, cleaner, and leather tanners are considered as unfit for human society or co-mingling. They are not permitted to take their water from the public wells.

The word caste was loosely used by the Portuguese to denote the Indian social classification as they thought that the system was intended to preserver purity of blood. The system is such a peculiar and complex thing that no satisfactory definition is possible. Hence we find no unanimity among scholars on the subject. Senart states that ‘a caste is a close corporation, exclusive and in theory at any rate rigorously hereditary. It is equipped with ascertain traditional and independent organization, including a chief and a council, meeting on occasion in assemblies endowed with less full authority.

According to sir H. Risley, ‘a caste may be defined as a collection of families or groups of families bearing a common name, claiming common descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine, professing to follow the same hereditary calling, and regarded by those who are competent to give opinion as forming a single homogeneous community .the name generally denotes or is associated with a specific occupation. A caste is almost invariably endogamous in the sense that a member of the large circle denoted by the common name may not marry outside that circle, but within the circle there are usually a number of smaller circles each which is also endogamous.’ The ‘untouchables’ have been referred to as Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. Local names for the ‘untouchables’ are in different parts of India and known by different names: Bhangi, Pakhi, Chandal, etc. Mahatma Gandhi called them Harijans, which means children of God. It is still in wide use especially in Gandhi’s home state of Gujarat. Harijans are now Dalits, which means broken people.

Historical background:

Hindu culture was made of four castes according to work of people. There are the brahmins, the highest or scholarly people, kshatriya, the caste of the ancient kings or warriors; the vaisya, the farmers and traders; and the sudras, laborers. The people, who come under the sudras caste, are treated with disdain, but not as outcasts. Today, the caste system is become more complicated and having many subdivisions, each forming a social organization whose function is to protect caste members. In Manu Smriti there is written that the first part of a Brahmin’s name should denote something auspicious, a Kshatriya’s name should be connected with power, and that a Vaishya’s name should reminds wealth. The first part of a Sudra’s name should express something contemptible and the second part should describe the service, because of the Sudra’s low origin. According to Hindu practice, only the upper castes are given right to study the Vedas. ‘If the Sudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the Veda, then his ears should be filled with molten lead and lac; if he utters the Veda, then his tongue should be cut off, if he has mastered the Veda his body should be cut to pieces’ says the Manu Smriti. In the epic Ramayana, after Lord Rama’s return from exile, a Brahmin accuses him of causing the death of his son by his toleration of Shambuka, a Sudra who recited the Vedas. In order to control the situation, Rama finds Shambuka and killed him. The Brahmin boy got life again. In Manu Smriti different punishments are given for the same ‘crime’, depending on the culprit’s caste. If this much punishments were for the Sudras, what was the treatment reserved for the ‘untouchables’ who were outside the caste system, and placed even lower than the Sudras in society. In the 1500s, during the rule of the Marathas and the Peshwas ‘untouchables’ were not allowed within the gates of the Poona between 3.00 pm and 9.00 am. The reason was that during this time their bodies were casting long shadows, with the reason that the shadow of an ‘untouchable’ might fall on a Brahmin and pollute him. An ‘untouchable’ used to carry an earthen pot around his neck so his spittle might not pollute the earth by the shadow. In Maharashtra an ‘untouchable’ wore a black thread either in his neck or on his wrist for ready identification of upper caste people, while in Gujarat a horn was being worn for identification. It must be remembered that Dalit does not mean Caste or low-Caste or poor; it refers to the deplorable state or condition to which a large group of people has been reduced by social convention and in which they are now living.

Protection under constitution:

India’s government and legal system when dealing with dalits or ‘untouchables’ is fraught with contradiction. This is evident in the disparities between upper and lower castes, in terms of economic and political power, and is a consequence of the States differential treatment of these sections. The Indian Constitution – the writing of which was chaired by the most powerful dalit advocate for dalit rights, Dr. Ambedkar embodies civil and legal rights providing for non-discrimination. However, secular legal and constitutional structures are contradictory to the prevalent ancient Hindu law: religious, social and economic practices that involve a discriminative hierarchy based on hereditary social status, occupation and ritual duties. Stratification of society benefits the upper classes as it secures positions of economic and social power, and allows the exploitation of the lower castes; Hindu beliefs and law sanction this. It is therefore not in their interest to remove discrimination by the implementation of the constitutional principles and laws in favors of the dalits. The Indian state hasn’t, to date, taken a serious approach to the betterment of the dalit situation because it is essentially aligned with the upper castes. The provision of reservations for government seats, employment and higher education has improved the living standard of some dalits, yet most remain in poverty. Reservations provide positive discrimination; ironically this also stereotypes dalits, resulting in their continual segregation in society. The state has not successfully provided due access to education, equitable employment, ownership of land and legal protection to break the cycle of caste based oppression. Dalit political parties and movements for the assertion of rights and self determination have been numerous and varied, but have been successfully quelled by the state and upper castes through the use of political power, violence, and police intimidation, all contrary to the constitution.

Hindus maintain the caste system because their religion requires them to do so, and caste is a characteristic of Brahmanism, the Brahmans being at the top of the system.1 Dalits, as they will be referred to here, are a sub caste of people at the bottom of the Hindu social and religious hierarchy called Varna Dharma; due to polluting nature of their occupations which include

handling dead animals, cleaning, and jobs to do with human excrement. They are forced to behave in de-humanizing ways such the eating of excrement. The interaction of the castes and

1 L.G. Havanur, Backward Classes, Judicial Meaning, Socio-legal Services and Research Centre, Bangalore, 1991, p.55

jatis, or endogamous sub divisions relating to occupation, is known as the jajmani system. Hindus have relied on this system to divide labour, social and commensally relations and ensure economic and social co-operation.2 On every level the dalits have been discriminated against, and subordinated into servitude.3 Ambedkar in his leadership role in the Indian constituent assembly sought to erase the oppressive caste system by raising dalit awareness and empowerment through provisions in the constitution. Article 15 and 17 prohibits the practice of untouchability and discrimination based on caste.4 In hindsight, these basic aims seem too lofty to be realized, given that dalits still remain disenfranchised in relation to the implementation of these articles. Forty years later, writing in 1994, Dr. B.D Sharma describes the Indian micro-universe as separated into the ‘first world,’ where people exercise their rights and have access to courts and police for protection under the law and ‘the other world’ where people do not.5 The first world comprises of only 15-20% of the population and the other world makes up the majority of ‘disinherited’ and exploited people.6 In addition, The Civil Rights Protection Act, 1955, intended to abolish disabilities associated with backward classes including dalits. While creating an atmosphere where the inequalities suffered by the dalits have been publicly condemned, the constitutional measures have been rendered ineffective as they are mostly ignored in practice.7 Dalits make up 77% of agricultural labour which is classified as unskilled and unorganised. In the urban setting, they are labourers in construction, scavengers and sanitation workers, also falling into the unorganized category. Wages in the organized sector are regulated by the State so that they rise with increased prices, and are adequate enough for one wage earner to sustain a family. Labourers bear the brunt of the disparity between organized and unorganized sections. Violations of minimum wage, set very low in the first place, and payment in kind are common, and go unchecked.8 Consequently, one wage cannot support a family and children and the elderly are forced to work, children don’t go to school and are trapped by poverty.9 The State allows illegal labour practices because exploitation results in economic benefits for landowners and employers who are mostly upper caste, if it should interfere, more

2 Sumit Ganguly & Neil DeVotta eds, Understanding Contemporary India, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, London, 2003, p.233 -234

3 Robert.W.Stern, Changing India, 2nd edit, Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 2003. p.60-61

4 Sumit Ganguly & Neil DeVotta eds, Understanding Contemporary India, p.243

5 Dr. B.D. Sharma, Dalits Betrayed, Har-Anand Publications, New Delhi, 1994, p.13

6 Ibid. 7Robert.W.Stern, Changing India, 2nd edit, p. 242

8 Prem.K.Shinde ed, Dalits and Human Rights, volume 1, (Dalits and Racial Justice) Isha Books, Delhi, p.84

9 Dr. B.D. Sharma, Dalits Betrayed, p.47

dalits may be able to enter the organised sector, and thus this exploitable labour resource would be drained. Although this massive failure of participation in the organised economy could be corrected by affirmative action policies, these have also been insufficient.

Article 330 and 332 of the constitution call for affirmative action in the form of special reservations in government representation, government employment and higher education,

intended to raise the dalit position in society. Reserved seats are allocated in the Lok Sabha, and the legislative assemblies of the states, effectively giving dalits representation.

The scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (The Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 was designed to better punish offences such as injury or harassment directed at dalits. In addition, Article 14 of the constitution states that no citizen be denied equality before the law. Ghandi believed that the superior/inferior relations between dalits and upper castes could not be remedied by the state, but needed to be addressed by the upper castes themselves who were responsible for the system.10

10 Lelah Dushkin, Scheduled Caste Policy in India, p.632

Untoucability, A social Evil:

Untouchability is basically not from India. It was practiced in parts of Europe until a few centuries ago, and Japan still has a large number of “Untouchables”, called the ‘Burakumin’. But it is in the Indian Sub-continent that this system survives, closely bound with culture, religion, history and politics. Today over 170 million people in India are considered Untouchable, and their development has been slow despite the Legal safeguards and the Government programs. According to the ‘Manu Smriti’ there are four castes in Hindu society and each caste has assigned duties, responsibilities and privileges. The Brahmins are the learned, the Kshatriyas are the warriors, the Vaishyas are the traders, and the Sudras perform menial tasks and physical labour, and are considered as the lowest. And only uppers castes have the right to study the Vedas. The upper castes alone have the right to the thread ceremony which is performed as a rite of passage, allowing them to be termed twice-born.

What is a Dharma?

A study reveals that “he who has the knowledge of Brahmagnan is called the Brahmana”, and not by caste or not by the birth. Each one of us is an untouchable, because who among us is free from disobedience to Nature’s laws, from impurity of heart and mind, from fears of a thousand kinds, from selfishness and greed. Let us remove the untouchability in us. Anyone is not perfect, but through right dharma, by eliminating our differences and by strengthening our virtues, we move towards perfection. Let us develop the virtue of efficiency and skill to become Shudras; the virtue of charity and become Vaishyas; the courage and become Kshatriyas; the sacrifice and become Brahman, and make ourselves in the copy of the Great Purusha, the Radiant.

According to the “Bhagwadgeetha” or “The Bible” or any other, written, or said, is the same, that all humans are equal. The Air we breathe, the Water we drink, the Fire, the Sky, the Earth are same. These days Indian students and citizens are being attacked in some countries, and we are discussing and talking about the “RACISM” and craving for justice. We should condemn these at any cost, but it would be fair if we stop those things in here.

What is Untouchability?

Untouchability in India is a practice where a particular community considers even touching another community person as polluting one. A person who touches the untouchables is usually made to undergo cleansing process, like bathing, or spraying of water, depending on the regional practice.

Who practices untouchability?

There is an intense propaganda that untouchability is practiced by higher caste people over lower caste people. But that is no right. Untouchability is practiced by almost all castes, right from brahmin caste to the dalit caste. Even the dalit castes practice untouchability over others. One dalit caste will not even drink water from another dalit caste.

Does Untouchability mean segregation?

Segregation in western sense, means, classification and isolating a certain groups of people, for varied reasons. Segregation is mostly associated with authority based society like the western one. Normally, the criminals, rebels, and other anti-social elements only are segregated from the mainstream society, and deported to far off lands or put in jail. This is what happened in the western societies.

In general, segregation means, separation of different groups of people from one another, and no relationship exists among these groups. For example, in Europe, the protestants and the catholics are segregated, and there is no healthy relationship b/w them, except for that both worship jesus. Similarly, shias and sunnis are segregated people, without any interdependence. But, untouchability does not mean segregating. Because, untouchability was mutually practiced by all groups. In caste system, even though people practiced untouchability, the different castes are interdependent on one another, thus always having some kind of interaction and relationship.

Does Untouchability mean isolation?

Definitely not, there may be segregation of houses of castes in some villages. But there is never isolation in any villages. Almost all castes interact with each other, because, all castes depend on one another for some needs. The level of interaction differs from caste to caste. For example, the dalits will strictly not mingle with other dalit caste, eg. Sakkiliars will never drink water from parayars. But, they will get food and water from the dominant caste of that region. Similarly, the dominant castes like chettiyars, devars, nayakkars, etc may have interactions on equal footing. But still, they do not mingle with one another.

There are few communities, who have to closely interact with one another. Particularly in kongu region, the naavithars, vannan community, kosavar community, etc have close interaction with the dominant gounder community. The naavithars (barbers) usually conduct most of the rituals, right from birth to death in the gounder’s family. It is they who used to sing mangazha vaazhthu during gounder’s marriage.

Why does a caste practice untouchability?

There is no definite answer to this, as the reason may vary from place to place. But based on my understanding, untouchability is practices because of extreme cultural contradictions. Let me list out the possible reasons for untouchability, as i perceive.

Life style: We all know India is a land of cultural diversity, and that the life style of one community largely differs from others. For eg, a brahmin community follows strict hygiene, and are strict vegetarians. On the other hand, the farmers and farm laborer castes usually work in fields; do not have hygienic life practices. The dalit community works on cow skins, which is a sin to brahmin community. So it’s natural that the brahmins could not mingle with other castes.

Commune Living: Most of the castes live a strong commune life, with a common profession. So, the life styles of all the community members are aligned towards that lifestyle. And there are strong inter dependencies among the community member. In such commune living, people used to live as large families, with common interest. In such cases, when a member of the family or community, elopes with the other community girl or boy, it creates a confusion in the large family. The incoming girl/boy may not adapt to the family life style, and may not adapt to the community profession. For example, a brahmin girl will not be able to work in fields if she marries a farmer. Or a farming girl may not be able to work in leather products if she marries a dalit. So, the society has evolved itself to an inbuilt arrangement, not to mingle with each other.

Prisoners of war: On those days (before Muslim invasion), when a king was defeated in a war, he captures the prisoners of war, and deports to his kingdom to work as laborers or current empire may be ruled by the enemy for few years, and recaptured by the original king. In such case, the people settled there by the former temporary ruler, may lose their status, and become laborers. In such cases, the victorious king may take steps to suppress the settled external people, so that they don’t again attempt to overthrow him.

Religious Differences: I need not mention about Hindu Muslim differences. That is entirely a different subject. However, there are many sub sects within Hinduism, which had opposed each other. Particularly the influence of Buddhism had profound impact on suppressing those people who work on leather products, as Buddhist believed in ahimsa. The vegetarian character of India is believed to have acquired during Buddhist rule. Also, since anyone who left the caste is usually abandoned by the community, those who had converted to Buddhism might have been left out after Buddhism waned way. Today, for many of the dalit people, their kula deivam is Vishnu.

Cultural Differences: Apart from life style, the cultural values of the castes also an important reason for untouchability. For example, the ruling castes had stricter cultural values, which they have followed for generations. For example, widow remarriage is not allowed in dominant castes. But it’s normal in dalit castes. The widow in dominant caste often follows sati, whereas it is not required in the dalit castes.

Lineages: The common culture and profession resulted in a common lineage over centuries, which evolved the respective castes in to distinctive identities, which had made them not to mingle with others.

Exceptions from Untouchability:

The saints and rishis are mostly exempted from untouchability. It means, almost all communities welcomed rishis and saints, and the saints also embraced all communities. Also, the saints are placed outside the caste system, as they have raised one level above in their life, towards the god. Most of the kings never practiced untouchability, and they were mostly secular. Moreover, they did not have the situation or the time to do that. Good and Bad in this world are highly relative term rather than a universally defined one. In the society of barbarians, murderers and rapists, a thief could be the best person among others. However, in a society of saints and nobles, the same thief would be the worst person. Thus when we are judging anything as good/bad, we need to consider the environment and prevailing situation.

There was heavy propaganda of dalit oppression and suppression by the Marxists, for around a century here. But even assuming their propaganda to be true, let’s see how the dalit people were treated here. The dalits lived in a separate colony in the same village. The dalits are not slaves. They were mere laborers to the land owners. They have the right to move to other village, if they feel, the current village is discriminatory or not able to live in. A typical dalit community is allowed to have their own commune life, simply because, untouchability prevented the dominant caste from abusing or exploiting them. The dalits had their own temple, their own festivals.

The dalits had similar type of caste structure, with gothrams and kula deivams. A dalit married from a different gothram of his caste from another village. These ensured that the dalit people also had relations among multiple villages and have their own social structure to follow with. Since the dalit people were allowed to live as a community, their women had the inherent protection from exploitation. In the case of American slave system each African women is an individual slave, which the owner can do whatever he want. Other slaves cannot come to rescue if the owner rapes the slave women. However, in our caste system, the women were part of the dalit community, and they could not be exploited. Also, since the dominant caste practiced untouchability over the dalits, their youths refrained from mingling with dalit girls; as such an act would excommunication from his caste. It is same for the dalit people too.

The dalit people had their own panchayat for issue resolution. This is the highest point of freedom that any community might have. The elders in the dalit caste usually try to solve the problem. If that fails, they take the case to the village panchayat head.

To quote a recent history of India, the entire Kashmir valley had been ethnically cleansed of Hindus, just because the Muslims could not tolerate the presence of Hindus. So when they became majority they persecuted the Hindus. However, it has to be noted that the Hindus, even though invaded by Muslims were able to tolerate them for thousands of years, by simply practicing untouchability. There are many other instances in the history where I find that untouchability would have prevented genocides, persecution and other horrors of the history. Comparing those incidents with our caste system, we find that untouchability is a practical system evolved as a solution to peaceful existence of conflicting communities.

We all know that the urban people are classified as higher class, middle class and lower class. But it’s a fact that these class peoples mostly lived isolated from others. For example, the higher class people live in posh areas, with neat roads, electricity water facility and spacious homes, public parks etc. The middle class usually lives in comfortable homes, but in congested areas. The lower class people often were the slum dwellers who live in unhygienic and horrific conditions.

Let me ask the following questions:

How many upper class people live along with slum dwellers? Suppose a slum dweller roams in front of a posh bungalow, what will the security of the bungalow will do? We often find that the rich people drive away the slum people through their securities. How many of the higher class people allow their children to play with middle class people? How many of the middle class people allow their children to play with the slum boys & girls?

In villages, even though castes follow untouchability, each caste knows the members of the other caste. When the dalit caste had any needs, they always approach the dominant caste. The dominant caste provides food to the dalit people, when they come to the home. The dalit women often share their problems with the dominant caste women and seek solution. Thus there is a mutually supporting life in villages, inspire of untouchability. Let me ask, how many people in rich posh areas, know the people of the nearby slum. Or how many rich people help the slum people in needy times? Let’s take the case of gang wars in colleges. Students belonging to one group won’t interact with the other. It’s the norm in many colleges. It’s natural because, when there are differences, people chose to live away.

The following paper includes research of Social mobility within social classes and how this has affected my family. This is a controversial issue whether socioeconomic inheritance or the class one is born into plays a role to the social mobility of the individual in one direction or another. I will give examples of my family’s social mobility for the past four generations. Some may argue that starting off at a lower social class can restrict one from social mobility. From this perspective, it is thought that not having access to education or many opportunities for success make it much harder to get out from under a life of always working from paycheck to paycheck. On the other hand, others argue that we all have the same opportunity to advance our social status and move up or down the class structure within generations. The textbook spells out several different philosophies in regards to social class. Karl Marx believed that social class was created by a person’s relationship with labor. Marx separated people into those who own the means of production, and those who sell their labor (Henslin 188). Another concept the textbooks talks about was established by Joseph Kahl and Dennis Gilbert, and they based their opinions on Max Weber. Weber alleged social class is a large collection of individuals who are categorized carefully to each other in property, power and prestige (Henslin 202). Kahl and Gilbert added to this notion to include a person’s education or lack thereof. Kahl and Gilbert state that today the quality of education that an individual receives also denotes the capabilities a person may possess. Kahl and Gilbert created a class social structure that contained of capitalist, upper middle class, lower middle class, working class, working poor and underclass. The higher one is in social class the greater their property or income is, along with prestige of the university they attended and the power they hold in their occupation. After analyzing the two different ideas of social class structure, I believe the most adequate structure is the social class structure of Kahl and Gilbert. Their structure allows for more wisdom and inconsistency in social class as well as superior means for explaining the difference of classes.

My family’s story

My analysis of my family’s social mobility starts with my mother’s grandparents. Prior to the great depression they were that of upper middle class and would have been considered very well off. They had several farms a very large house with servants and over 1000 acres. My grandfather’s part within the family of 8 was to work on the farms with his older brother getting a management role and other siblings going to college and waiting to be married. My grandfather was a very hard worker and fell into the role to handle the farms and such even though he was from the same class as the rest of the family he was seen as lower because of his younger age and hardworking mentality. Much of the family looked down on him for getting his hands dirty. His father did not allow him to continue school and he dropped to work the farms in the 8th grade. His older brother and father handled the money and management of the farms operations until the Great Depression occurred in the late ’20s. After a fire which resulted in them losing several animals, a house and barn as well as other circumstances from the depression they ended up losing it all. My grandfather ended up renting a farm being a time of the dust bowl he was unable to raise sufficient crops so he began buying horses and cattle that were in poor health for very little. He would clean them up train the horses and sell them back months later for a large profit. He did this several time until he eventually saved enough to buy back the family farm where he began to milk cows and cash crops as the land was much better. My grandmother came from a very low social class but did get to go to college as her oldest sister and her husband made it possible by paying for all of their siblings to go to college as well as they both became professors and continued to live very frugal lives never having children and having a very giving life. My Grandmother graduated college at 16 and soon met my Grandfather they had 5 children with my mother being the youngest. My grandmother started teaching soon after the children were out of diapers. A very large age gap made it so that my mother was still young when the oldest brother joined the navy during WWII. A few years later my mother’s other siblings went off to college as the economy recovered as a result of the war. My mother and father started dating while my mother was 16 and they married soon after meeting and had my oldest sister at age 17. They moved into a small house just down the road from my grandparent’s farm and had three more children. Eventually my father built us a house on the family land that my grandmother gave them. My father is a very hardworking man and worked as a farmhand then a machinist and a carpenter until an accident in 1975 that left him disabled and unable to work. This along with a recession in the 1980s hurt my parents financially. After struggling to make things work they divorced in 1981. My mother, brother and I moved to an apartment in Madison. My sisters moved out by themselves or with boyfriends and got working class jobs as my parents did not have the means to help pay for college. Our income, status and social class level dropped to the poverty level. Living in a single parent household led by the mother we experienced the Feminization of Poverty (Henslin, p. 206). My father was on disability with very little means to even care for himself let along his children. My mother took on several jobs but with no education it never seemed to be enough. I started working to pay for food and such and help out with clothes and such. I was washing dishes and odd jobs mowing lawns. On my fifteenth birthday I decided to move out on my own. My mother had met someone and they were getting married. He had moved in and I did not get along with him or my mother very well. I tried to do well in school but trying to make rent made that a difficult task. I did try and go to college but never having enough money for rent or food made that impossible. I eventually dropped out of school and took on construction jobs. I guess I inherited some of those skills from my father and I am not afraid of hard work so I focused on that. I did well in construction and eventually married and had two children. During the 2000 construction boom I flipped several houses and built myself a very nice house. I had moved my family back up to middle class life. After my children were born my wife struggled with depression and eventually it got so bad that we decided to separate and were divorced in 2002. I had decided I would not make my children go through what I went through with my parents’ divorce so I decided to give it all to them and my ex-wife so we would not have to sell the house and make them possible change schools. I had paid down the mortgage to around 100,000 on a house that is worth well over 500,000. I took all other bills credit cards and car payments. I felt with my skills that I would be able to rebuild my life and they would be taken care of. Then a recession hit slow at first with construction getting slower and slower and eventually in 2008 the economy got really bad. It has been hard to turn around and the recession could not have hit a worse time. I have actually moved several times in the past years downgrading to a lesser quality home and car to save money. With very little work and the economy slow to recover I decided to apply to go to school. This is my second semester at Madison College and I am doing well. I am on the dean’s list with a current 3.9 GPA. Being the only one of my siblings going to college it is important that I finish. I am hopeful that the US economy turns around and I can find a decent job or get my business back making money. The problem is that I am now somewhat stuck not making enough to borrow money to buy my way out and with no college education to get a great paying job while the construction market is saturated and not coming back very fast. Having circumstances affecting each generation has had an impact on the social mobility of my family in a negative way starting with the great depression and continuing with the current recession. I feel that education is a key factor for social mobility. In the past younger siblings lost out on getting to go to college and getting to take over families businesses with the oldest male child usually taking over.

My view

My own view is that while there is a real disadvantage with education and opportunity advantages it is still possible to move up or down within social class that we were born into but for some it is very hard if not impossible. Though I concede that this may be a hard thing to overcome and defiantly harder for the lower class than within the middle or upper class. I still maintain that good work ethic and faith can increase the success of social mobility. For example my grandfather took an approach to find new innovative ways to make money and save for the right opportunity to come and then follow through. Although some might object that upper middle class and upper class should not have to pay for those born into lower class. I would reply that it is our social responsibility to give everyone an education and increase the opportunity for success for each and every individual within the United States. The issue is important because of how we are evolving humanity and making everyone so they can contribute to their potential is better for all. The alternative is that many will go on welfare or break laws and end up in prison as they have no way out of the life they were born into. This cost is much higher than the cost an education would be.

Family disruption or economic loss

The experience of family disruption during childhood substantially increases the odds of ending up in the lowest occupational stratum as opposed to the stable families having a better chance to be in a high class. Family disruption also weakens the association between dimensions of occupational origins and destinations. The socioeconomic destinations from nonimpact family backgrounds bear less resemblance to their socioeconomic origins that those from intact backgrounds. Those from traditional two-parent homes exhibit a stronger pattern of intergenerational occupational inheritance than those from disrupted families. Upward income mobility has decreased to such a point that the United States appears to have the highest rate of income inequality in the industrialized world, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. Longstanding partisan battles in Congress about policy issues such as instituting a more progressive tax code, the tax treatment of capital gains and inheritance, and the expansion of social welfare benefits like food stamps and healthcare in recent years have not ended very well for the nation’s poor. “Empirical analyses estimate the United States is a comparatively immobile society, that is, where on starts in the income distribution influences where one ends up to a greater degree than in several advanced economies” (Cite). Reports suggest the U.S. is no longer, if it ever was a nation where the poorest can feasibly lift themselves up by their bootstraps. If income were equally distributed, each fifth household would account for 20 percent of total income. The poorest of these has long since accounted for far less than its proportionate share, barely budging from about 4 percent in recent decades, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (Cite). Meanwhile, since 1968 the middle class has seen its total income share decrease steadily, while those among the top-fifth of earners – particularly the top 5 percent – have seen their incomes skyrocket. For instance, the top 5 percent held 22.3 percent of the nation’s wealth in 2011, up from 16.3 percent four decades earlier. The advantages offered by an affluent lifestyle clearly influence an individual’s chances for economic mobility, the CRS reports. According to an analysis of empirical data, the study authors estimate there is a positive relationship of about 0.5 between a parent and adult income. Children of parents with above-average salaries are more likely, on average, to also bring in high incomes. Half the economic advantage the children of well-off families enjoy comes from having been born into wealthy families in the first place. On top of that, the chances of adults moving up from their initial income economic position has decreased or remained stagnant in recent decades, which is of particular concern since most Americans still believe economic mobility in the U.S. is completely within their reach. “Americans may be less concerned about inequality in the distribution of income at any given point in time partly because of a belief that everyone has an equal opportunity to move up the income ladder. Different types of family structures experienced during childhood have varying effects on socioeconomic attainment and social mobility. Those within the middle class will, statistically, experience some economic mobility. According to a study by the Pew Economic Mobility Project, 43 percent of children whose parents were born in the bottom one fifth remained at the bottom when they became adults. In contrast, 40 percent of children born to parents at the top one fifth were also at the top as adults. The study compared intergenerational mobility rates between 1984 to 1994 and 1994 to 2004.

Conclusion

The topics of particular importance in contemporary sociology seem to be the inequality of educational opportunity and mechanisms of social mobility or immobility. Also the effects of the household’s saving behavior and the implication of this behavior for the distribution of wealth and the relationship between the extent of free enterprise and opportunity in the economy and socioeconomic mobility, that is, the movement of families across wealth classes over time. Some studies suggest that as technology advances, lower income workers do not have the skills or educational requirements to keep up with changing labor needs. The demand for highly skilled workers trained in engineering or information technology has elevated, while the need for lower skilled and middle skilled workers has diminished which is one of the casualties of globalization. The philosophical battle over how to achieve economic growth and social mobility has escalated to a point that conservatives have resisted attempts to direct more investments in programs such as early childhood education and college tuition aid. The battle continues as Democrats are pushing for more investments in social safety net programs while Republicans are calling for a self-reliant approach. Education gap creates more inequality and arguably promote equality in the opportunity to move up the income ladder, which an increasingly unequal distribution of income may suggest a lack of and which may itself curb the potential productive capacity of the economy an education gap is one of the main reasons commonly offered to explain the nation’s widening income inequality. Although many still firmly believe, and constantly argue, that Americans have an equal opportunity to move up the economic ladder, the researchers conclude that opportunity is far from “equal.”

One important basic aspect in society is the institution of family, and the comprehensive roles performed by it makes it a much needed institution in society. Family is important in a society, important functions that are achieved by family include, procreation of children and teaching them social values with providing them with emotional and physical care. In fact, family is an institution which solves or reduces a number of problems in the social spectrum.

Family has been characterized by a number of sociologists and anthropologists. Society characterizes family as a social group bound by a common house, financial co-operation and rearing of children. Family consist of two married adults, one of both sexes, who engage in a socially supported sexual relationship and one or more children Adults who are not married and living together and are sexually involved, this type of household is considered to be the living arrangement of a family unit.

The connection and affection or responsibility leads to cooperative decision making, from family budgets to assemble cooperative work roles and parenting within a structure of ethnically accepted planning about the division of rights and responsibilities not only by sex but the hierarchy of generational position (UN, 1996).

Family institutions are cast into two groups by the sociologists. The nuclear family is one group, which consists of two adults and their children, often referenced as the immediate family. The second group is the extended family consisting of an older style family system which has close relationships of two or three and possibly four generations of relatives, such as grand parents, daughters, sons, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews and their husbands and wives (Bilton et. al., 1996; Giddens, 1993).

Taking into account the extent of family household, two equally elite classes can be seen, specifically the family of orientation and the family of procreation. A child born into a family is categorized as the family of orientation. The family of procreation is raised by the adult individual who conceives a family as they become adults. Sociologists categorize family systems by habitation of the couple who create the family unit. For instance, if a bride and her new husband move into her parentaˆ™s house or with the same area as her family, this arrangement of family is known as a matri-local family, while the opposite of this representation is recognized as the patri-local family (Giddens, 1993).

With the large scale migration from rural to urban areas created an accelerated abundance of nuclear families, mainly among young adults who left the isolated villages and their extended family systems, in search of employment in inner-city areas, thus obscuring their memory of the function of the extended family. With easier employment mobility of younger generations and the fading of the extended family system new social problems and disorders were rising and giving way for long term human population repercussions, such as dilapidated fertility, This is recorded and confirmed by low child birth proportion in inner-city areas and the increased age at which couples of both sexes were getting married giving way to the nuclear families structure and functions. Families are becoming less extended and becoming more isolated meaning that the nuclear family and the bond between a husband and his wife becomes more equal, with both partners working and distributing the household tasks. This type of family is characterized as the symmetrical family (Marsh, et al., 1996)

Social changes bring new trends that ultimately affect families with a mainstream of adapting to new situations and social values. With the increased contribution of women in the work force proved to be an effective, functional and structural change in the family institution.

New models of marriages were emerging replacing the pre- arranged marriages, mostly on the part of younger generations ignoring the blessing of the procreated family for the sexual promiscuous of the times, marriage and divorce increased in most countries, particularly in the Western World. Children born out of wedlock became an ordinary occurrence.

Living together without being legally married became popular among the younger age groups, believing this kind of sexual behavior was a pre-marriage experiment. This type of living arrangement was common in Western European countries, including Asian countries as well (De Silva, 1998). This living arrangement had a strong impending change in the attitudes of young adults, who experienced the changes and experimented with the changes, creating an outline of delayed marriages resulting in a birth rate decline or to delay child birth until they have their careers well established (De Silva, 1998).

With the availability of different contraceptive methods preventing pregnancies the amount of children in families decreases, the ratio of older family memberaˆ™s increases. Family members will endure various changes, placing a burden on society in the form of need for a social welfare system for the older generations, and thus the need for more financial resources. The family as a social institution bestows a lifetime of emotional, social, economic and health support for each member.

The highly controversial model of the ‘sick role’, developed by American functionalist Talcott Parsons (1902-79) is a proposed concept of sickness that focused on sociological properties rather than medical, and is one that indubitably concerned medical sociology. (Twaddle, 1977: p. 116). Parsons was specifically concerned with the social control of deviant behaviour, arguing that the sick role is learned through primary socialisation processes and that people could voluntarily decide to be sick, deviantly adopting the sick role to be excused from their responsibilities of social life. (White, K. 2002: p. 112). While Parsons’ perspective on medicine was more favourable than the Marxist, he viewed the social importance of the sick role as performing a social function beyond the treatment of disease, and observed how the medical profession acts to control deviance and provides an account of illness as a response to social strain. (White, K. 2002: p. 8). Although Parsons’ concept is one of the most influential in medical sociology it has considerable criticism and debate, accordingly with Parsons assuming recovery is always possible the model is limited with a conditional set of privileges that do not accommodate a range of conditions, including chronic or incurable diseases.

Parsons’ defined the ‘sick role’ as – a sick person who adopts certain patterns of behaviour in order to minimise the impact of their illness. (Giddens 2001: p. 159). Through his concept, Parsons describes the social expectations of how sick people are expected to act and how they are meant to be treated. (Germov, 2007: p. 48). He believed only the legitimately sick had the right to enter into the sick role, and in the case of illness there needed to be socially prescribed roles for both the sick and the medical profession. (Morgan, M. 1993: p.45). According to Parsons (1951: pp. 428-79) there are four key aspects to the sick role: the sick person is not responsible for their condition, they are exempt from their normal social obligations for the duration of their illness, they must try to recover from the illness and they must seek help and cooperate with a legitimate health practitioner. The sick role derives certain expectations that represent the norms appropriate to being sick, with its primary function to control the disruptive effect of illness in society by ensuring that those who do become ill are returned to a state of health as quickly as possible. (Morgan, M. 1993: p.47).

Through his alternative analysis of medicine, Parsons argued that even though modern societies have a capitalist economy they have non capitalist social structures, with the medical profession being one such structure. He observed medical practitioners performing non economic functions by caring for the community as a whole, treating individuals specifically for disease. This is in contrast to Marxists view that medicine in a capitalist society reflects the characteristics of capitalism as being profit oriented and blaming the victim for their condition. (White, K. 2002: p. 8). Medical practitioners are credited by their patients as having authority to enable them to enter into the sick role by diagnosing disease, prescribing medicine and granting absence from the workforce. According to Parsons, to prevent the formation of deviance in modern societies the sick person although not responsible for their condition, is expected to seek professional advice, have obligations placed upon them to cooperate in medical instruction, and to follow treatment in order to regain health.

Parsons sociology of health focused on the manifest functions of the sick role in contributing to the social stability and health of society. (Morgan, M. 1993: p.47). Parsons argued that sickness is a special form of deviant behaviour separate from other forms such as crime. He identified that sickness can threaten the stability of a healthy society, believing that the efficient functioning of the social system depends on the sick being managed and controlled. (Bilton, 2002: p. 359). In view of this, Parsons (1951) identified for the patient two rights – to be exempt from normal social roles and responsibility for their own state; and explained two obligations – to want to get well quickly and to consult expert medical opinion. Yet Parsons’ view of illness as deviance (Twaddle, 1977: p. 117) fails to address the lay person’s role in the process of their illness, as patient autonomy varies; children, for example are more likely to be passive recipients of medical help than adults. (Van Krieken, 2006: p. 359). A number of other weaknesses have been exposed in Parsons sick role model, accordingly, the model does not account for differences in gender, sexuality, other cultures, race or class, mental or chronic illnesses, alcoholism, the aged or even pregnancy.

American Professor Eliot Freidson (1923-2005) had a theory comparable with Parsons’ model, he reformulated the Parsonian framework and developed the Labelling approach, a theory that involves a distinction between two types of deviance – primary and secondary deviance. Although Freidson criticised the Parsonian model, he offered a viable alternative, believing deviant behaviour to be a socially created label with legitimacy the key to distinguishing between Parsons’ sick roles. Freidson identified three legitimacies of illness: Conditional legitimacy, deviants temporarily exempt from their normal obligations, gaining some privileges that enable them to return to a normal role; Unconditional legitimacy, where deviants are permanently exempt from their obligations and allowed additional privileges in view of illness that is believed to be incurable; And Illegitimacy, deviants to be exempt from some normal obligations, with the person not held responsible for their condition, and gaining few privileges. (Morgan, M. 1993: p.53) Friedson’s analysis overcomes some of the limits within Parsons’ approach to the sick role, acknowledging that reactions to illness and the expectations of the sick person may vary between different groups in society according to the nature of the condition. (Morgan, M. 1993: p.55)

Parsons notion of the sick role has been extremely influential, clearly revealing how the sick person is an integral part of a larger social context. Although his concept of the sick role has been highly criticised, and the existing research evidence offers little support for the formulation, it is important to realise that it was in many ways a brilliant example of sociological insight which offered a starting point for a number of the ongoing empirical inquiries of medical sociology. (Van Krieken, 2006: p. 359). Dimensions of the Parsonian sick role model are relative to the nature and severity of the illness, it is affected by the nature of the illness, social, cultural and personal factors (Seagull, 1976: p. 165). However further research is still required to unravel the exact nature of this relationship and to specify precisely the modifications necessary to allow this general conceptual model to be meaningfully applied to the study of specific mental and physical conditions, ranging from chronic illness, alcoholism and to pregnancy. (Seagull, 1976: p. 165). The increasing emphasis on lifestyle and health in our modern age means that individuals are seen as bearing ever greater responsibility for their own well-being, even if that means contradicting the first premise of the sick role – individuals are not to blame for their illness. (Giddens, 2009: p.405).

Over the past years the headlines of newspapers have read everything from ‘Neighbour says Nia ‘chucked’ on line’ (NZHerald: 2008) to just this month ”very violent’ brain injury killed baby’ (NZHerald: 2011). In New Zealand on average one child is killed every 5 weeks due to Child Abuse. This figure should not come as a surprise; as over the past decade stories of fatal child abuse cases have been frequently covered in the news (Child matters: 2011).

Norms are a ‘social fact’ (Durkheim: 1982). These are the words from the famous French sociologist Emile Durkheim. He went on to explain that we are born into a pre-existing order, with rules and norms that have already been premade and set. And that if we want to live in this society we are born into, we must learn to abide by these ‘pre-determined sanctions’ (Durkheim: 1982/1895, p56-57). These already set norms include those associated with the issue of child abuse. We don’t have to think twice when reading horrendous articles in the newspaper of children being put in clothes dryers and severely beaten. We already know that it is morally wrong. Although in different cultures around the world different types of ‘abuse’ may be seen as a form of, what they see as normal ‘punishment’. These ‘social facts’ still exist around us. They were there before we were born and will still remain weather we choose to agree or disagree with them; most of which have consequences if you do chose to ‘stray’ from them.

This brings us Sharyn Roach Anleu’s 5 key questions surrounding norms; 1) whose norms? , in the case of child abuse it is our society/country of New Zealand’s norms. The norm is that it is not right to abuse children, or anyone. It is seen as a bad thing and as a country I am sure that there will not be many people who would say that it is ok to abuse. 2) How do some norms become official or legal? Harming a child is wrong and when hearing about these inhumane acts of violence against children we may be urged to do something about it, but if we are being real with ourselves, on our own; without economic or political power it would be difficult to put forth and solidify our beliefs into laws. Although with this issue there are many people with power who share the beliefs of our society. Such as Green MP Sue Bradford’s; the anti smacking law was passed in 2007(NZ Herald: 2007). Since she had political power, with the support of the community the bill was passed. Three years have passed and a new law will be passed that will see those people who turn a blind eye to child abuse prosecuted (DominionPost: 2011). This will be a positive thing as many cases of child abuse drag on for months as the people involved; who could have very well saved the Childs life have been to afraid or not bothered to report the abuse happening. Why are some norms more important than others? Does visibility make a difference? And can there be deviance without breaking social norms?

As said in the book straying from these social norms can lead to deviance over a period of time. The example given is that of a soft drug user over time leads to hard drug use. This approach can be put into context with child abuse. Child abuse may be as obvious as bruises or as subtle as a parent neglecting their child. There can never be a good reason for child abuse to occur; but there definitely is a reason behind it .The straying could be the perpetrator; an adult – being a parent, relative or friend showing their anger, due to various causes (e.g. stress in the home, work etc) through minor outburst such as yelling at the child or accidentally slapping them over time letting it get out of control and making it a regular occurrence of more severe abuse.

Interactionist theory of deviance argues that deviant behaviour is learned. As is other behaviours. Just as deviance is socially constructed; Child abuse is considered as sociological fact as it is not an innate behavioral pattern for human beings to follow. It is mostly a learned behavior usually from interactions with the parents of the abusers. Sociology is the study of society, or to be more precise it is about group interactions within society. We are all part of groups such as school, cultural ethnic groups. One of the first groups that we interact with is with our families. This is where we learn much of what influences us as adults, and if abuse is what is learned as a child, it is most likely to be performed when the abused children grow up.The oxford dictionary of Sociology defines Child abuse as referring to:

The maltreatment or injury of a child by an adult or adults. Such abuse can be physical, emotional, sexual, or a combination of all three. It might be perpetrated by one person or by several, within a family or outside it, and in public or in private. (Oxford: 2011)

Over the years what may have been seen as an act of firm punishment is now; being discovered as a form of deviance. In the chapter Straying: Deviance in Being Sociological, Michael Lloyd makes it clear that norms are a key attribute when defining Deviance.

‘The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label’ (Becker, 1963, p9).Behaviors that are considered deviant are highly biased.Crime/deviance is defined by those in power. In context in the Kahui child abuse case where the father of the twins was wrongly accused for months over the killing of his twin babies. A stigma was formed which led people to think badly of him. And because of this label it seemed to the public that he was the abuser and that he had done it. Instead of him fighting for his right, because so many people were already against him due to this label, there was nothing he could do about it as a majority of people would not believe him. Until it was found that it was actually the baby’s mother who was the abuser then was this stigma lifted, and peoples view towards him changed. The damage would have still been there today and will take a while for him to socially construct himself again. Another form of social construction can be seen in Georges Canguilhem’s analysis of normality.

Ian Hackings looping effect links on to the labelling theory as stated in his example ‘person A does not want to be person H. ‘ if others think of a person as someone they are not(false accusation, stereotyping) That person will change their behaviours because they are aware of what others are saying about them. For example the deviant; the person doing the child abuse. Or the abuser that becomes out of the child that has been abused, may because of the stereotype of there being previous abuse in their household they may or may not want to live up to that labelling .But because of what others are saying they will get treated like the deviant whether they like it or not creating a looping effect. Harold Garfinkel’s documentary of identification method revealed that the jury he was studying the jurors came up with the outcome then filled in the reasons. These theories show that deviants are socially constructed through social interactions; the way people are treated influence how they act. And without deviance ‘there would be no social change’ (Lloyd: 2007)

The author’s main purpose to introduce the complexity of the relationship between straying and how over time can lead to deviance was supported by including the viewpoints, theories and ideas of different people. Lloyd did not make many assumptions apart from assuming that the reader knew the meaning of ‘straying’; saying that it ‘is a term used in everyday talk so we can do without a definition'(Lloyd,2007,p317-318). Through this text Michael Lloyd could be seen as being biased towards deviance being a ‘social fact’ in society. He addresses the five questions surrounding norms which Sharyn Roach Anleu summarised following Emile Durkheim’s theory of norms being a ‘social fact’. These questions prove that deviance is an area of sociology that is ‘full of debate and competing theories’ (Lloyd, 2007, p319). By including this and a commentator Colin Sumner’s claim that, ‘the field reached a dead -end by the late 1970’s’ Lloyd has saved himself from being completely biased by taking into account different viewpoints of the topic. The sociological theories; Becker’s labelling theory, Ian Hackings looping effect theory of human kind Harold Garfinkel’s identification of the ‘documentary method of interpretation and ideas from this chapter help to understand and explain what is happening in the very serious social issue of child abuse in New Zealand.

To understand gender analysis in a historic context, it will be important to start off by defining what gender is and gender analysis. Gender refers to the social construction of male and female identities. It is more than the biological make up of the two sexes. It deals with how the differences between men and women, whether real or imagined, are valued, used and relied upon to classify men and women and to assign them roles and expectations. The effect of this categorization is that the lives and experiences of men and women occur within complex sets of differing social and cultural expectations. Gender analysis therefore examines the differences in men’s and women’s lives and applies this understanding to policy development and service delivery (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman 2009).

In history, the current understanding of gender as a category of historical analysis can be traced to the late twentieth -century feminist political mobilization that occurred in Europe and the United States which led to the development of the field of women’s history both as a product and practice. Many of the early women historians in many cases employed the category ‘women’ when talking about women’s roles, perceptions of women or myths about women as opposed to the analytical language of gender as we know it today (Parker & Aggleton 1998). Most of these embraced the concept of gender closely akin to Gayle Rubin’s classic early formulation that stated that in every society, there is a set of arrangements by which the biological human sex and procreation is shaped by human, social intervention which is actually gender (Shepard & Walker 2009). The work of the feminists was primarily to expose those gender systems and redress their injustices to women.

In this context therefore the work of the women’s historians was to discover and bring into the public domain such patterns in the past, to return women and their activities to the historical record and to bring out ways in which women in the past tried to resist sexual oppression in the societies within which they lived.

Despite the fact that distinction between sex and gender remained common in feminist history, its framework had many critics especially among theorists who questioned if physical bodies were not in a way socially constructed and whether they ever existed apart from culturally fashioned meanings about them (Shepard & Walker 2009). Early women historians equated gender with sex. This meant that the physical body is what they used to classify gender. This was the bone of contention with other scholars who rightly asserted that it would be simplistic to equate gender with sex. However, since the field of women’s history originated in social history, and so because the early women’s history did not seriously interrogate bodies as a historic subject, most of the early women historian did not confront the dilemma of the sex/gender distinction which continued to inform the assumptions of their work (Shepard & Walker 2009).

Theorizing about gender increased from the 1970s through the 1980s among women historians but their emphasis was more on the relation of gender to other categories, more so class and patriarchy but not on so much on the gender itself. According to Shepard & Walker (2009) “efforts of this sort continued in many ways to conceptual gender, class and other social processes as distinct which made it difficult to capture the complexity and particularity of their unified processes in a specific historical circumstance”. In absence pf a standard definition of what constituted gender, historians continued to write about gender from the Western cultural view of what constitutes gender. However by 1980s other issues had come up that challenged this position calling for a more inclusive approach.

An analysis of gender and history has also focused on the position of the woman during colonialism in Africa and elsewhere. The woman was seen first as a daughter, then as a woman and finally as a prostitute. Any woman who stayed alone was seen as a prostitute. Women were seen as safe when within the confines of their home in the countryside. Those in towns were stereotyped as being of loose morals and rebels. Although the fuller investigation of these points would follow in the studies of gender and colonialism of the 1990s, scholars of race and slavery in the Americas and Europe were zealous in pointing out that the bodies of colored women had been socially constructed to meet the interests of Europeans since the first colonial contacts.

Still in the 1980s the field of women’s history was thriving. By this time it supported influential journals in Europe and in the United States. Works in women’s history were beginning to appear on the lists of major publishers and also in prominent general historical journals. It was however not all rosy. Critics within the profession questioned the legitimacy of the field of women history and its practitioners. Women history was described as narrow, over-specialized and immaterial to the truly important matter of history (Downs 2004). Women’s historians were accused of trying to fashion their own life frustrations into a respected field. A more unifying concept of gender free of activism might as a matter of fact provide legitimacy for the field and its practitioners (Shepard & Walker 2009).

If gender could be argued out as a key field of experience for both all persons, then gender is a subject of universal relevance. Joan Scotts’s (1986) article titled “Gender: A Useful Concept of Historical Analysis,” which appeared on the American Historical Review, December 1986 issue, was written in this political context. This was a no mean achievement for a prestigious conservative journal. Scott noted that the proliferation of case studies in women’s history called for some synthesizing perspective and the discrepancy between the high quality of the work then in women’s history and the continued marginal status of the field as a whole pointed up the limits of descriptive approaches that do not address dominant disciplinary concepts in terms that can shake their power and transform them. The articles purpose was to examine the implications of feminists’ growing tendency to use gender as a way of referring to the social organization between the sexes and to offer a useable theoretical formulation of gender as a category of historical analysis. Scott found the feminist theorizing of the 1960s and 1970s limited because they tended to contain reductive or simple generalizations that undercut both history’s disciplinary sense of the complexity of social causation and feminist commitments to analysis that would lead to change (Scott 1986).

According to Scott, historically gender has been used as a primary way of signifying relations of power (Scott1999). The power in question is the power of domination and subordination; differential control over or access to material and symbolic resources. Emphasis is laid on the difference as a characteristic of power derived from the oppositional binarity of gender, but it also defined and limited the concept of gender which having been defined could not operate other than as a vehicle for this power. Women in most societies have been dominated by men.

However this proposition is challenged by a number of non western scholars who argue that not all societies organized on the basis of gender as implied in the work of most Western historians. Oyeronke Oyeyumi (2005), an African Historian from Nigeria is one of them. Oyeyumi argues that Western work on gender has been and continues to be preoccupied with the oppositionally sexed body, which in inhabit the category gender and invests it with a rigid corporeal determinism. This she argues is not universal but specific to the western cultures and history. If gender is socially constructed, then it cannot behave in the same way across time and space. Therefore if gender is a social construction there must be a specific time in each culture when it began and therefore the time before this beginning it never did exist. Thus gender as a social construction is also a historical and cultural phenomenon which may presumably have not existed in some societies.

In a similar view, Ifi Amadiume (1987) criticized the use of Western gender concept as a category for analyzing Africa history of gender. She argues that the ethnocentricity of gender of early feminist anthropology does not have a bearing on African societies. To these groups she argues the social and cultural inferiority of women was not questionable. In her work among the Igbo culture in eastern Nigeria, Amadiume did identify a gender system through which numerous mythical, social and culture distinctions were articulated according to a binary of masculine and feminine. But she also did establish that in this binary the attributes associated with females did not necessarily lead to economic or political subordination of the social group women and that the social institutions, especially those of male daughters and female husbands permitted individual females to enjoy those privileges of social positions gendered masculine.

In the United States, intervening decades have given birth to a rich and expanding scholarship on the history of colored women. The colored slave woman owed his master and the men his master had selected for her sexual favors and reproductive services on top of the labor (Gerald, N.G., Billias, G.A 1991). The work written on the colored woman history is however minimal compared to what have been written on white women. Furthermore much of the work done on colored women still subordinates them within the history of white women. What that means is that American historians, until very recently, have showed little interest in identifying differences between West African and colonial Euro-American ideas of the social and cultural relations of the male and the female or giving interpretive authority to evidence of differences between African American and Euro-American communities over time in the United States. Of greater importance is the construction of colored women as negative markers of a Western concept of gender and the pressure borne on colored women to conform to those to that concept. To greater extent this centers the story on Western concept, not on African American women or on the understandings of gender that may have characterized their communities (Collins 1989).

To illustrate further the problems in the use of gender as a category in historic analysis, North America can be studied. The early republic provides vital information because that is where U.S women’s history began classics like Carroll Smith Rosenberg’s “Beauty, the Beast and the Militant Woman,” Kathryn Kish Sklar’s “Catharine Beecher” and Nancy Cott’s “The Bonds of Womanhood” (Cott 1997).These works sought to understand the origins of the late twentieth century trope of gender in the nineteenth-century. This was not unusual because like other historians, these women historians studied subjects in the past that were of continued relevance to their day. They focused on the social and intellectual life in the early American Republic that resonated in the female struggle. This majored on familial, political, legal, and economic subordination of women as a group by men as a group. The works continued to organize the field as it developed with works such as Women of the Republic by Linda Kerber, Daughters of Liberty by Mary Beth Norton and Good wives by Laurel Ulrich. The wives in the seventeenth and eighteenth century played a greater role in the management of the family resources. It was taken as the duty of a wife to defend and take care of the husband’s investments. Wives were supposed to be aggressive in this. However during the nineteenth century, the woman’s role in the management of the husband’s wealth diminished significantly (Cott 1997).

Another milestone in the study of gender analysis is the entry of women into public jobs in the 20th century (Scharpf & Schmidt 2000). This brought profound change to the woman. She got financial independence and her dependence on the man diminished. This entry into the job market went hand in hand with increased education attainment, increased civil rights like the right to vote and increased participation in the political process. These were great milestones for women that changed completely the relationship with the man. With it too came increased divorce rates, and choosing not to get married.

When gender is treated as a question of analysis, it encourages the researcher to regard the sources of information more critically and more creatively. To some extent it is true that historians have been able to establish gender as a category of historic analysis. This is because the circumstances human beings operate in have expectations of behavior and conduct based on ones sexuality. These are either classified as masculinity or feminine. A man is expected to act and behave in a masculine way while the woman is supposed to portray a feminine behavior. These expectations have over the course of history shaped the relationship between the males and the females. Not only that but also within a sex, treatment is different. In America for example, An African American woman, a white woman and a native Indian woman were all treated differently.

Sociologists believe that there is four different ways of social conflict. Most sociologists will use the theoretical or perspective approach to help research. There are a multitude of approaches that are used by sociologist but, the mainly stick to three types of theories. The first would be the structural – functional theory, then the social conflict theory, and finally the symbolic interaction theory. Within these three approaches are several more ways to gain research (Conflict Theories, 2011).

The social conflict theory tries to show that society creates conflict due to the inequalities that are present in everyday life. Most sociologists will use the macro level orientation theory simply because it takes society as a whole and shows how it shapes our lives. It uses terms like inequality, power, authority, competition, and exploitation (Conflict Theories, 2011).

Some of the examples that would be used in the social conflict theory are authority. Authority takes into account the family, patriarchy, race and ethnicity hierarchies of authority. In inequality there is family, health, and property. Inequality looks at how people are treated and how are perceived by others. Then there is competition which; can be anything from education, religion, to who will move over when you pass someone on the street. Competition is ingrained in all of us from the time we are born until the time we die (Conflict Theories, 2011).

The power and exploitation can go hand in hand. The people that are in power or come to power got that way by exploiting citizens along the way. Power, if not kept in check, will

make the honest of men corrupt. Once the corruption sets in they will use that power to exploit people along the way to gain more power (Conflict Theories, 2011).

Karl Marx believed there two groups of people in society, the wealthy and the poor. He studied what would happen if one group decided to up rise against the other. He looks to see what would happen and what roles the people involved would take. Once the sides are chosen and the revolt has begun, Marx will study the inner workings of the dominate class to see how they retain their status after the conflict has ended (Conflict Theories, 2011).

Social conflict can be either used for good or bad. Take any uprising against the local government. In Somalia the people have been fighting their government for equality and fairness. The government themselves are fighting its own people to keep the control or power. All across time there is human uprising against those in power. The earlier battles were fought for land, the later battles are fought for greed, power, and wealth.

Some examples of bad social conflict are the recent increase in school shootings, bombings, and over all violence that is plaguing the country today. Unfortunately the innocent by stander is usually the one getting hurt or killed. This is not just limited to the United States; it is all across the globe. Those that are in power want more power and wealth to control those who are less fortunate.

So, the social conflict theory is about those in power wanting to stay in power and those not in powers wanting to gain power. Throughout time there have been many battles waged in the desire to gain power. It all began with Karl Marx and has evolved over time to incorporate many other theories about crime and what causes it.

There is also the realistic theory; this theory is about one’s group gain, due to another group’s loss. This can be brought on by limited resources, this can lead to conflict. This can lead to more friction within each group when they compete for resources. This theory is a social psychological theory thought to explain prejudice (Conflict Theories, 2011).

An example for this would be immigration. With all the bombings, terrorist attacks, and violence from one ethnic group or religious group. With the recent Boston bombings, this will lead to a negative reaction to all immigrants of Muslim decent. It doesn’t matter if they are of Middle Eastern decent, people will see just the color of their skin and automatically lump them into one category, terrorist.

This theory can be traced back through history. It can be seen with the British and Native Americans, Whites and blacks, Japanese and American, and recently middle eastern and Americans. Most of these conflicts have happened over one ethnicity doesn’t like what the other one believes, whether it is religion, politics, or moral standings.

Muzafer Sherif did the famous study called “Robbers Cave “in 1954. He basically took two groups of teenage boys, put them in a camp, and had them compete against each other. He had 22 boys in the study, all middle class white boys. These boys all came from similar backgrounds and upbringing. He randomly assigned them to a group (McLeod, 2008).

In the first week of the experiment, the two groups bonded with each other. The boys chose group names and stenciled them on their clothing and a flag. They bonded over hiking, swimming, and hanging out. This created and attachment that bonded the boys together (McLeod, 2008).

In the second week he challenged the boys to competitions against the other group. He used activities like, baseball, tug-of-war and other games. The winning group would receive a trophy at the end of the competition. He also included individual prizes to create competition against the other group and within the groups (McLeod, 2008).

The boys became physically, verbally, and mentally abusive towards each other. They burned each other’s flags, tore up sleeping areas, and had to be physically restrained by the researchers. This study showed that it doesn’t matter where you come from, you can turn to prejudice (McLeod, 2008).

Then there is the Game Theory which states “investigates the strategic behavior of decision makers who are aware that their decisions affect one another” (Skekel, 2013). The gaming theory believed that people interacted with each other similar to a game. This was done by strategic moves, winners and losers, rewards and punishments, or profits and cost. It was the first model used to describe how the human population interacts (Game Theory An Overview, 2013).

So, with this theory you will have players, strategies, and consequences just like in a game. There are many types of games like zero-sum game, non-zero sum game, simultaneous move games, sequential move games, one-shot games, and repeated games. These games are used to study the gaming theory (Game Theory An Overview, 2013).

A popular gaming theory is the prisoner’s dilemma. The prisoner’s dilemma shows” why two individuals might not agree, even if it appears that it is best to agree” (Game Theory An Overview, 2013). They use two people who have committed a crime and pit one against the other. The sentencing is done by how the criminals talk, or not talk. If one partner talks, they get sentenced and the other set free. If they both remain quiet they get a short sentence, if they both talk they both get a moderate sentence. They never reveal what the prisoners chose to do (Game Theory An Overview, 2013).

The Sumerian civilization was one of the earliest in Mesopotamia. The Sumerians existed around 3500-1750 B.C. The Sumerian civilization was not discovered until the 19th century. The following manuscript will cover three key topics the Sumerian Creation Story, the compared social class system to the contemporary United States, and how the hierarchical structure set forth by the Sumerian Empire compares with our current criminal justice system. Lastly, the educational material will show the similarities and differences between the ancient Sumerian Empire and today’s contemporary United States. This research will help individuals understand early civilizations and how they compare to today’s society. The information discovered will also show how early civilizations built their societies.

The Social Class Structures and Criminal Justice Systems of Sumerian and the United States

Sumer was a collection of city states around the Lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers in what is now southern Iraq. It was a collection of farming villages. Each of these cities had individual rulers; although the leader of the dominant city could have been considered the king of the region. The Sumerians formed the earliest written language. Their religious beliefs also are found to have some similarities with the Bible, especially the book of Genesis.

This essay will compare and contrast the Sumerian Empire and the United States. To compare and contrast the two the Sumerian Creation, social classes, and criminal justice system will be assessed. First, I will evaluate the story of the Sumerian Creation. Next, I will compare the different social classes between the Sumerian civilization and the United States. Lastly, I will discuss the hierarchical structure set forth by the Sumerian Empire compared to our current criminal justice system.

Literature Review

This literature review focuses on literature regarding Sumer and the Sumerian

Creation Story, particularly focusing on the Sumerian social class hierarchy.

Additionally, this literature review examines the contemporary social structure in the

United States and the current criminal justice system.

Discussion
Sumerian Creation Story

The Sumerians Creation Story begins with the earth and the heavens being created in the sea. The Sumerian myths have been pieced together due to the age of the remains found. After the earth and the heavens were created the gods created cities and each city had its own god. The male god, “An”, and the female god, “Ki”, gave birth to Enlil, the chief god of the pantheon. Enlil impregnated Ninlil, the goddess of wind, which created the moon. When the moon was created then it was time to create humans. The Sumerian gods created some humans out of silt or clay.

From the evaluation of the Sumerians Creation Story similarities to the Bible can be found. As in Genesis, the Sumerians’ world is formed the heavens and earth are separated from one another by a solid dome. The second chapter of Genesis introduces the paradise Eden, a place which is similar to the Sumerian Dilmun. (Gen. 2:9-10) In the second version of the creation of man “The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.” The Sumerian gods used a similar method in creating man (Kramer & Maier p. 33).

Sumerian and United States: Social Class

The Sumerian social class is split into three social groups. These social groups consist of upper class, in-between class or middle class, and lowest class. At the top of the Sumerian upper class is the king and priests. The upper class also included landowners, government officials, and merchants. Something that stood out in the Sumerian social class was that women had more rights in early Sumer than in later Mesopotamia. Upper class women were priestesses. The Sumerian women were landowners, merchants, artisans, and most raised children. Slaves made up the lowest class along with prisoners, orphans, poor children, and debtors. The Sumerians used slaves as cheap labor. Sumerians allowed slaves the right to do business, borrow money, and buy freedom.

In the United States the economists and sociologists have not devised exact guidelines for the social classes. Instead there are two set classes including the three-class model that consist of the rich, middle class, and the poor. In the three-class model the rich of course have the wealth, middle class consist of those who work white collar jobs, and the poor are the blue collar workers or those who are unemployed. The other model that is most commonly used is the five-class model including upper class, upper-middle, middle-middle, lower-middle, and lower class. In the five-class model it is broke down a little more. The upper class term is applied to the “blue bloods” who are the families who are multi-generational wealth. These families also have leadership in high society. The rest of the upper class is followed by those who have made significant investment off of capital and stock options as well as the corporate elite who have high salary jobs such as being a Chief Executive Officers (CEO). The upper middle class consists of highly-educated salaried professional: physicians, lawyers, scientists, and professors. The upper middle class tends to have a great influence over society. The middle class and the lower middle class seem to overlap. The middle class consists of semi-professionals, craftsmen, office staff, and sales employees. These people often have college degrees. The lower middle class often includes the same professions except for those in the lower middle class do not have a college degree. Those without the college degree are often on the entry level in those careers. The low class is the blue collar workers. These blue collar workers are considered the working poor. Most of the population in the United States is considered the working class or the working poor.

Sumerian and United States: Criminal Justice System

The Sumerian legal system, one of the earliest known criminal justice systems,

focused on a citizen’s compliance with the social norms and religious beliefs of the day.

Regardless of social class, strict compliance with orders and instructions was rewarded,

while failure to comply was punished (Sterba, 1976, p. 25). Such punishment was

commensurate with the injury (Sterba, 1976). The Sumerians established a system of

laws to deal with personal injuries, slave issues, sexual offenses, marital problems, and

agricultural disputes? (Milosavljevic, 2007, p. 7). Regulating the behavior of its citizens

helped keep the social order.

From its earliest days, the criminal justice system in America has served to protect

the interests of the rich, property-owning classes. Crime is often associated with the

working poor and the underclass (Jargowsky & Park, 2009). Because of this, crime is

often a problem in urban areas with low income levels. Elevated crime levels have been

attributed to neighborhood social disorganization stemming from urban structural

changes, residential instability, and racial/ethnic transitions (Jargowsky & Park, 2009,

p.30). The contemporary criminal justice system has been viewed as a means of

regulating class interests by insuring that enforcement efforts are directed toward the

regulation of the poor. (Weiner, 1975, p. 436).

Conclusion

There are several differences between Sumer and contemporary American society.

For instance, the position of women is markedly different in the two social structures.

Additionally, slavery no longer exists in the United States, eliminating this lowest of

social classes. The communal lifestyle of Sumer stands in sharp contrast to the capitalist

society of the United States. Finally, the criminal justice systems of these two societies

have different goals and objectives.

Among the differences between Sumer and the United States is the position of

women in society. In Sumer, it was the male citizens who comprised the assembly of

elders and who controlled the power and wealth of the community. Unlike in Sumer, the

United States is no longer controlled exclusively by men. In the United States, the

proclamation that ?all men are created equal? has been interpreted to include women as

well as people from all social classes. The Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection

clause guarantees that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV). Thus, people of all classes, as well as women, are protected equally by the laws of the United States. Another difference between Sumer and the United States is slavery. Until 1863, slavery was legal in the United States (Harr & Hess, 2002).The Emancipation Proclamation officially freed the slaves and outlawed slavery (Harr & Hess, 2002). Those in the slave states did not immediately comply with the Emancipation

Proclamation (Harr & Hess, 2002). The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution abolished slavery in America (U.S. Const. Amend. XIII). In contrast, slaves

made up the lowest social class in Sumer. Unlike in the United States, the people of Sumer had a communal lifestyle. People did not work for money, nor did they compete to get rich at the expense of other individuals. The great majority safely depended on the head of their estate to fill their needs, and he, in turn, depended on them to increase and protect his wealth and position (Ellison, 1964, p. 22). Further, each city was conceived to be the special concern of one

of the gods in Mesopotamia, and in a sense the equalitarianism of government placed

each man in the position of being a guardian of that god’s interests (Ellison, 1964, p. 24).

In contrast, the United States has both urban and rural communities in which people work

for money and attempt to better their social situation. Additionally, under capitalism

people work for their own self-interests and have an opportunity to change their social

class by getting an education and accumulating greater wealth.

The objective of the criminal justice system in these two societies differed as well.

In Sumer, punishment for crime attempted to make the victim whole again or was

retribution commensurate with the type of harm inflicted. The Sumerian code of Ur-Nammu focused on restitution as the primary approach to criminal justice (Van Ness, 1991). In the United States, crime is defined as an offense against the State instead of against a specific individual (Van Ness, 1991). Because of this, the offender is not held personally responsible for restoring the victim. However, restitution is sometimes made part of sentencing and victim’s rights are becoming more important within the criminal justice system.

The cultures, social class hierarchies, and legal systems of Sumer and the United

States are significantly different; yet, the class structure and criminal justice system of

Sumer offers unique insights into our own society. The similarities and differences

highlight the importance of understanding where civilization began and where we intend

to go from here. Because of the complexity of the relationship between social class and

crime, it is vital to remain aware of the goals of the criminal justice system.