Author: Andre Coleman

Education has been considered an investment value. Those who acquire additional schooling generally earn more over their lifetimes, achieve higher level of employment, and enjoy more satisfying careers. It also enable people to more fully enjoy life, appreciate literature and culture and be more socially involved citizens.

Private returns to education refer to the benefits received by the individual who acquires additional schooling. These include economic benefits such as higher lifetime earnings, lower level of unemployment, and greater job satisfaction, improve health and longevity.

Social returns refer to positive or possibly negative consequences that accrue to individuals other than the indivudal or family making the decision. About how much schooling to acquire. These are the benefits not taken into account by the decision-maker.

II. Rationales for Government involvement In Post Secondary Education

Efficiency gains result in an increase in society’s total output of goods and services, and thus allow achievement of higher average living standards

Equity considerations relate not to the average standards of living but how society’s total output is distributed among citizens.

Second argument to intervention is that in the absence of interventions such as student loan programs – individuals who might benefit from higher education but who do not have the financial resources to finance the investment are typically unable to use their potential human capital as collateral for loan.. The talent of the population may not be fully utilized and the total output of goods and services may fall short of its potential. Both of these efficiency rationales involve a potential market failure. The first arises because of positive external benefits associated with education -social benefits that exceed private benefits. The second arises because of a failure in credit market that results in some individuals being unable to finance productive investments.

III. Estimating Private and Social Returns to Education

Education is one of the best predictors of success in the labour market. More educated workers earn higher wages, have greater earnings growth over their lifetimes, experience less unemployment and work longer

Higher education is also associated with higher longer life expectancy, better health and reduced participation in crime.

According to human capital theory, schooling raises earnings because it enhances workers skills thus making employees more productive and more valuable to employers.

III. Social Returns to Education

positive or possibly negative consequences that accrue to individuals other than the indivudal or family making the decision. About how much schooling to acquire. These are the benefits not taken into account by the decision-maker.

A. Innovation, knowledge creation and economic growth

new growth theory: emphasizes the contribution of knowledge creation and innovation in fostering advances in living standards over time.. education plays an important role in economic growth . knowledge creation and innovation respond to economic incentives, and thus can be influenced by public policy.

The education and skill formation systems play an important role in fostering innovation and advancing knowledge. There are 3 main dimensions to this role

related to research function of educational institutions esp. universities – can be an important source of new ideas. Accgd. To this perspective the human capital of the workforce is a crucial factor facilitating the adoption of new and more productive technologies. Human capital of the workforce is a crucial factor facilitating the adoption of new and more productive technologies. The transfer of knowledge function msut be reflected to the returns to education. Those receiving educ will become more prodictive and thus more valuable to the employers. Post sec educ in oecd countries is relatively more important than with primary and secondary educ in developing countries

B. Knowledge spillovers

Static knowledge spillovers arise if more education raises not only the productivity of those receinvg the education but alos the productivity of those they work with and interact with.

Jacobs argue that cities are engine of growth bec they facilitate the exchange of ideas esp. between entrepreneurs and managers

Such knowledge spillovers can take place thorugh the echange of ideas, imitation and learning by doing

C. Non-market effects of education

Other forms of benefits other than higher wages or non-wage benefits from working. This includes improved onw health or child dev. – private in nature and thus may be taken into account by individuals in cjoosing the amount of educ to acquire.

Authors find considerable impact of educ on a wide variety of non-0market and social benefits even after controlling income, age, health and race. This includes

effect of wifes’ schooling on husband earnings

effect of parents educ on child outcomes (intergenerational effects): education, cognitive ability, health and fertility choices

effect of educ on own health and spouse health

effect of educ on consumer choice efficiency, labour market etc

effect of educ on charitable giving and volunteeractivity

higher ave of educ levels in the community lower school dropout rates of children

D. Intergenerational effect

parents education has strong effects on children, resulting in large intergenerational effects

parental educ on a number of child outcomes including

higher parental educ is associated with lower fertility via increased efficiency of contraception as well as via raising the age of both marriage and first pregnancy. The resulting of lower pop growth is positive for economic growth in dev countires

incidence of teenage childbearing is much higher for children of less educated parents

child abuse and neglect are also associarted with parents educ

high parental educ – more subs family investments in children , loer criminal propensities , improved child health

children of less educated poarents generally cost more to educate

intergenerational benefits of educ to society: lower educ cost, less ue of foster care and juvenile diversion, lower crime, lower heakth cost and lower dependence on welfare transfers

E. Health and longeivity

child health is posivitve related to parents educ

results to superior health behaviors: reduced smoking, more exercise and low incidence of heavy drinking

educ people adopt newer drugs due to ability to learn and more info thus educ leads to better health

F. Criminal Activity

high educ levels may lower crime byb raising wage rates, which increase the opportunity cost of crime

lower crime rates

G. Civic participation

correlation between educ and voting is high .

higher educ is also associated with greater charitable giving and volunteerism

trust and participation

educ raises the quality of peoples involvement in the society

H. Tax and transfer returns

more educ are less likely to return on public transfers wven when elgivible for benefits

FLEMISH EDUCATION, BETWEEN MERTIOCRACY AND EGALITARANISM
By: Ides Nicaise

I. A Century of Reforms- without much success

social inequality in education still exist in flanders

compulsory educ until the age of 18

90’s began with an experimentation on ” positive discrimination” schools with a large number of pupils from underprivileged groups (immigrants, disadvantaged pupils) received additional funding

What is lacking is a clear choice in favour of a more egalitarian of educ

Two Basic Views of Equality

Meritocracy

Egalitarianism

Both visions to a certain extent share the same concern: out an end to the unjustified passing on of power , prestige, and wealth based on a person’s descent.

Allocation of social positions should no longer be ascribed to individuals based on their origins (the principle of ascription), rather these positions should be acquired based on achievement

Every member of society should regardless of social origin have the same opportunities to prove himself

Meritocracy – an ideology of equal opportunities .. and unequal treatment

Principle of individual merit which boils down to a combination of talent and effort

False justice theory, results in a disguised reproduction of the existing inequalities

Tony Blair- ambition to make his country a meritocratic society. Nederlands and Sweden were the first to achieve the higest stage of a meritocratic educ society

Social positions to be distribuited on the basis of merit (talent and effort)

The existing social inequality can essentially be explained by three set of factors

innate abilities – genetically determined

social background- transfer of matrial assets, social networks, and cultural capital. This is regarded as unfair ; these are the mechanisms that have to be eliminated as much as possible , eg by the provision of free and freely accessible educ. Accdg. To meritocratic thinking, society is not responsible for the two other sets of factors. Innate ability (for the time being) a question of coincidence, personal effect-responsibility of every individual

personal preferences and effort

opposed to the social transfer of power and prosperity, but inequality exists in ” merit” . the merit ” talent” . it is implicitly assumed that tlents are purely randomly distributed among the pop. And tehrfore have nothing to do with social origins

The meritocratic recipe for educ can be summarized in 3 major principles

everyone must have equal access to education according to innate ability .

equal opportunities : opportunities refer to coincidental factor which is not within our power and which helps determine the outcomes of educ and future social pos. The aim is not therefore equal outcomes, but a particular distribution of possible outcomes which are unrelated to a person’s social background

equal access educ is not unconditional. Everyone should have access to educ accdg to his innate ability. It is accepted that not everyone gains access to the same extent to a given level or type of educ. Specifically, financial obstacles in education will have to be eliminated as much as possible but that admission tests or intelligence tests can be accepted a legitimate selection criteria.

Unequal treatment of individuals based on merit is regarded as legitimate. In other words it is accepted that more is invested in persons who display a greater innate ability and or more personal effort. .

moral to economic interaˆ¦ regarded as fair community invest more resources in people with more talent, perhaps they have merited this, but bec they are expected to contribute more in the future to collective prosperity to those who have shall be given inequality based on social background will disappear if the two previous principles are consistently applied

Principle of equal opportunites has been translated into compulsory education and free educ. Compulsory educ is a way of legally limiting parents’ freedom of choice regarding educational participation

Second principle- differential treatment accdg to talent and effort, forms the counterbalance to this mildness at the entrance gate . Flemish educ is extremely selective and achievement -oriented

What is wrong with meritocracy?

John Goldthorpe – inherited talents are in no way an element of merit and as a result the ethical justification for this social model is immediately negated

Dick pels- adds a number of arguments to demonstrate that even on a labour market regarded as competitive and meritocratic

Youn- meritocracy in its most perfect form eventually leads to a new type of class-based society

Egalitarianism: a relic from the communist era?

Egalitarianism is the basic percepts of human rights, ie the equal dignity and freedom of people

The right of educ may not depend on the talents of an individual but is, to a certain extent, an absolute right

Absolute rights do indeed apply to ” basic goods

John Rawls- people will agree that distribution of basic goods must be strictly egalitarian and may not be dependent on something like talents, precisely bec. Talents are unearned

Inequalities that contribute to an improvement in the position of the poorest citizens – gradation differences exist within egalitarianism: at the level of elem educ., it refers to equal outomes (a level that everyone should attain), at the higher level- equal opportunities

The emphasis on equal outcomes (elem and sec) forms a second critical area of difference bet. Egalitarianism and meritocracy. Amartya Sen emphasis the basic right is only effective if the result is achieved, not if it is written down in law. This means that authorities bear the responsibility for guaranteeing the implementation of basic rights for all.

Principle of positive discrimination- priority given to disadvantage

Egalitarianism implicitly assumes that equal outcomes are possible. Students in the primary and sec levels are in the position to achieve the targets

Traces of egalitarianism in Flemish educ: attainment targets in guaranteeing pupils with the same min skill level remains limited. Study grants from merit.. to egalitarian vision

Trojan Horse of the Lower Classes

Protagonist of greater equality are not infrequently accused but face with some questions:

A society cannot consist solely of university graduates . labour market also needs semi-skilled workers. . the egalitatain base refers to basic education.

– equal outcomes can be interpreted in 2 ways: strict def.: same target level is applied for every individual , broader def. accepts certain variation in individuals. In other words, individual differences are tolerated but the average outcomes among children from various social environments must be equalized

– resistnace to egalitarianism: postivie discrimination in favour of the underprivileged groups could be flipside of negative discrimination against them (white person with high score over black with low score- black gets priorty- contest

– educ is not a zero sum game in which better outcomes for one group are achived at the expense of poore results for another group. The key is to adapt reform and strategies that more equal outcomes go hand in hand with a sin-win sit for every one (ex. R3educed referral to SPED

Educational Strategies for disadvantaged youth in 6 European countries
By : I. Nicaise

Intro

Gen. level of educ is increased but has demonstrated that in most countries inequality is passed on unrelentingly .. social exclusion

Social Equality in Education

Current educ system filters, segregates and reproduces social inequality

Dream of democratic educ sys- the dream of equal opportunites and unhindered social mobility. Everyone is entitled to benefit to a resonalbe extent from their education .

Whether consciously or not, many harbour meritocratic view of education, it is assumed that everyone has equal opportunites but equal porofit is certainly not an aim because aaacdg to the theory, the unequal benefit from educ merely reflects the efforts and talents of each individual . As Goldthrope demosntatres, meritocratic ideology expliclty perceives unequal educational outcomes as fair. .. it hastily passess over the issue of the unequal socity in which education is rooted

A priori opportunities are not equal and unequal outcomes are not fair

2. Equal Opportunity Strategies

Integrated approach to poverty, inequality and social exc

“Sexual identity usually refers to how individuals think of themselves,” Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 133). These identities include, but are not limited to heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual. People come to accept these different identities as their own, but not without learning society’s position on each of them. As with all things in life, the presence of nonconformity brings conflict. This paper will discuss these sexual identities, the contemporary issues associated with each, and a personal account of my struggles finding my own sexual identity.

Sexual identity is social. Society defines the different sexual categories and teaches us what characteristics these individuals and groups should have. Society labels these people and their behaviors as normal or abnormal and right or wrong, (Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 133). Through the years, heterosexuality, or an attraction to the opposite sex, has been viewed as right and normal according to society. This is evident in the social institutions that regulate sexuality. First, political institutions make laws stating who can get married and even who can have sex with whom. Families exhibit a portrait of the norm as a man, woman, and children. Religions have rules about many aspects of sexuality. The media and medical community also influence sexuality (Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 175). According to Kimberly Tauches, the view that heterosexuality is the only acceptable form of sexuality is called heteronormativity, (as cited in Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 175).

Generally, humans tend to possess a fear of the unknown. Many times, this fear breeds discrimination and hate. Therefore, when individuals state their attraction to members of the same sex, they are often met with ridicule, rejection, and oppression. This sexual identity is called homosexuality and is considered a deviation from society’s paradigm of normal. Homosexuals all over the world claim they are the same as everyone else. They argue that there is nothing abnormal about their lifestyles and are forced to fight for social acceptance. In Homosexuality, Opposing Viewpoints (1999), Erin Blades states, “The search for the gay gene is itself homophobic. Instead of just accepting the fact that some people are straight and some people are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, people are searching for a cause – as if homosexuality is a disease. Nobody’s looking for the heterosexual geneaˆ¦ Homosexuality isn’t considered natural. That’s why a cause is being searched for,” (p. 48). Erin is right. Society views this sexual identity as deviant and immoral. There have been numerous studies attempting to determine whether or not there is a biological or psychological cause for homosexuality. The implication is that if we can determine its cause, we can fix it. Julie Harren states, “In fact, many researchers hypothesize that a homosexual orientation stems from a combination of biological and environmental factors,” (n.d., p. 1). She goes on to say, “While environmental factors may include experiences of sexual abuse or other traumatic events, a common contributor to same-sex attractions is a disruption in the development of gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s view of his or her own gender; that is, his or her sense of masculinity or femininity. Gender identity is formed through the relationships that a child has with the same-sex parent and same-sex peers,” (Harren, n.d., p. 1). Religioustolerance.org states, “Many social and religious conservatives in North America, their organizations and supporters are heavily promoting the restriction of rights and protections for sexual minorities. Their target is at what they call the ‘gay agenda’ of marriage and other forms of equality,” (Homosexuality and Bisexuality, Welcome to the conflict section, para. 2). These people work toward a culture where homosexuals would be denied rights, including marriage; and their sexual identities would be considered chosen behaviors that are abnormal, unnatural, and sinful (Homosexuality and Bisexuality, Welcome to the Conflict section, para. 2). LGBT persons, or lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered individuals, and transsexuals, are working toward a culture where right the opposite is true. They want equal rights, including the right to marry and adopt children. They want to be free from discrimination and oppression. Homosexuals have taken a great deal of criticism because they are accused of not having self-control over their urges to have deviant sex. Most homosexuals contend that this is not what it’s all about. Erin Blades (1999) writes, “When I say I’m gay, I’m not just talking about who I sleep with. It’s not what I do, it’s who I am. It’s so much more than sex. Even outside the bedroom my identity as a lesbian colours every aspect of my life. If people weren’t so concerned about sex (especially homosexual sex), we wouldn’t be hunting for the gay gene,” (as cited in Williams, 1999, p. 49).

Another sexual identity that is often considered abnormal through society’s eyes is bisexuality. Not only do heterosexuals consider this sexuality deviant, but so do many homosexuals. Paula C. Rodriguez Rust states, “Bisexuals are often told they don’t exist, and that they should make up their minds whether they are lesbian/gay or heterosexual,” (as cited in Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 166). She stresses the importance of unity and the acceptance of all people. She disagrees with people who say bisexuality doesn’t exist. Rust states, “Culturally, the reasons many people feel compelled to protect the ‘gay/straight’ mindset in which bisexuality does not exist are understandable – they are the self-protective reasons that many people prefer to pretend that things they fear or don’t understand don’t exist – but it’s not a very realistic, respectful, or open-minded way to live in the world,” (as cited in Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 170). In this same interview, Paula Rust explains how bisexual people can be celibate or monogamous, just like anyone else. She points out that bisexuality means that one is attracted to either sex. Rust sates, “Bisexuals don’t ‘need’ sex with both men and women; they are simply more open to the possibilities than heterosexuals, lesbians, and gay men who find only one gender sexually interesting,” (as cited in Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 167).

After many years of struggling with finding my own sexual identity, I have come to the conclusion that I am bisexual. I say this with a great deal of hesitation because I am a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin. My first lesbian relationship was right after I got out of high school. We began as just friends. We tried to keep it a secret because where I live; it was definitely not the norm to be gay then. Despite our verbal secrecy, everyone knew. We were always a topic of conversation I’ve been told. This relationship was very unhealthy. While doing the research for this paper, I found an article about homosexuality that described it perfectly. Julie Harren wrote, “For others, same-sex attractions may not initially be present, but may later develop as a result of entering into a non-sexual friendship which becomes emotionally dependant. An emotionally dependant relationship is one in which two people seek to have their needs met by one another. It is a relationship in which healthy boundaries are not in place. The absence of appropriate emotional boundaries can then lead to a violation of physical boundaries,” (n.d., p. 2). After this relationship, I went on to have several heterosexual relationships. But, a few years later, I found myself involved with a female once again. This time, there was no initial friendship. She was openly gay. Many times, people would ask me if I was gay, and I would say no. If you ask my ex today, she will still tell you that I am not. It wasn’t about whether she was male or female. I just loved her. Had she been a man, I still would have been in love. This brought division to my finally. They disapproved wholeheartedly. I experienced first-hand the discrimination some homosexuals endure their whole lives. After four years, I could no longer deny the conviction God placed in my heart. After much prayer and hesitation, I ended our relationship. I cried for weeks. Actually, I still occasionally cry and long to be back with her. It took a great deal of time to really let go of ‘us.’ Some days, I am not so sure I have completely. We are still friends. I still love her very much. I do not think God wants me to be with her – or any other woman, for that matter. I tried to wait and give my heart time to heal before dating anyone else. Two years later, I am trying it again. I am currently in a relationship with a man. But, I will not deny the attraction I still have for women. Just the other day, I entered a department store and looked over at the service desk. There was a girl with short, spiked hair. I noticed her tattoo sticking out from below her shirt sleeve on her right arm and her pierced lip. I was immediately attracted. Although I believe it to be a sin, I am certain of how I feel. The best I can do is not act on these thoughts and feelings. This is my toughest battle in life. I still catch myself daydreaming of a life with my ex-girlfriend. I am not sure if this will ever go away. I even get angry, wishing I didn’t truly believe what it says in The Bible. But, I believe my God rewards obedience, so I want to follow His direction now. I hope he forgives me. I have no condemnation for others who have not chosen the same path I have. We are all different, and I am perfectly okay with that now. In writing this paper and learning about how others have identified themselves as bisexual despite being in a heterosexual relationship, I have finally accepted this as my sexual identity. I must admit, although I’ve never been able to find the words to describe it as well as these scholars have, while reading their thoughts and opinions, I feel a new sense of self-acceptance. I do not know what my future holds, but I realize I am not alone. Although several different sexual identities exist, finding your own is a very personal and at times, difficult part of life. I am glad that I have found mine. Now I just have to figure out what to do with it.

In the eighteenth century there were an estimated six million slaves in the world. That number, large as it was, does not come close to the number of slaves in today’s society. The current worldwide estimates are over twenty-seven million. Every year seventeen thousand slaves are trafficked into the United States, of that number, eighty percent are women and fifty percent of those (seven thousand) are children. Seventy percent of the females are imported for prostitution. It is astonishing how even though slavery is not seen or heard of much in today’s society it still exists heavily and quietly affects our everyday life. It is extremely sad, yet, regretfully true.

The history of slavery dates back to 1780 B.C. though laws have been passed in most countries that prevent, or at least lessen, slavery, it still exists today. By definition, slavery means the complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. Slavery indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor. Slavery occurs when people -known as slaves- were placed in servitude as the property of a household or company. Slaves are deprived of their personal freedom and compelled to perform labor or services. Slaves are the properties of another person, household, company, corporation, or government and are unable to leave or have any freedom. Primarily slaves were sold amongst companies, corporations, governments, or people. The practice of exporting slaves is called slave trafficking. Slavery is currently found in many countries all over the world. In other countries, though known by another name, it is still slavery. In Canada slaves are called “servants” and in Nordic countries they are called “thralls.” In the year 1670 the first African slave was introduced to America. The slaves of that time period were treated poorly; most were beaten with whips for the slightest infraction. Most, were simply tired, hungry or thirsty; some just too old to do the work and were brutally beaten to death. Many slaves would die of illnesses like malaria or yellow fever because of their limited immunities to these diseases. Others died from malnutrition, poor living conditions, and exhaustion; there was a very high mortality rate among slaves.

To this day slaves are still exploited all over the world even though we actually do not see it or hear about it. Although in most countries in today’s society traditional slavery has been abolished, it still exists in some countries and much of the slavery that exists is done so illegally. Some of the countries that have abolished slavery are the United States, Africa, many European countries, and China. Though abolished, it still exists, just using a different title. The highest percentage of slavery that is seen in today’s age is child labor. Many countries have enacted child labor laws, protecting the rights of children. Typically children are not allowed to work until they reach the age of fourteen. There are children as young as four working on plantations. Most child labor laws state that only children over the age of fourteen can work between the hours of seven in the morning until nine at night and no more than forty hours per week or eight hours in one day excluding school days in which they can work after school until 8:00 PM. Children, prior to the age of 18 must get a work permit filled out by their school before they are allowed to work; these children must maintain at least a 2.0 grade point average in order to continue their employment. In many countries this is not the case and the children’s primary duty is work. These children do not have the chance of an education. Child labor is not the only form of slavery still in existence. Some companies maintain a policy of only enslaving adults, while others only employ children. Many children who are put into slavery end up working in clothing manufacturing plants also known as sweatshops. A sweatshop is a factory where workers make products in very poor working conditions. Child labor is also abused in harvesting cotton, fruits, and vegetables. Many slaves also work in sugar cane and coffee factories.

The selling of females, as disgusting as this may sound, is still a common practice in some countries. Young women are often sold by their families for marriage, domestic uses, like cleaning and cooking, while others are sold into sex trafficking and were forced into prostitution.

Many children are taken from their families to become soldiers. Countries such as Lebanon and Colombia regularly enlist young children to carry guns and become soldiers of war. Rarely is this considered a form of slavery, yet by definition, it is.

As you can see there are many types of slavery that still exist today. The following exhibits how the name has changed but the practice is still the same.

Bonded Labor occurs when people have taken a simple loan for something such as medicine, food or housing for themselves or their family and to pay it back they are put to work by the lender creating a type of slavery. With bonded labor often the child of the debtor are put to work in order to pay the bond.

Early and Forced Marriage is the parental practice of selling off daughters as they reach adolescence. Daughters are sold for monetary gain. Frequently, there are also religious reasons for this practice. Their families give the girls into arranged marriages. They have no choice as to who they are to marry. Once married they are owned by their new husband.

Forced Labor is where a person is forced into work by the threat of physical harm. Much like the slavery that we read of in our history books, these slaves work out of fear of violence.

Slavery by Descent means simply that a child is born into slavery. The parents are slaves, thus the child is a slave. It just continues generation after generation.

Trafficking, according to the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (C.A.S.T.), is the recruitment and transportation of persons within or across boundaries by force, fraud, or deception for the purpose of exploiting them economically. Trafficked people most commonly work in sweatshops, restaurants, on farms, in manufacturing, prostitution and as private domestic workers

Sadly, many parents end up giving their child into slavery to pay off a debt or simply sell their own children for support their families. Many young women are raped by their owners ending up pregnant thus bring more children into the life of slavery.

This article could have been written in 1808, or 1908, but sadly, it is being written in 2008. You’d think that in today’s civilized society that slavery would truly have been completely abolished, however, the name has just been changed. Slavery affects today’s society so much, even though we do not notice it, slavery is everywhere.

Next time you’re in a department store, pick up some of the products and look to see where they were manufactured. It is highly unlikely that it will have the name of a country with strict child labor laws in place. There are U.S. companies that even move their manufacturing plants outside of the U.S. in order to employ children at a lesser cost. It is extremely hard to believe but most products we use on a daily basis were produced in countries that allow this type of slavery. Products such as sugar, shoes, tea, coffee, chocolate, fruits, and vegetable are made by modern-day slaves.

The U.S. Department of Labor disclosed that our country’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, was fined a measly 135,000.00 for violating child labor laws. The violation: Children operating chain saws and box crushing machinery. Toys-R-Us was cited for working 14-year-old children late into the night. The management for this huge corporations stated that they misunderstood the child labor laws pertaining to how long they could work a fourteen-year-old child.

While driving through a large city, maybe in the seedier part of town, notice the young girls on the streets. Where did they come from? Did slave traffickers transplant them here? Are they runaways with no other alternatives?

Think about the practices of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. How is what was going on in Eldorado, Texas any different than sexual slavery? Over 200 women and children were recently taken from this remotely locate temple only after a teenage girl reported that she was being held there against her will and had been forced to marry a fifty year old man as well as have his child. Though illegal, it goes on unknown to most of us to this day.

Most of us, unknowingly, support these new forms of slavery. We buy the products from the companies that employ these workers. We, as a nation, do little more than smirk when we read about the religious organizations that condone arranged, under-aged marriages as well as polygamy.

In conclusion, though you may not see it, slavery still exists. It has taken on new forms. The name has changed. It doesn’t look the same as we have read about in the history books but by any other name it is still slavery. Think about it next time you buy that cute tank top or stop in for your favorite latte’.

Nowadays the problems of poverty and poor Australians are as hot, as in the last century. The situation with poverty in Australia tends to get better, but the problem doesn’t pass away. This paper is devoted to the problems of poverty and the “undeserving poor” class. It is necessary to study the meaning of the term “undeserving poor”, why is it occurred? And is today the problem of the underclass still of great importance for Australians?

To understand the problem fully, it is necessary to study some historical information, and facts about the problems of poverty. Also it is necessary to say about the evidence of this problem in the 21st century, and if the underclass still exist in Australia, and estimate the depth of the problem of the nowadays.

When speaking about the problem of poverty, it is necessary to point out the ways of solving this problem in Australia, and who is responsible for this. Speaking about the poorest, it is clear that they need the help of society and the government. What steps had been taken in the past to stop the problem of the poverty, and what steps have been taken during the last years and decades?

This is a study of poverty, official poverty policy, and the underclass problem both in the past history of Australia and nowadays.

“The undeserving poor” and problems of poverty in Australia

The label “undeserving poor” dates back to the 18th century and refers to a societal underclass had to be poor because of their social position, origin, nationality, membership of national minorities. This term is closely connected with the term underclass. Members of the underclass are not just very poor, or people with low income, but they must have the behavior of a distinct group, a deviant or antisocial outlook on life. (Williams Kelso, 1994)

Some scientists divide the underclass into groups according to the primary reasons of this status: this might include the social underclass, the impoverished underclass, the reproductive underclass, the educational underclass, the violent underclass and the criminal underclass with some expected horizontal mobility between these groups. (Williams Kelso, 1994).

The term “undeserving poor” was used by Michael B. Katz in his book “The Undeserving Poor”, that touches the questions of sociological status of the poorest, who really needs to be helped. He wrote: “Part of the reason is that conventional classifications of poor people serve such useful purposes. They offer a familiar and easy target for displacing rage, frustration, and fear. They demonstrate the link between virtue and success that legitimates capitalist political economy. And by dividing poor people, they prevent their coalescing into a powerful, unified, and threatening political force. Stigmatized conditions and punitive treatment are powerful incentives to work, whatever the wages and conditions”. (Katz, p. 195).

So, it is necessary to find out who are the poor Australians.

There are two ways to define poverty: absolute poverty and relative poverty. Absolute poverty means a certain level of poverty, when people do not have enough resources to survive. Absolute poverty is connected with hunger, starvation and very low level of life, when people just try to survive. As for the relative poverty, it is an economic inequality, a condition of relative deprivation or exclusion from normal social and economic activities and participation.

It is necessary to point out the main causes of of poverty in Australia, that may include:

– inadequate levels of government income support;

– rise in long-term unemployment;

– growing number of single-parent families and households;

– High housing costs and locational disadvantages;

– low wages;

– poor health;

– low levels of educational attainment (Donnison 2001).

McLelland (2000) have described poverty as meaning :

– Not having enough money to make ends meet;

– Having to struggle to survive each and every day;

– Never having enough to be able to live decently;

– Never being able to afford any of the good things in life.

– Having to struggle to survive each and every day.

The level of poverty in Australia at the beginning of the 21st century

In Australia there is no official estimation of the level of poverty, so estimates are made by researchers in various organisations that study social policy issues. To estimate the level of poverty, and to find out how many people can be called poor, special poverty lines are used , that are set at some proportion of median or average income. In Australia the Henderson Poverty Line is often used, that measures poverty through comparison of income with a poverty benchmark which moves in line with population incomes. ()

So, according to the national researches, that at the end of the 20th century, during the 1990’s, about 2 million of Australians were living under the line of poverty, and according to the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling data, the percentage of those who were below the poverty line was about 16.7 % of households, and 13.7 % were classified as “rather poor”.()

According to the statistical data of the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, poverty levels had risen during the 1990’s, and at the beginning of the 21st century, one of eight Australians were living in poverty in 2000. ()

But, a special attention should be paid to the problem of children poverty, that for Australia is a hot issue. McClelland (2000) describes children that are at the greatest risk of poverty: indigenous Australian children, the children of sole parent families, children where no parent is in paid work, children where the prime source of income is government income support, children in public or private rental accommodation, and children with parents from certain non-English speaking backgrounds. ()

According to the researches, the rate of poverty among children at the beginning of the 21st century was 9.5 %, that means that almost half a million of Australia’s children lived in poverty. Among adults the poverty rate was about 11.5 %, that means that over one and a half million Australian adults were poor. ()

So, the conclusion is that the rate of poverty among children tends to be higher than the rate of poverty among adults.

Figure 1 shows the number of poor children and adults.

Having estimated the number and percentage of people in poverty, it is necessary to give a characteristics of the poor, that allows to assess the factors that lead people into poverty and may provide evidence for the sorts of policies that

might assist people to move out of poverty.

It is often assumed that women have higher rates of poverty than men. However, in 2001, female and male poverty rates were almost identical, with the male poverty rate (at 11.2%) being slightly higher than the female rate of 11%.Higher rates of poverty amongst men could perhaps be attributed to their relatively higher levels of unemployment and decreasing participation rates compared to women.()

Figure 2 shows that while up to the early 1990s, the female unemployment rate was well above the male rate, since that time the rate for women has been consistently lower than for men. This may reflect the decline over the past decade of many traditionally ‘male’ industries, such as manufacturing, in favor of Australia’s developing services sector, which largely employs women (ABS, Australian Social Trends 2002).

When poverty rates are broken down by age, it can be seen that most defined groups experience poverty rates below the national average (figure 3). However, two age groups experience above average rates of financial disadvantage: 15-24 year olds and those aged 55-64.

The high poverty rate amongst 15-24 year olds needs to be analysed with great caution. While we use the income unit as the basis for people sharing resources in this analysis, households and families have many different arrangements for sharing resources. This is particularly so for young people, who may rely on parental support whether they live at home or away from it. In particular, our ABS definition of the ‘income unit’ counts non-dependent children still living in the parental home as a separate income unit and thereby implicitly assumes that they receive no assistance from their parents. We know from our previous research that this group have particularly high apparent poverty rates (Harding et al, 2001, p. 17).

Since 1990, the notion that “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer” has gained increasing public and media attention. Often, different conclusions are reached depending on how poverty is measured. It is clear that Australia’s middle class is shrinking, and while the majority of those living in poverty are probably not becoming poorer in absolute terms, they are becoming more numerous. However, those in the bottom 5% of income earners in Australia have, in fact, become poorer over the past decade. Poverty in Australia today is complex and changing.

Overall, there is international evidence that neoliberal policies based on cutting welfare services and programs consistently lead to increased levels of poverty and inequality.

Conclusion

Australia faces real political choices in our approach to poverty. On the one hand, we can continue to go down the American path of lower taxation and lower minimum wages in the hope that this will facilitate higher employment for less skilled workers. This approach tends to narrowly examine the behavioural characteristics of the poor and the dynamics of the welfare system in isolation from the broader structures which create and entrench social and economic inequities. However, all the international evidence suggests that such policies run the risk of promoting vastly increased income inequality and working poverty.

On the other hand, we can consider the alternative policies favoured by many European countries based on progressive taxation, universal welfare, and higher real wages to promote greater egalitarianism, and reduced working poverty. These policies suggest at least some commitment to notions of collective rather than individual responsibility for poverty.

May 2009

Interrelated Dynamics of Health and Poverty in Australia

By Lixin Cai and Hielke Buddelmeyer

NATSEM Seminar series, Canberra

Single Sex Education is the new trend of the future. It is the new best thing for both boys and girls and in the last few years there has been a major increase in interest in single sex education schools. Boys’ and girls’ brains are set up differently so they should be taught differently in different environments. Single sex education is when there is either one whole school set up for only boys or only girls or it could be a classroom for only boys or girls. One issue is whether or not building public schools for just boys or just girls is unconstitutional. Does it violate Title IX? Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program receiving federal funds (National Association of State Boards of Education).

March 3rd, 2004, the United States Department of Education published new regulations about single sec education in public schools. They will have to offer “substantially equal courses, services, and facilities, at other schools within the same school district but those other schools can be single sex or coded (Leonard Sax). As long as there is a school for each gender to go to whether is it coed or single sex it does not violate Title IX.

Sex differences in the brain begin in the womb. These sex hormones, transformed by aromatase enzymes within the brain, bind to brain tissue and begin to transform it. Between 18 and 26 weeks gestation, the developing brain is permanently and irreversibly transformed. When a woman is 26 weeks pregnant, you can distinguish a female brain from a male brain (Leonard Sax). Once those changes have occurred they are permanent. Nothing can change them even after you are out of the womb. Not even an experience as extreme as castration.

One research team recently compared brain tissue from the brains of young girls and young boys. They found that sex differences in the structure of the brain were obvious, even in babies. The differences in the brain tissue are so dramatic that they are even visible to the naked eye (Leonard Sax). This finding alone should alert you that sex differences are real as opposed to, say, racial or religious differences. You can’t tell by looking at a slice of someone’s brain whether that person was Black or White or Asian; you can’t tell whether that person was a Jew or a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim. But you can tell whether that person was male or female.

Studies have shown that women and men process information, listen, read, and experience emotion in very different ways. Women use both the right and left hemispheres in processing language; men use only the left hemisphere. Men are more likely to use a small area of the brain, on just one side, for a particular task; women typically use more of the brain, on both hemispheres, for the same task. Women typically navigate using landmarks that can be seen or heard. Men are more likely to use abstract concepts such as north and south, or absolute distance.

Because males and females brains are set up so differently and they use different part when they are solving a problem. They should be put in two different learning environments so that each student can learn to the best of their potential.

Most of the studies comparing single-sex education with coeducation focus on grades and test scores. Girls in all-girls schools are more likely to study subjects such as advanced math, computer science, and physics. Boys in all-boys schools are more than twice as likely to study subjects such as foreign languages, art, music, and drama (Leonard Sax).

In June 2005, researchers at Cambridge University released results of a four-year study of gender differences in education. These researchers found that the single-sex classroom format was very effective at boosting boys’ performance particularly in English and foreign languages, as well as improving girls’ performance in math and science. (singlesexschools.org)

You’ll occasionally hear people claim that single-sex education is “good for girls, but not for boys.” In fact, recent research has demonstrated that single-gender classrooms benefit boys as well — particularly for subjects such as reading, writing, art, and music. The single greatest benefit of girls-only education is the greater educational opportunity girls enjoy in the all-girls classroom. At every age, girls in girls-only classroom are more likely to explore “non-traditional” subjects such as computer science, math, physics, woodworking, etc (Jost, Kenneth).

Single Sex Education is the educational trend of the future. It is the best new thing for both boys and girls. All students will be able to take whatever class they would like with out and added pressure to act “cool” for the opposite sex. Every child will be able to get an education to the best that they are able. In an environment set up just for them.

All girls will be able to go to shop class and no one will even think twice about it. Girls will be able to act more like themselves during schools because they will not have to put up a front for any guy. They will not have to dress up to go to school to impress anyone. They will just be there to learn and nothing more.

Boys will not have to worry about their girlfriend bothering them during school. They will be able to focus on just their education and nothing more. They will not be distracted by any low cut tops or short skirts. They will have nothing else to distract them or stop them from learning.

Every student will get a fair and equal chance at learning. There will be no gender stereotypes of any kind. Single Sex Education is just taking out one more distraction from learning. Making it a little bit easier to only have to worry about getting your work done and not whether or not you boyfriend or girlfriend is going to meet you at your locker after class.

The common coed classroom generally consists of an equal number of males and females. This has been true for as long as coed schooling has existed. The idea of trading in this norm for exclusively single sex classrooms is interesting to say the least. It is interesting because of the hidden elements associated with the issue. Exclusively separating classrooms by sex is an issue that must be approached carefully because while it may advance academic performance for some, it could as easily be detrimental to the academic performance of others.

Susan Estrich, an author and member of the Harvard Law Review, has written many works including an essay entitled “Separate is Better”, which is a collection of her views on why classrooms should be separated by gender. She asserts that in a coed environment women do not perform as well academically as in a single sex environment. Estrich believes that in dual-sex classrooms women are overlooked because “boys get the bulk of the teachers’ time” (388). Another reason she believes that women do not perform as well in dual-sex schools is because they are forced into gender roles; she believes that boys are able to take on more academic extra curricular activities while girls are forced into more physical activities such as twirling a baton or cheerleading. Estrich also states that in a coed environment women can feel intimidated, or have lower self confidence, causing them to be less likely to ask or answer questions aloud in class. Estrich clearly states in her essay, Separate is Better, that she believes separating classrooms by sex would lead to better performance throughout the education process by eliminating many of the problems she sees within the dual-sex education system (388-9).

One of the primary arguments used to justify the separation of genders in the classroom is that attention by the instructor is divided unequally, with the males receiving the majority; this however, does not seem to be true. Assuming of course that this argument is truthful and able to be proven, this would perhaps be a legitimate argument in the justification of such acts. If men receive more opportunities in education due to more attention, then we should change from the dual-sex system into a much more equitable system. I, however do not believe that there is any proof behind this argument. It seems to me that the majority of instructors divide their attention among the students fairly equally with no regard to gender. While I am sure that attention is not given equally to every individual in the classroom, I believe that the inequities are equally present among both males and females.

A separate argument for the separation of genders by schools deals with gender roles placed upon students of a coed school; these roles should apply to both males and females, but according to Estrich males are allowed to join any extra curricular activity they choose while women are forced into such activities as baton twirling and others of a lesser academic orientation. Similar to the argument concerning the division of attention, I also believe this argument is unjust. To say that a school should be separated into two separate single sex schools simply because females are supposedly forced into certain activities is preposterous. Truth be told, there is a problem with certain roles being forced upon students regardless of their sex. The corresponding male activity to baton twirling would be football or basketball or other physical sports. Alternative activities are offered in most schools including academic oriented clubs and organizations. The well-rounded student whether male or female, should be free to pursue both physically oriented and academically oriented passions. A single sex school is not necessary in my opinion to create an atmosphere where it is smart to do both. I believe that the rosters of virtually every school’s teams and organizations will provide evidence of this contention.

The final argument for the separation of schools by gender is the high level of self confidence felt by a graduate of an all-girls school versus the intimidation felt by women in a coed environment.. I find this argument to be much more viable than the previous two. Estrich claims that in her experiences at Wellesley, an all-girls school, proved to raise her self-esteem more than any other period in her life (389). I do not doubt that this is true because I agree that some women may indeed be intimidated by men in a classroom setting, thus causing them to hesitate to answer or ask a question for fear of appearing unintelligent or even ignorant. Not all women have this problem, however, and to take them out of a coed classroom would be overkill; the essence of education is to prepare the populace for a constructive and productive life as adults. For most of us this means interacting with and competing against both men and women for jobs and advancements. If a girl would benefit from a single sex environment to better prepare her for life in the adult world, then encourage her to choose that course. I do not believe that all girls would require such an environment. For those who do not have this problem then the idea of a coed classroom is the best option in order to achieve the highest rewards on an academic scale.

On the issue of separating schools or classrooms by gender I think everything should be widely considered before any rash decisions are made. While I do not agree with many of the arguments argued by Estrich in support of separate schools or classes, some of them seem to be well thought out and positive. My conclusion is that schools should not be exclusively gender separated but maybe high schools could begin offering single gender classes that students can elect to take if they think that it would help in their individual education process. That way students could try it out and if they like it they can continue on to a single sex college. The most important aspect of education is to learn and I believe that the environment where learning is best accomplished has to be made by the individual.

Do boys in the classroom hinder a girl’s learning process? Is she paying more attention to how her make-up looks than how to solve the next math problem? These are the types of questions raised in the debate between co-educational and single-sex schools. Attending both a co-educational and single-sex schools throughout my academic life, one can begin to see the differences and similarities between the two. There has long been a dilemma for parents over which type of education to chose for their child. In many ways, these two environments differ, but they are also similar in some ways.

Just because the population in co-educational school and single-sex schools is different, all schools practice a similar common curriculum. Whether you attend a co-educational school or a single-sex school, the quality of education stays pretty consistent throughout, depending on the specific school. Just because someone attends a single-sex school, their social life and participation in extra-curricular activities is very similar to that of co-educational schools. Even though an all-girls’ school might not have their own football team, they often pair up with all-boys’ school in order to participate through a brother school. Weekend and after-school activities remain constant whether someone attends a co-educational or single-sex school.

There are many extreme differences between the two types of schools. It has long been believed that girls can flourish in an all-girls environment because they don’t have to be self-conscious about answering questions in front of boys. The same thing goes for boys, who don’t feel the need to show off in order to impress all the girls. In single-sex schools, the students can feel more comfortable with themselves and more confident about their academic achievements. In some instances, single-sex education is seen as superior to co-educational schools because the students don’t have a change to worry about their appearances and they can concentrate more on their studies. In most single-sex schools uniforms are required, but even when they’re not, having a population of all one gender cuts down on the competition to see which girl or which guy has on the latest fashion. In single-sex environments, more focus is put on education and not on being popular with the opposite sex. One traditional difference that people think of between these two schools is the fact that most single-sex schools are private. Because most single-sex schools are private, they are also usually associated with some religious group. Another difference in a single-sex environment is the camaraderie one builds with his or her classmates. Spending every school day with a class of the same sex allows for a greater sense of bonding because everyone can share similar experiences, especially those that are specific to their gender. Using the cliche, “Boys will be boys,” when boys, as well as girls, are around a group of the same sex, they seem to be more relaxed and comfortable and able to talk about anything. Because groups of the same sex have so many personal, shared experiences that they can talk about freely with each other during school, stronger friendships are said to be forged in single-sex schools.

Most of the similarities and difference between these types of education stem from the stereotypes that are associated with each. Most of the similarities are social similarities, while most of the differences deal with education. The dilemma still exists in parents’ minds about which type of education will be the best for their child. Even though they should take the similarities and differences of each type of education into consideration, particular schools are different. While traditionally single-sex schools are seen as more beneficial because students can concentrate better, the similarities show that co-educational school also are advantageous to developing a student’s educational and social life.

The Bush Administration is considering opening more single sex schools and funds to make those institutions possible. Bush recently signed an education bill called “Leave No Child Behind (Toppo).” The new law allows school districts with single sex schools to compete for a small portion of $450 million for innovative programs. It also states that the school districts can receive federal dollars for single-sex schools and classes if comparable coursework and facilities are available to both genders. With single sex education a child is being left behind. It can be hard to understand why many organizations and individuals believe that single sex education is a good idea. Research on single sex education is open for much doubt, most of the research is inconclusive. Single sex schools might have more order than co-ed schools due to the fact that there would be no gender differences. There is no solid proof that single sex schools have a higher achievement rate than co-ed schools. More single sex schools are not the best move on the part of the Bush Administration and is a factor that needs to be reconsidered

Andersen & Taylor (2007) define class mobility as the movement between different classes. This type of mobility can either be downward or upward in nature. Social classes are cultural or economical arrangements of groups within a society. Class becomes a very crucial object that political scientists, sociologists, economists, social historians, and anthropologists use for their various analysis purposes. Within social sciences, the social class is usually talked over by considering social stratification. In the Western world, stratification particularly includes upper class, middle class, and lower class and each of the three classes can be further classified into occupational classes (Edgell, 1993). In a number of societies, particularly in the United States, the concept of class mobility is a very significant social idea, with her citizens considering that every individual has got a chance to climb up the social class ladder.

An individual’s social class can be determined by a number of factors for instance, occupation, education, wealth or access to money, and race. These are very crucial factors that place people within different social classes within any given society particularly the societies in the Western world. The factor such as race can bring about a help or a hindrance for class mobility depending on an individual’s race and the society in consideration, as well as culture, manners, and the family history. In some societies for example, an individual who has a lot of liquid money might be regarded as being in upper class, while in other societies, this individual might not be considered to belong to the upper class owing to other factors such as the individual’s occupation and family history. An example in this case is a pawnbroker who has done very well, but might not belong to the upper class in spite of having a lot of money like a famous banker, while the children of the pawnbroker might possibly join the upper class as they may develop most prestigious occupations (Andersen & Taylor, 2007).

As seen, most of the Western nations are generally divided into lower, middle, and upper class. Each of these classes has its own characteristic features which differentiates it from the other classes. The lower class is characteristic of laborers who earn low income as they acquired limited education, and this makes the individuals in the class to acquire only few opportunities for economic or educational progress. At times, a member of the lower class may have a lot of money just like the member in the topmost class, but still will be classified under lower class because the family background or the occupation that he or she is engaged in. The members within the middle class are seen to be economically stable having attained more educational opportunities. As well in the middle class, the individuals have got increased social opportunities due to the idea that their class status is elevated. The upper class forms the stratum the social structure with lowest population of individuals. This class constitutes individuals with well established social positions including increased prestige as well as better economic security (Saunders, 1990).

In most of the societies within the Western world, the goal of individuals within the lower and middle classes is the upward class mobility as they believe that higher social classes are more socially and economically secure. Achieving the class mobility can be done through various ways for instance; an individual who is attempting to attain class mobility can aggressively pursue social and educational opportunities while another individual can center on laying the groundwork so that the future generations of his or her family will find themselves in the highest social class stratum. An example in this case, is an individual in the lower or middle class, who works very hard to acquire college fees to ensure that his or her children have chances which would no be attained (Ferrante, 2007).

Within some societies, individuals experience downward class mobility as well. Downward class mobility becomes a great fear among many people who usually feel that their social ranks are unstable. Experiencing a radical change in fortunes may become an indication for a family which belongs to a higher class to fall down within the class stratification, usually when the changes persevere over many subsequent generations. Those individuals who experience downward class mobility are usually exposed to a good deal of prejudice from individuals within the former social stratum as well as the individuals within the social class in which they end up. With different generations in the world, social class mobility can either occur within or across the generation. The type of social class mobility that occurs within a generation is referred to as intra-generational mobility while the social class mobility that occurs across generations is called inter-generational mobility (Saunders, 1990).

Intra-generational mobility can be defined as the changes regarding social status within a single lifetime. This type of mobility occurs within a given generation. Intergenerational mobility can be defined as the changes regarding social status that happen from the parents’ generation to the generation of their children. Thus the intergenerational mobility occurs across a number of generations. The definitions are very crucial during the analysis concerning the manner in which social status change from a given time period to another, as well as whether the social status of parents can determine an individual’s own social status. In most case, sociologists usually center on the intergenerational mobility since this is the easiest in depicting changes across generations when compared to the intra-generational mobility. The sociologists use this information to determine if inequality within a given culture changes with time (Jr, 2009).

Intergenerational mobility is merit based as well as non-merit based. In this case, it is the ability and hard work which influences social mobility. Parents’ race, wealth, luck, and gender can also affect the intergenerational mobility. Intergenerational mobility focuses on how parents can influence their children’s social mobility. Quality education is very important since the children can obtain highest marks and therefore gain prestige. Parents can as well make significant connections with those people who belong to higher social classes so that their social network will become wider. These parents who form their children’s social capital tend to increase the social mobility of the children. Recent researchers have collected relevant data concerning the families’ economic mobility across generations. The researchers have considered the probability of attaining a given income distribution in relation to where the parents were socially positioned. According to the researchers, 42 percent of the children whose parents were in the lowest quintile end up in the bottom quintile; 23 percent of the children ended up in the second quintile; 19 percent of the children ended up in the middle quintile; 11 percent of them end up in the fourth quintile; and 6 percent ended up in the topmost quintile (Goldthorpe, 2006).

The social upward mobility becomes difficulty due to some given barriers. Education is a very important factor which can enhance or hinder upward mobility depending on how an individual has attained in it. Those individuals who achieve lowly in their academics do not usually continue with higher education such that they find themselves no where in the competitive world education wise during the time of searching for the prestigious white collar jobs. The lowly educated individuals engage themselves in the lowly paying jobs which are a characteristic of low class. Without taking a step in advancing the educational status, these individuals continue being in the lowest social class. Poverty is another factor which hinders social upward mobility, in that, the children inmost poor families do not develop enough in terms of psychological and behavioral development. Families also affect their children’s social mobility, in that; some families do not adopt strategies to support the children for instance, access to social, cultural, and financial capital as well as social networks of contact to access prestigious opportunities (Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

Factors like higher attainment in education enable individuals to move from lower social classes to the topmost class, since they can secure well paying jobs. Parents in well-off families who might be in the middle class, encourages their children to get into the topmost class as they ensure their children get sufficient psychological and behavioral development. Parents in some families adopt some strategies to support their children, for example access to social, cultural, and financial capital. The parents also have good social networks of contact which they use to access the most valued opportunities (Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

This essay will examine the significance of sociology and the importance of a good understanding of the society in which we live. This essay will also provide an understanding of what sociology is, and an insight into each perspective in relation to a particular concept and some of the social problems surrounding it. It will identify how an understanding of sociology is useful in helping social workers understand, evaluate and resolve the potential problems faced by their client groups, and will assess the importance of sociology in social work practice.

Sociology differs to psychology, in as much as psychology studies the individual and that individual’s reactions and involvement within society. Sociology concentrates its approach on a much wider level, looking at the bigger picture. Giddens (1989:18) reports that the study of sociology offers the individual an opportunity to detach oneself from preconceived ideas about social life, however it does pose specific problems, mainly because of the complex problems involved in subjecting our own behaviour to study. It is hard to be objective which you are directly involved in, and later on in the essay, it is apparent how this has influenced, and biased some perspectives.

Sociology developed as a science in the late 1700s. It was initially a way of attempting to understand the great changes happening in industry and society around that time, following a period of social and industrial revolutions throughout England and the transition from feudal England, into a more capitalist and industrialised society.

Although there are many definitions of sociology, there is no clear cut definition as to what it encompasses.

Macionis and Plummer (1997:4) say that the definition of sociology is the “systematic study of human society”, whilst “The study of human social behaviour, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society”

– is the definition taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sociology

We can therefore deduce that sociology is a study of looking at things from a wider angle. So, what psychologists may view as a personal tragedy to one person, when viewed from the wider angle, can provide an insight into imbalances in the equilibrium of society. For example, C Wright Mills (taken from Macionis and Plummer) wrote famously about the “Sociological Imagination”, which enables the individual to reflect upon the societal impact of what can be apparently individual events, such as divorce, and unemployment. Whilst divorce is a personal tragedy for the individual, the impact of it nationally becomes a social problem, given that Britain statistically has one of the highest divorce rates in Europe. So, sociology is about learning how to look at things with more than just knowledge or common sense, it is about being able to turn situations around and examine the impact on both the individual and the surrounding society.

To do this however, one must be able to identify what society actually is. What does it encompass? How many people does it take to make a society? Even if we assume that a society is, for example, a group of people with self perpetuating rules, living within a particular framework of social relationships, we still have to question to who’s rules are they are adhering, and to what extent is the framework of social relationship to be extended?

Classical sociologists had no problems in identifying what constitutes a society, as they assumed that society was something that could be investigated or analysed in a laboratory, such as with any other science. Classical sociology was in effect the “scientific” study of society. Whilst more modernist approaches such as Cree (as quoted in Cree:1997:276), have identified that today’s society is a much more mosaic and fragmented society, and realises that “much as we all have more than one identity, so we live and move in many different, and at times competing, societies”.

To enable them to study this, sociologists have identified many different perspectives on different sociological concepts.

A concept is an issue that is directly related to sociology or society, and as such includes issues such as the family, crime and deviance, the community, class, status, poverty, race and youth. All these concepts have a direct impact on society and so sociologists are interested in studying them. Each concept is often intrinsically linked to the remaining ones.

If we take as a simplistic example, a young black boy who has been caught stealing, he is from an impoverished background and is being brought up by his single parent mother. In this single example, a sociologist could choose to look at this case study from any or all of the above concepts. The family unit has broken down, leading the youth to commit acts of crime and deviance, possibly because the family’s standard of living has deteriorated, leading to a lowering in class and status, which in turn could have led to prejudice and isolation from the surrounding community.

A perspective however, is the actual viewpoint and theory which surrounds the explanation used to evaluate and identify society and social problems. For example, classical perspectives include Marxism, Interactionism, and Functionalism.

In the very simplest of definitions a Marxist perspective would examine a concept with its relativity to social class, and class conflict. Interactionists would be examining the meanings and interpretations of the study matter, and would focus on the individual. A Functionalist perspective, however, would examine the purpose and needs of the social structure surrounding the concept, and would be looking at the social system and sub systems.

These classical perspectives originated mainly from Western, heterosexual, middle class men, and highlight one of the many problems sociologists face, and that is distancing oneself from the matter which is being studied. The viewpoints of the classical sociologists appear to be from white, heterosexual men, FOR white, heterosexual men. These early classical attempts to study a society which is in itself a constantly changing and nebulous mass, has meant that new sociologists have had to emerge, bringing with them new, broader perspectives, and these are called contemporary sociologists.

Contemporary sociologists include views of society from perspectives such as Feminism, Anti Racism, Disablism, and the Gay Rights lobby, and the perspectives from which they write are fairly self explanatory, but Feminism will be discussed in more detail further on.

When examining one concept in detail, such as the family, and viewing it from each different perspective, we are provided with an insight on not only the historical background of the viewpoint from which it was written (eg – Marxism and Feminism were established in very different historical episodes), but it also enables us to lay this across different aspects of working practice in social work.

Therefore in order to operate in the social work profession efficiently, one needs to be able to look at the bigger picture, and put aside our own values and opinions of the family – i.e. all the differing family types etc, as it is hard to be objective about something with which you have direct experience of. We have all had experience of family, and so our expectations of the family life of our client groups will ultimately be influenced by this, much in the same way as sociologists will be influenced by the society in which they are part of,

To identify the family from differing perspectives, one must first reach an agreed definition as to what the family is in sociological terms, broadly speaking because if there is no agreed definitive answer as to what the family consists of, then each perspective may be constructing theories about what could fundamentally be very different social groups.

As a society we have stereo-typical ideas and ideologies of what a family “should” consist of and these are perpetuated through the media and advertising with images of the ideal family (i.e. husband, wife, 2 children, dog), and through humour, with television programmes such as 2.4 Children, My Family etc.

Macionis and Plummer (1997:438) suggest that the family “has been seen as a social institution that unites individuals into co-operative groups that oversee the bearing and raising of children.” Cree however, (2000:26) defines the family as a group of people bound together by blood and marriage ties, but not necessarily located in one geographical place.

When providing a definition, it has to adequately address the changing nature of family life in Britain throughout the last century. For example, using statistics from Giddens (1989: 181) over 20 per cent of dependent children now live in lone parent households. In addition to the rise in lone parent households, there have also been a significant increase in the emergence of differing family compositions..

It is easy to see that family structure and composition has changed greatly over the last century, and this could be due to the way that society adapts to accommodate social problems, for example, an increased number of lone parents, gay couples and sexual relationships outside of marriage etc. These were social problems during the 1900’s and earlier, and were immoral, which in the local communities at that time, could have been punishable by law, but today’s society has started to adapt and accept these changes, making something which was originally perceived as deviant into a social “norm”, and this will lead eventually into this behaviour becoming part of the social mores of our society. It is therefore safe to say, that in order for society to be maintained it has to accept the changing threats to values and adapt around the social problems it encounters.

Using statistics from Giddens (1989:176) we can see that the number of couples with dependent children has dropped significantly from 38% in 1961 to only 23% in 1998, whilst this signifies a decline in the amount of young married couples having children, it also highlights the fact that our society is also now increasing in age. This shows that the current population is likely to be comprised of adults without dependent children. In addition to this, the number of lone parents has risen dramatically from 2% in 1961 to 7% in 1998. Using figures from Macionis and Plummer (1997:447) which state that, “the numbers in adoption have sharply fallen. 6,000 in England in Wales in 1994, compared with 21,000 in 1971”, we can see how society has accommodated the issue of unmarried mothers. The number of one person households has also risen from 11% in 1961 to 28% in 1998, and this is probably due to the rise in divorcees having to find alternative accommodation following the breakdown of a marriage.

So, whilst we have identified what a family is, and an example of the social problems surrounding it, it is useful now to look at how each perspective views the family and its purpose and usefulness in society.

Looking at the functionalist perspective, who provide the most positive view of family life, it is essential to understand that functionalists view the family as the “basic social unit and the core institution of society” (Jorgensen et al:1997:72)

The functionalists see one of the integral familial contributions as social integration. They view the family’s main function as teaching the family members how to belong within the group (ie: society) around them. This function of the family stems from the fact that functionalists believe the family exists as the primary institution in any society, for the initial socialisation of children. In this respect any institution charged with this responsibility will play a large part in producing and maintaining cultural norms and values.

In addition to the socialisation function, they also believe the family plays a part in stabilising society. They believe the family reinforces values such as emotional and sexual stability, economic co-dependence etc. These regulations are an integral part of the society in which we live, and include moral boundaries, for example, such as incest. This is a purely human concept, and we are the only species which impose regulations on sexual interaction between family members. Our own society forbids the act of sexual relations between family members, but limits it to close relatives, such as those included in our extended family. In some societies however, it is permissible for siblings to marry. There are biological reasons why incest is not advised, however, the primary concerns are societal. Macionis and Plummer (1997) suggest that the reasons for this taboo are to minimise sexual competition within the family, it also forces people to marry outside of the family encouraging wider alliances to form, and it also protects kinship from falling into chaos. They suggest that as kinship defines people’s rights and obligations towards each other, forbidding reproduction between close relatives protects the family.

Another relevant example of the functionalist perspective is in the “institution” of marriage. For example, when an individual chooses to marry, they do so within the predetermined constraints of their individual society. In Britain for example, marriage partners are chosen at will, and marriage is based on personal choice and love. But in other societies, such as the Hindu religion, the couple have often not met before the marriage, which will have been arranged by the two families involved and is considered to be a “suitable union”.

So in this respect, the family is itself an institution in charge of maintaining the social equilibrium.

Talcott Parsons called these two features of the family Primary socialization and Personality stabilization. As quoted in Giddens (2000:175) “Parsons regarded the nuclear family as the unit best equipped to handle the demands of industrial society. In the “conventional family” one adult can work outside the home, while the second adult cares for the home and children.”

This has meant that Parsons’ view of the family is now seen as outdated, and critics have implied that the functionalist perspective reinforces the division of labour between men and women. Giddens (2000) however said this apparently sexist view could be explained primarily given the historical context in which Parsons was writing. He was writing immediately following the Second World War, which saw an immediate return of women to their traditional roles in the household, and men returning to their roles as sole breadwinners. However, I would dispute this, as upon reflection of Parson’s quote, he doesn’t actually specify gender, in his quote, he just reflects that one adult can work outside the home, therefore whilst he is outdated in his view that there are two parents, it could be perceived as forward thinking for being non gender specific..

The Functionalist perspective also negates the influence of other social institutions such as schools, the government etc and their important roles in the socialisation of children.

This perspective does not account for the breakdown of the traditional model of the family, and the fact that more children are now being raised outside of this. There is no real mention either of the incidents of abuse and violence, of which there is strong evidence to suggest that the family is in fact a very dysfunctional place in which to raise children, and this could be due to the fact that the sociologists writing on this perspective at the time were white, middle class me and not looking outside of the society they are a part of.

Moving on to the contemporary perspectives, the Feminists bring this to the forefront in their approaches to the family. The feminists believe that unequal power relationships exist within families. Not least importantly then, are the issues of domestic violence, marital rape, incest and sexual abuse. The feminist perspective does not perceive the family as a haven for love and support, but that issues such as incest and domestic violence provide a further opportunity for men to dominate and oppress women.

Feminism became influential in the 1970s and 1980’s and has continued to grow in strength and followers to this day. Before feminism, sociologists have been criticised for the male bias in their studies of society as a whole. From a feminist’s sociological viewpoint, women had previously always been viewed as appendages to men. Feminism has been concerned with the analysis of male/female relationships in terms of the relative significance of sex, class and patriarchy – ie; Male headed dominance

There are several different views within the feminist perspective, with as Lena Dominelli writes “a plurality of views, – liberal, radical, socialist, anti-racist and post-modernist – which can be held by both black and white feminists; for example, white radical feminism, black socialist feminism” (1997:97)

Neil Thompson (1993:53) writes that whilst there is no such thing as uniformed and consistent feminism, there are common themes and points of argument, they “all share a focus on the critique of patriarchy and the need to establish a fairer society in which women are no longer marginalised, alienated and pushed into secondary roles”. It also does not account for the fact that when women come out of the home, and enter the employment arena they are still being discriminated against, with low pay, maternity issues etc, which is perpetuating social problems.

Marxist feminism portrays the woman’s role in the family environment to that of the Proletariat, or exploited class, and the man’s role as that of the Bourgeoisie or exploiter. Seen from the Marxist feminist viewpoint, the woman is the loser in the inequal marriage partnership.

Marxist feminists believe that marriage is perpetuating the capitalist industry by prostituting the domestic services of the woman in return for financial security. What this means essentially is that by staying at home and looking after the children in an unpaid capacity, the woman is not only helping the man to work in the capitalist industry, but providing heirs to perpetuate the class division further. Thus, patriarchy is not simply a matter of biological difference, but is directly related to the economic base and the emphasis on comparing the woman’s role in the family to the exploitation of the capitalist class over the working class. According to Thompson(1993:56) this is one of the main weaknesses in the theory, as it does not explain how there is still continuation of male dominance in the non-capitalist societies

Liberal feminism has been evident since the early eighteenth century, and its main objective was to make it illegal to discriminate against, or use unequal treatment for women, and it was largely based on notions of free choice, empowering women to take control of their own lives. Liberal feminism is primarily concerned with issues of overt discrimination against women in all areas of social life, in particular, work education and the portrayal of women in the media, as well as arguing for legal protection and social rights. It argues that women are not inferior to men and should be allowed to compete equally in all aspects of life, especially education and work. It has been successful so far in using its main weapon (the legal system) in outlawing discriminatory behaviour towards women, and in establishing legislation to protect female workers in the UK and USA, such as equal pay etc. The main criticism of this perspective is that the women involved in the writing were middle class women, therefore the changes implemented were benefiting middle class women.

I understand that sociology can assist the social work practitioner in assessing situations from the wider picture and drawing on relevant perspectives in their own merit to help the client group involved in reaching a suitable resolution.

I therefore believe that an understanding of sociology can help social workers to develop a mind set which will provide the foundations for the commencement of good practice skills. I think that society modifies itself to accommodate social problems and that sociology itself has adapted to identify these, therefore, as sociology helps us to identify what the social problems are, it can help social workers to help the society in which they work.

TOTAL WORD COUNT = 3282

About eleven years ago on Tuesday April 20th, 1999 (anniversary of Hitler’s birthday) started out like any other day. Parent and children in a small Colorado town both went their separate ways to work and school, neither excessively concerned about the other or how their day would turn out but a couple hours later that would all change. On that day two seniors by the names of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went on a killing spree killing twelve students and one teacher. The seniors also injured 24 students directly and some that were trying to escape before taking the guns on themselves and ending their own lives. The killings created media frenzy regarding laws that had to do with gun control, how easy it was to access guns in the United States, and gun violence concerning kids (Larkin 13).

The massacre also created controversy and discussion on the nature of high school cliques, bullying, and also how the role of violent movies and video games affect a child’s mind. The event also changed the amount and degree of school security there was. The shooting also created a moral panic pointed at Goth culture, social outcasts of the school, violent music, how teens use the internet and the use of pharmaceutical anti-depressants by teenagers. Overall the shooting brought up many issues that needed to be discussed in our culture today so some kind of massacre like this would not happen again.

The biggest problem that could be accountable for these murders would be our culture today. Our culture today can be perceived by an outsider to be extremely violent especially in our media. The media everyday especially on the news shows violent crimes being committed; video games and films are also extremely violent. Video games in today’s society are ridiculous with the amount of violence that is shown. Games like Grand Theft Auto show deviant men killing cops, prostitutes and innocent civilians with a multiple array of weaponry. “If we are willing to pay for violent “entertainment” then we should expect our fantasies to infect our real lives. At some point violent talk becomes a public threat” (Schweitzberger). In this quote Schweitzberger talks about how these violent video games that children in America are watching will influence them in an extremely negative way to think it’s alright to commit some of the heinous crimes depicted in their video games (Larkin 28).

Probably the biggest issue brought up by the shooting was gun control. “The two by-products of that whole tragedy were violence in entertainment, and gun control. And how perfect that that was the two things that we were going to talk about with the upcoming election. And also, then we forgot about Monica Lewinsky and we forgot about, uh, the President was shooting bombs overseas, yet I’m a bad guy because I, well I sing some rock-and-roll songs, and who’s a bigger influence, the President or Marilyn Manson? I’d like to think me, but I’m going to go with the President” (Manson Marilyn). Manson talks about in this quote how society blamed him for the Columbine shooting because he is seen as a very deviant figure and because the two boys listened to his music. Manson explains how there is much more violence then we seem to think there is. He thinks America just sees the straight forward violence like in his music but there not seeing what the president who is supposed to be America’s idol is doing since on that day that the Columbine shooting occurred more bombs were dropped by the United States on Kosovo than ever before (Bowling for Columbine).

The people in the small town in Colorado wanted to know why kids had such an easy access to guns and other weapons. Why was it so easy for under aged teens to get their hands on them? People wondered why this happened where in just a town over in Littleton, Colorado a person opening a bank account at the local branch received a free handgun just for opening an account. They didn’t receive a free ugly bag that was splattered with the name of the bank like most banks giver their customers for opening an account but a free killing machine just for signing a few papers and depositing a few dollars. The main sociological perspective being upheld here is children were seeing firearms as more of an accessory then a weapon that was capable of mass destruction. Whether we want to admit it or not our country loves violence. There are constant gun rallies where people preach about how good they feel about owning a firearm (Kass 87).

Only two weeks after the shooting at Columbine the NRA hosted a gun rally in Littleton, Colorado just fifteen minutes away from the actual high school where the shootings had taken place. The sad part was even after the people of Columbine asked for the rally to be cancelled since everyone was still morning over the tragic loss of thirteen people their request was denied by the NRA. Instead the rally took place and a mass amount of people still attended. What does this say about our culture? That praising ones gun is more important than respect or the fact that violent crimes are just looked at not that big of deal these days since it happens everywhere. America’s society whether we want to believe or not is a very violent society filled with crime and mayhem (Kass 117).

“I am here today because my son Daniel would want me to be here today. If my son Daniel was not one of the victims, he would be here with me today. Something is wrong in this country when a child can grab a gun, grab a gun so easily, and shoot a bullet into the middle of a child’s face, as my son experienced. Something is wrong. But the time has come to come to understand that a Tech-9 semi-automatic -bullet weapon like that, that killed my son, is not used to kill deer. It has no useful purpose. It is time to address this problem” (father of Columbine victim). In this quote the father of one of the victims makes a very good point. Why do American homes have guns that usually aren’t used for hunting? There is no need for them yet 1 in every 3 homes in America owns some kind of firearm. In our culture we feel this sense of fear especially after 911 where we feel like we need to be prepared in case someone breaks into our home or bombs us or some other ridiculous reason to have a gun. It seems like our society lives in a state of fear all the time. Since 911 home security systems have shot through the roof along with the amount of firearms purchased. Sales in both home security systems and firearms were said to double since 911 (Bowling for Columbine).

Columbine created a culture shock among the country. Everything about the event such as the age of the students, the weapons being used and the violence that two young individuals could cause was shocking to our society. The culture shocked brought up all the media and gun issues previously mentioned. If these boys were looked at before the shooting they should have already been labeled as extremely deviant figures. Before the shooting the boys in their creative writing class wrote stories about killing animals and murdering people. The teachers did not catch until after that the names of these animals and people were most of the names of the kids who they killed in the shooting (Innes 221).

Another sign should have been a website that the boys created revealing Nazi memorabilia as well as violent images most of which was even directed towards their own classmates. In our culture there are ten values that the U.S. has. The ten include: equal opportunity, achievement and success, material comfort, activity and work, practicality and efficiency, progress, science, democracy and free enterprise, freedom, and racism and group superiority. The first nine of these key values neither boy had, however they did feel racism towards many of their classmates. On their website they specifically targeted African Americans as an inferior race. Some of the main values they didn’t have were “achievement and success” because they constantly felt they were the lowest on the social hierarchy in their high school and they felt that they did not have any “equal opportunities” as their classmates. The boys constantly felt that they were at a disadvantage to their fellow students. The boys were constantly bullied and ridiculed throughout their high school career and throughout the four years they were overly fed up with the concept (Kendall 113).

Society had a complete lack of social control over the boys. The boys did their own thing and were complete deviants of society. They had no values in their society. In the “basement tapes” that were found after the killings both boys go into great detail about how much there going to enjoy killing students at the school along with detailed accounts of killing animals in their area. When asking the students of how they viewed the two boys they replied with similar answers “outcasts,” “losers,” and “nobodies.” Ethnocentrism is the practice of judging another culture by the standards of their own. The students felt that because they were different and not like them that they had the right to judge them (Innes 71).

Deviance is the recognized violation of a social norm. The boys in the Columbine shooting could be said to be very deviant members of our society because of all the social norms that they broke. “Like biological theories, psychological explanations of deviance focus on abnormality in the individual personality. Some personality traits are inherited, but most psychologists think that personality is shaped primarily by social experience. Deviance, then, is viewed as the result of “unsuccessful” socialization” (Macionis, John). In this quote from a sociology book it basically explains how the boys become deviant in their society. The bad social experiences that these boys had in high school or just being made fun of and ridiculed day in and day out has caused them to act out in their society in a very negative way (Vandenburgh 31).

Durkheim created a theory that explained the function of deviance in the structural function analysis. Durkheim basically stated that there is nothing abnormal about deviance but rather it is a necessity in life to show us right from wrong. Durkheim came up with four basic rules of this analysis. The first one was deviance affirms cultural values and norms. Durkheim said that there can’t be evil without good and justice without crime. In the Columbine shooting it taught our society that the killers even though were not put to justice were wrong in what they did. They should have talked to a counselor about what was happening instead of acting in a way that they did. The second rule to the analysis is Responding to deviance classifies moral boundaries. When society defines individuals as deviant like in Columbine with the two killers it shows people right from wrong. In this case it is wrong to kill people just because they were mean or unjust to you. The right way to handle this situation would have been to talk to someone about their problems like a psychiatrist who could of helped them get over their bad high school experiences (Emile-Durkheim.com).

The third rule of Durkheim’s functional analysis of deviance is responding to deviance brings people together. This rule relates probably the most to Columbine because after the Columbine shootings people really came together to discuss what was really wrong in our school systems. Schools decided they needed to look for more signs of deviant people and keep a closer eye on them as well as get better security for their schools so something like this shooting won’t happen again at another school. People also came together and discussed how much violence was I our society and it kind of made everyone realize that society needs to stop letting their children watch these graphic images as well as monitor what their children were watching on the internet. This leads into Durkheim’s final rule about deviance which is deviance encourages social change. After Columbine there was a lot of change made. Schools were becoming safer and more schools were hiring more guidance counselors to talk and help students about how they were feeling. Gun control was also improved upon. After Columbine, Colorado passed a law stating that all firearms must have a safety placed on them and also stash them away from children (Emile-Durkheim.com).

The labeling theory also had a huge impact on why these boys killed. The labeling theory refers to data that individuals become deviant when either a deviant label is placed on them or they adopt the label by exhibiting the behaviors, actions, and attitudes associated with the label. The labeling theory basically states that people become deviant when that identity of the label they are given is forced upon them. The person being labeled feels trapped within that label and that’s when people that are labeled act out. In Columbine the boys felt that there was no way out of the labels that people put upon them so they decided to act out against the students who labeled them. The process of re-casting someone’s actions from the past in the aspect of a present identity is known as retrospective labeling. In Columbine Eric Harris and Dylan Kelbold were both re-cast after the terrible shooting took place. Much of their previous behavior that led up to the shootings had been relooked upon as deviant which they were labeled as after the shooting (Encyclopedia.com).

Another crucial part of the labeling theory is the idea of a stigma. A stigma is a powerfully negative label that greatly changes a person’s self concept and social identity. Since high school is such an impressionable part of someone’s life the boys could have felt that since they weren’t “cool” in high school that there never going to be “cool” and always be “losers.” Eric Harris could also be described as medically deviant because he was actually on medication that was “mind altering.” Harris in the tapes the boys made before shooting up the school talked about how he had stopped taking his medication to let the rage build up inside of him so it would be easier to kill all his fellow students easily. Since Harris had been harassed his entire high school career he had a lot of anger built up inside of him and the fact that he wasn’t taking his prescribed medication didn’t help much (Encyclopedia.com).

Both boys had nothing to lose they thought. They thought that if they just kept living their lives day in and day out that they would just keep being ridiculed relentlessly and with no end in sight of this misery stopping the boys thought up a plan to end it all. The boys have never felt in control of other people n their entire lives. They were always looked down upon in school and in the community so they knew by holding the school hostage they would finally become in control for once. “Individuals who feel they have little to lose by deviance are likely to become rule breakers” (Hirschi 17). In Hirschi’s Control Theory he outlines 4 basic beliefs that if someone lacks they are able to easily become deviant. No surprise that either of the boys had any from stopping them.

Hirschi’s first belief was attachment because strong social attachments encourage conformity. Both of the boys had no social attachments to anyone but themselves. Both of their families were considered to take part in domestic violence and even as kids they were treated horribly by their parents and family members. Both boys felt alone in the world with no one to turn too. The second belief was opportunity because the greater opportunity a person has in their life makes the idea of deviance vanish. Both boys were part of very low-income families and had terrible grades in school. They knew that any kind of post secondary education was not in their future. They felt that they would be stuck in their small Colorado town for forever. The third belief was involvement because participating in such activities as holding a job or playing on a sports team would give a person less time to engage or think about deviant activities. The boys never played sports or ever even tried to get jobs. Student from the high school would say they would just go home and hang out in Harris’s basement until the next time they had to go to school and even then most of the time they never showed up. Hirschi’s final belief was belief because having a strong belief in morality and respect will make a person not want to commit deviant acts. In the videos left behind that were made before the murder called the “basement tapes” the boys were both talking about killing and torturing animals for practice on what they were going to do to their classmates. Clearly both boys had no moral values or respect for anyone or anything (Hirschi 87-93).

The deviance that the boys had can also concern their values of power. Deviant people that we might consider “crazy” are not as bad as they are powerless. Take the boys for example, at their high school they were seen as nobodies and were complete social outcasts/ the boys looked at themselves as powerless because they were never seen as anybody. Even at home their family lives were the opposite of normal since both households were victims of domestic violence. So after coming home from an awful day at school they would once again be ridiculed. The boys then started thinking of the ideas on how to get revenge on their classmates. The boys wanted power because they never had it so they feel by taking everyone at their school hostage they can regain that power that they had lost after all these years of social torture (Vandenburgh 111).

Overall the shootings at Columbine high school will go down as the one of the most horrific events to ever occur in American history. Over twenty people lost their lives that day and all this death really amounted to society opening up its eyes and seeing how media and the government influence us. The event really opened our eyes to gun control and the amount of violence that is taking place in our society. It made everyone see just how influential America’s love affair with firearms and violence can be. It only took two young outcast teenagers who decided they wanted to shoot and kill several of their classmates.

India’s growth story has been incredible. The stock markets are doing well. Corporate India is optimistic about India being able to sustain the current growth rate for a considerable period of time. Indian companies are making their presence felt through cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Services and manufacturing sectors are booming. Growth in agriculture may be sluggish as compared to the other sectors, it growing nonetheless. Urban India believes that India is going to surpass the United States of America in a span of fifteen years. However, fundamental problems like malnutrition and corruption still plague our country. But the urban, educated, middle class are not affected by malnutrition and have learnt to live with corruption.

There is one problem besides corruption and malnutrition; which is prevalent across all sections of the society and all of them all guilty participants in making this problem a widespread one. The urban, educated, middle class; despite being ‘educated’, do not seem to realise the long term effects of their actions. This problem, if unchecked, has the potential to apply the brakes on India’s growth. The birth of a boy child is celebrated, while the birth of a girl child is, well; tolerated. And sometimes, the girl child is killed even before she is born.

Sex ratio is the number females in a geographic region per 1000 males. Most developed economies of the world (except China) have healthy sex ratios, with more number of females than males 1. A sex ratio 952 females per 1000 males is considered healthy. The national average as per the 2001 census is 933. Delhi has a modest 915 according estimates in the year 2009 2. As per the 2001 census, Rajasthan averages 922, while Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh average 964 and 978 respectively. Kerala being the most literate state also has the healthiest sex ratio of 1058 per 1000 males 3. However states like Punjab has a dismal sex ratio of 795 per 1000 males, which is alarming 4. The state of Maharashtra too is a cause for concern. With more working women being visible in Maharashtra, there is a misconception that Maharashtra is better off, but facts state otherwise. The juvenile sex ratio is 869 girls to 1000 boys, as on March 2010 11. If India has to continue on the growth path, the burgeoning menace of female foeticide cannot be ignored. But is the common man on the road concerned? No. Why? For one, the common man believes that it is not his problem; but of the feminists, the NGOs, the government, and so on. For another, he believes that the problem is societal, not personal; and hence it cannot affect him. (The common man I am talking about is a reference to the numerous people I have met so far in my life. Gender imbalance is the least of their problems.)

Is the problem societal? Crime against women is on the rise and the increasing imbalance between males and females will aggravate it 5. A survey conducted by Jagori, based in Delhi concluded that women face harassment in public places on a continuous basis 6. Since most of the cases of harassment go unreported, the awareness of the magnitude of the menace is abysmally low. An article written by Kalpana Sharma, “No girls please, we’re Indian,” (The Hindu, 29 August 2004) calls this problem an epidemic with huge social costs associated with it. My understanding of the articles I have referred to is that gender imbalance would lead to an increase in restlessness among men. Women would become easy targets to vent their frustration.

Is the problem personal? We Indians have developed a very wrong mindset. Unless a problem affects us personally, we do not seem to bother. Should women care? Women craving for sons, who have never faced harassment should realise that even they can be vulnerable. Should men care? States like Punjab and Haryana are facing a very grave situation. Due to their heavily skewed sex ratios, there are not enough brides for the grooms within the community. A study notes that 20% men may remain unmarried 6. Another study notes that marriage has beneficial effects on health and survival, with men reaping maximum benefits. Therefore, men run the risk of shorter life expectancy 7.

Why is that we do not want daughters? Daughters have always been considered as paraya dhan. Parents consider having a daughter as an expense, a luxury they cannot afford. Taking care of her, educating her, and marrying her off to a suitor, all require huge sums of money. Any property she inherits or assets that she creates go the family she marries into. Families who own large pieces of land have owned such lands for generations. Such families would always want their first child to be male for the purpose of inheritance and keeping the land within the family. Even today marrying off a daughter is considered the biggest responsibility a parent can possibly have. Fears for her sexual safety and security make parents to marry off their daughter as early as possible.

Why is that we want sons? The answer is dowry. Though the practice of dowry is made illegal in 1961, it is an open secret that the practice is prevalent even in 2010. We have men in the south proudly telling each other that they have a ‘market value’ in the marriage market 9. There are men among the rural folk who consider getting married simply to rake in dowry and use it to fund their businesses. Dowry in today’s world has taken many convenient forms like a fully furnished apartment, high-end electronics, a four-wheeled vehicle, and huge sums of money. The trend of son preference cuts across socio-economic factors like caste and economic status 6. As a result, dowry related harassment is rising. Other than financial concerns, there are other benefits in having sons. India is a patrilineal society. Sons continue the family lineage (gotra), while daughters lose their gotra of birth and join the lineage of their husbands. This essentially means that sons are the only legitimate descendants in the system. Therefore, sons are a source of prestige for a family.

As a consequence of these deep seated norms, girl children under the age of 5 face severe neglect in terms of nutrition, immunisation, and clothing. They also face discrimination with regard to schooling. Sometimes female infants are killed within a few days of their birth. With the advent of technology, the trend of sex selective abortion or female foeticide has risen to unprecedented levels. Thirty years ago, these methods were not known. The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act (PNDT) Act prohibits doctors and clinics from using pre-natal diagnostic techniques, such as scans, to determine the sex of a foetus. First offenders would face a penalty of up to three years of imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 and repeat offenders would risk a five-year imprisonment and a 50,000 fine. The act also prohibits any advertising for diagnosis facilities. The act notwithstanding, the awareness of sex selective abortions were popularised with the mushrooming of unregistered, illegal, small clinics by advertising the ‘benefits’ of sex selective abortions through messages like “It is better to pay a small amount today for a sex-selective abortion than a larger amount later for your daughter’s dowry.” The government, on its own, has not been effective in enforcing the act. The government has a myopic take on the issue. Since this issue cannot be treated as a plank to garner votes, the long term after effects of sustained gender imbalances on demography are not being considered seriously 10.

All hope is not lost. Many NGOs have launched sting operations, such as luring doctors into revealing the sex of a foetus. While often receiving wide publicity, these initiatives are proving somewhat less effective for legal reasons, as proof of criminal wrongdoing is often difficult to establish. But they nonetheless have had an unmistakeable impact on clinic operators in some areas, who have come to realise that the Act can be implemented by non-official entities. Other than stings, NGOs have been also been instrumental in spreading awareness through campaigns like Save our daughters, Laadli 1 million signature campaign, FADA movement by Deepalaya, Jatha campaign by Jagruti, and recently, the programme Santulan by the Divya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan, to name a few. Actress Gul Panag has taken up the cause in Chandigarh and has partnered with a city based NGO called Samsher Singh Foundation to fight female foeticide 8.

Notwithstanding these initiatives, at a personal level, we must spread awareness of the issue. A growing India not only needs to debate on fiscal deficit and current account deficits but also on the daughter deficit. The issue needs to be talked about more often to make it relevant all the time. Changing the mindsets of a billion people will not happen overnight. The youth and newly wed couples need to be sensitised about the issue. I advocate certain fundamental changes in the way we think to bring about the change. The urban, educated, middle class can be targeted first with these ideas. After there is a considerable change in the mindset of the middle class, these ideas can be trickled down to the grassroots.

The primary problems of lineage, inheritance, and girls being treated as paraya dhan need to be addressed. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 gives women equal rights of inheritance of land and property. This empowers the women economically and treats daughters as equal financial providers. Second, sons are no more providing for the parents during their old age. Sons are moving out of their ancestral homes, are staying away from their parents and are starting families of their own. Parents of sons are also not assured of constant personal care from their sons in their old age. Now in such a context, it does not matter if the parents have sons or daughters: they are going to stay away anyway due to a variety of reasons and they will be playing roughly equal roles when their parents need them. Third, the concept of a patrilineal society needs to be done away with. The very notion that a daughter would be part of another family after marriage should be erased. Daughters, not just sons, can also be considered as legitimate descendants. The children of the daughter need not be thought of as children of another family. In the United States of America, a child can take the surname of either parent. Though it is not a norm here in India, the government is not stopping us from doing so. Now with respect to dowry, young men need to be sensitised about the issue. They need to be told that the fact that they are proud to have a ‘market value’ is detestable. They need to be taught that it is unethical to think of dowry as an opportunity for instant money. Traditionally, parents of the girl perform her wedding and bear all the expenses. This has to change. Parents of the boy should also shoulder the burden of performing the wedding and share the expenses with the parents of the girl; it is after all the wedding of their son, what is the shame in bearing the expenses of their own son’s wedding? Better still, the boy and the girl should be made accountable for the expenses incurred. It their own wedding, why make their parents shoulder the entire responsibility for the expenditure? The fundamental assumptions which would make these changes work are that the urban, educated middle class are liberal in their mindsets, love their sons and daughters roughly equally, and have inflated egos. By hitting on their egos, by enquiring about their capability to fund their own son’s wedding, these changes can be driven home.

It would too naive to think that by making these changes, we would quickly achieve a healthier sex ratio. These changes are easier said than done, because they are too radical. Even the urban, educated, middle class would find it difficult to digest and assimilate these changes because the existing norms have been around for centuries. Small successes should be celebrated and propagated. It would take years for these changes to provide material results. Eventually, when these changes produce results, one cannot rest because these changes will still have to trickle down among the rural and poorer sections of the society. For India to be an economic superpower, all sections of the society should have a healthy sex ratio within their communities. It is a long and arduous journey ahead.

(I have quoted references for most of the facts, results of a survey or study, and certain opinions by authors like Banashri Savanoor and Kalpana Sharma stated in this article. Everything else is either a culmination of my readings on the subject or purely my personal opinion. I shared my ideas on this subject with my colleagues where I worked and they appreciated them. Their feedback was that these ideas are logical, but making it practical would be very difficult.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Delhi-sex-ratio-takes-a-nose-dive/articleshow/6555979.cms

http://www.iloveindia.com/population-of-india/sex-ratio.html

http://www.e-pao.net/GP.asp?src=20..280810.aug10

http://legalserviceindia.com/article/l292-Female-Foeticide.html

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-120929-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

http://www.economist.com/node/16789152

http://www.bollywoodworld.com/bollywood-news/gul-panag-to-fight-against-female-foeticide-110519.html

I have drawn such a conclusion from my personal experience. I hail from Hyderbad, and it is common knowledge that certain communities like the Reddys, and the Gouds are known for their exorbitant dowries. The talk of a ‘market value’ for men started during my college days. It was one of the most discussed topics in most circles. When I graduated and started working in Mumbai, there was a small Telugu community within the workplace, and I was shocked to hear the term ‘market value’, again; among older men. The very notion of a human being, man or woman; being treated like a commodity enrages me. I have been reading up on this topic from quite a long time and has become close to my heart. That is why I have chosen this topic.

My views on the bias against the girl child and the PNDT are a culmination of my readings on the subject. Facts and advertisements for the clinics have been taken from PC-PNDT Handbook for the public, http://pndt.gov.in/index2.asp?slid=6HYPERLINK “http://pndt.gov.in/index2.asp?slid=6&sublinkid=58?&HYPERLINK “http://pndt.gov.in/index2.asp?slid=6&sublinkid=58?sublinkid=58 . The views on the government are entirely personal.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/as-law-crawls-maharashtra-sex-ratio-drops-more/649580/1

Socio-anthropologists hold the opinion that people think, feel and act in certain ways based on the environment in which they have grown. The environment in this context could be inferred as the community that has influence their make-up or identity. In recent times, public debates in the media by politicians, journalists, experts and other stakeholders have focused on what is or constitute being British. These debates have sharply bordered on socio-religious identities, and raised questions such as: Does religious beliefs supersede community bonding? To what extent is ones’ loyalty to the community in which one lives?. Other debates have been on

“profiling and condemnation of racially motivated violence and harassment, a hand wringing debate on institutional racism following the publication in 1999 of the Macpherson Report into the death of Stephen Lawrence” (Amin, 2002).

Government policies and legislatives on equal opportunity to highlight awareness of sense of community, presuppose that the very fabric of the concept of community is weakened and threatened in our contemporary Britain.

Community is “A body of people having common rights, privileges, or interests, or living in the same place under the same laws and regulations” (http://www.brainyquote.com/words/co/community146100.html) The meaning of the word ‘Community’ has changed over the years. Smith (2001)explores the theory of community in the article entitled Community and highlighted on why the attention on social capital and community may be important.

“the use of the term community has remained to some extent associated with the hope and the wish of reviving once more the closer, warmer, more harmonious type of bonds between people vaguely attributed to past ages’ (Elias 1974, quoted by Hoggett 1997: 5).”

People lived in groups sharing faith, religion and other social norms during pre industrialization era. Community was redefined after this when people became workers in industries. They were many studies about community in the middle of the 20th century leading a deeper analysis of the term.

The free Dictionary however defines individualism as “a belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence”. This definition highlights on the word ‘belief’ – anything held as true. Thus in this context the individuals opinion is held in high esteem and supplants that of any others. Hofstede (1991) in his cultural dimensions describes individualism as pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Hofstede scaled Britain on high individualism index of 89, and that people thinks in terms of ‘I’ and not ‘We’.

Researchers found that Britain was the most individualistic society in the world – one that valued the self over the group more than any other country.(Richard A, 2009) According to the Kwintessential website certain traits are common to countries that have high individualism.

“personal goals and achievement are strived for, it is acceptable to pursue individual goals at the expense of others, ‘individualism’ is encouraged whether it be personality, clothes or music tastes and finally the right of the individual reign supreme; thus laws to protect choices and freedom of speech.” (http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/intercultural/individualism.html)

A recent report for the Children’s Society highlights the above facts.

“Leading experts today identify excessive individualism as the greatest threat to our children. In a landmark report on A Good Childhood, commissioned by The Children’s Society and published by Penguin, they show that children’s lives have become more difficult than in the past, and they trace this to excessive individualism.”

(http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/whats_happening/media_office/latest_news/14758_news.html)

Other organisations like Joseph Rowntree Foundation have express the fear over the changes that are taking place in Britain. They have classified excessive individualism as a social evil.

“The JRF’s recent public consultation revealed a strong sense of unease about some of the changes shaping British society. This Viewpoint continues the discussion about modern ‘social evils’ on the theme of ‘inequality’. Chris Creegan argues that until we can reconcile the problems of excessive individualism, consumerism and greed at the heart of contemporary society, life opportunities will continue to be lost, limited and wasted.” (Creegan C, 2008)

To enable all different groups to get on well in all communities, community cohesion should take place. A cohesive community is one that affords the people in the community knowledge of their rights and responsibilities. People from different backgrounds in this community should have similar opportunities. They must also trust their local institutions like the police and the courts. They should believe that the local council will offer fair services to all in the community and not for instance place all new immigrants looking for accommodation from social landlords into areas that are deprived and unwanted by the rest of the community.

The community must recognize the contributions of both new arrivals and those already settled and not be intimidated by the change it brings. A typical example is the arrival of the Polish immigrants. Some people in Britain could not recognize the skills, experience and knowledge they brought to the nation but rather were fearful that they had taken jobs from the British. Also, that there are positive relationships between people of different backgrounds at school, work and home. According to Ted Cantle “Community cohesion aˆ¦ isaˆ¦micro-communitiesaˆ¦mesh into an integrated whole. These divided communities would need to develop common goals and a shared vision” (Home Office, 2001b: 70). In his recommendations, Cantle draws on the importance and the need for Social networks and social capital, social order and social control, social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities. Worley (2005) also demonstrates how the concept of ‘community’ is vital to the community cohesion, and suggests that whilst the concept of ‘community’ is highly ambiguous, it has continuing significance in New Labour policymaking.

Excessive Individualism is concerned with each one for him/herself and God for us all and therefore undermines the sense of community cohesion in Britain. People have become increasingly self-reliant. Families are not so extended anymore but reliant on one, two or the most three people. People are not in contact so much with their relatives and tend to rely on their immediate family only. Family homes are acquired to accommodate the immediate family and not the extended family. People hire child minder, nannies and do not rely so much on their relative anymore. Everyone aspires to be rich or amass wealth that will meet his and her families needs. Some researchers have even blamed the recession on individualism.

” From the public consultation we did last year, there was a strong sense that the decline of community has corresponded with a rise in individualism. Participants suggested that people increasingly look after their own individual or family interests without considering the needs of society or the community.” (Urwin J, 2008)

People are no more interested in what the community achieves but what they the individuals can achieve. Even industries encourage people to be individualist by offering DIY packages which take attention from tradesmen to the individual. Thus a sense of togetherness is non existent.

If the advent of industrialization has promoted individualism, then what about information age. Computerization, in terms of games development such Wii, Playstation and Xbox 360 are all means and mediums that does not encourage people to go out and socialize in the community, rather it encourages people to engage with themselves. Online shopping has brought the benefit of purchasing items from the comfort of our homes; however, this goes a long way to kill social interaction. Most social activities are now targeted at the individual in his home. People have become ‘lazy’ at forming relationships with others especially those who live in urban areas.

The East end of London was once a upon a time described as ‘dark in the night and dark in day’ dark in the day meaning it was not lit up by the middle class’s Christianity. That has diminished in today’s Britain leaving little bulbs of religion here and there making religion or faith very individualistic.And yet the old east end is often held up as the epitome of ‘community’. People’s values vary and individual behaviour has become very personal and can’t be corrected by community as before. You can’t correct other people’s children without being murdered or abused. Everyone keeps themselves to themselves and it’s hard to get to know your neighbours. There are some very sweeping generalizations in these preceding statements – they referencing or at least phrased with greater nuance. This is what happened in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford when communities lived in different areas went to different schools and had little to do with each other.

“Whilst the physical segregation of housing estates and inner city areas came as no surprise, the team was particularly struck by the depth of polarisation of our towns and cities. The extent to which these physical divisions were compounded by so many other aspects of our daily lives, was very evident. Separate educational arrangements, community and voluntary bodies, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks, means that many communities operate on the basis of a series of parallel lives.” (Independent Review Team, 2001; 9)

People’s inability to relate to others goes a long way to affect community cohesion. It creates fear, tensions and misunderstanding which is what was experienced in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham.

“Fears about the overwhelming and negative effect of diversity on social cohesion and national identity have been expressed by journalists and policy makers alike. For example, David Goodhart, the editor of The Prospect, targeted his February 2004 article at the detrimental impact of ethnic diversity in modern Britain on the sense of community and solidarity among citizens, and on the viability of the British welfare state (Goodhart 2004), while Trevor Philips, Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, reiterated this argument by stressing the need for strengthening common values and “core Britishness” (Baldwin and Rozenberg 2004).” (http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Politics/papers/2005/NLetki_social%20capital%20and%20diversity_final.pdf) This paragraph is all a quote – authors citing other authors. It needs some link to your argument – pulling out those elements that directly bear on it.

Having said all of the above, community cohesion issues are multifaceted and function differently in specific areas. “There are many parts to building community cohesion, from tackling inequalities to developing people’s understanding and tolerance of others.”

(http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2627)

Excessive individualism is not the only factor that works against community cohesion. There are other factors like integration which needs to happen for new residents and existing residents to understand and accept one another. In the Cantle report the issue of intergration came up and the comments were as follows:

“The other problematic issue is that of levels of integration/segregation. Again there is a perception within the established white community that minority communities do not do enough to integrate into what they see as British culture or society, instead forming a separate community (a view which seems at odds with the observed “white flight” when such integration is attempted). Yet to an extent segregation will always occur through choice- whether naturally gravitating towards people who share your views or seeking minority-specific facilities such as places of worship or particular shops and services that would not be financially viable in a more dispersed community- and this is not necessarily a cause for concern. The Cantle Independant Review team notes:”

(Wntrmute 2003)

A cohesive community must also have the ability to create opportunities to bring people together, confront myths and intolerance so that people in the community can realise their full potential. Every area is unique and will therefore face different challenges. Britain has a rich diversity in towns, cities, urban and picturesque villages. Community cohesion must be able to meet the differing needs of its residents before cohesion can be promoted.

For community cohesion to function well there needs to a sense of safety. People must feel safe and welcome. There should be jobs so that establish residents do not start to blame new residents of taking their jobs.

“Social trends have also influenced the experience of poverty within England. For example, unemployment figures are roughly comparable with those of the 1970s, but changes in social structure (more single home owners or single parent families) mean that a greater number of homes lack a source of income. The UK is the only EU country in which households with children are more likely than households without children to include no one with a job. This is attributed to the high proportion of UK lone parents without a job. (from the Social Inclusion National Action Plan)” (Wntrmute 2003)

Lack of jobs in certain communities in Britain has created a gap of have and half not in communities. Priorities should be given to regenerating run down areas in the community to promote community cohesion. If run down areas are not regenerated residents will start to become bitter and it will create tensions in the community. This will also attract businesses to the area which will in turn impact on the community.

The provision of affordable housing will also help promote community cohesion. Housing is recognised as a major determinant of the shape of communities (Independent Review Team, 2001; Home Office, 2001) In communities like Slough where there has been a large in flux of immigrants, there are accusations that local residents are being passed over in social housing. Also, when there is housing, communities do not break up and move away looking for housing elsewhere. In recent times, we have seen young people move away from villages because properties there are too expensive. Residents in the community should also be provided with the opportunities for training for jobs. This will boost confidence and enhance job seeking opportunities.

There should be good transport links in the community. This should put the community on the map. Make people get to places quickly and conveniently. Give access to shops and amenities. There should be good environmental improvement which will enhance communities. An insert of cultural and leisure facilities should aid the promotion of a cohesive community. Cultural and community centres which promote belonging.

Britain is now made up of people from different backgrounds and for them to get on well together community cohesion must happen. This will however, be difficult if excessive individualism is prevalent. Having said that, community cohesion cannot be undermined by excessive individualism alone other factors like housing, poverty, race etc are contributing factors.

.
.