Author: Andre Coleman

In every society, with no exception, it exists a what we could call a ”behavior diagram of the collective life”. Every individual in it knows how to behave in certain situations and knows what reactions he should expect from others based on his actions. When unexpected actions of a deviant behavior occur, which do not belong in the accepted patterns of moral behavior, and threatens the health of society, they get sanctioned. Sanction and punishment represents one of the elements of social control. In its general meaning, social control represents the means and mechanisms that regulates, orientates and modifies or influence the individual behavior in societies in order to obtain a compliance to the system of values and maintaining the equilibrium of society.

The concept of social control was first introduced in sociology at the beginning of the 20th century by the American school of ”Sociological jurisprudence” to determine the main ways that society assures its functionality and stability through different methods. In E.A. Ross’s view, the social order is never spontaneous or instinctual, being determined by both the direct psychological pressure of the actions or suggestions of stimulation by different social forces and by institutions that have the role of controlling and adjusting behavior. In his opinion, low represents the most specialized the most perfect mechanism of control in society, and considered it to be the core of social order. The representatives of the ”Sociological jurisprudence” included in the social control not only the means of sanction of the undesirable behavior but the means and method to promote the desirable conduit that suits society such as education, art, ethics and so on. This fact has determined J.Carbonnier that this is a more subtle form of social constrain. In the context Szczepanski was pointing out the fact that every group, collectivity or society develop a series of measures, suggestions, means of persuasion, systems of pressure, interdictions, constrains, sanctions going as far as the physical constrains, systems and forms of manifesting gratitude, according prizes and distinctions which leads the individuals and groups to an accepted model of behaviour and values which ultimately leads to the conformity of members(in society). We could call this system the system of social control. The polish sociologist took notice that not all behaviours and actions of individuals are subdued to the same measures of social control. Every human being has the right to a certain ”private zone” that limits the social control, that can be larger or smaller depending on the following aspects:

1.type of society- authoritarian or democratic, traditionalist or modern etc

2.group unity-the greater the unity is, the greater the control

3.institutions in which individuals belong-for example, in paramilitary institutions the social control is extreme.

4.position of individuals in the group hierarchy-for example, a politician is exposed to a larger social control than a normal individual.

Actions that are indispensable to the development of collective life, are much more controlled than actions that have an individual importance. Thus, for example, society has more interest in how a school principle runs the educative activities a school rather than what he does in his free time. The more an action refers to the life of a group, and influences that group, having a greater impact on it, the more it can be considered as a threat and could be sanctioned in accordance. The whole purpose of social control is to influence the members of a society to act and behave so that they can maintain and conserve the well being of their society. J. Cazeneuve includes in the system of social control the whole processes of socialization and the pressure that individuals exert on others.

From the perspective of other sociologists such as W.G. Sumner, regulating conduct of members of society takes place largely through so called ”folkways”. The main condition of the social life is the adapting human at the environment, which gives birth to different groups of solidarity kept together by beliefs, opinions, and customs. Folkways contribute to the social solidarity, they have an imperative function to the behaviour. They represent for social groups what habituation represents for an individual. W.E Brugess and E.R. Park distinguished in the book ”Introduction to the Science of Sociology”(1921) the existence of three main forms of exerting social control in society:

-spontaneous forms, elementary to social control(spontaneous adaptation of the individual to the behaviour of a group, under its pressure)

-public opinion(which is the not institutionalized social authority)

-institutions and legal regulations(which functions as an imperative and institutionalized authorities)

According to the functionalist-structuralist theory of T.Parsons, social rules indicates the individual the permitted social norms for different situations, from which he orientates his activity and chooses from all possible alternatives the most suitable one. Parsons insists over the idea that the obedience to the rules isn’t caused by a coercive social control but rather by a natural behaviour, due to the internalization of the social values. The interpretations of social control that sociologists make today can be grouped into two large categories:

restrictive interpretations which emphasize institutionalized and coercive character of the social control

regulatory interpretations which treats the social control systematically as set of actions focused towards defining social deviance and stimulating the social reaction of prevention and rejection of it.

Allan Horowitz suggests that the definition of deviance changes from a subculture to another in accordance to different norms of utilization. Take for example homosexuality. It is considered as an illness in some cultures while in others it can be seen as a libertine way of living.

M. Sorin Radulescu considers that the main criteria of the forms of social control classification is:

1.by the means of originating, social control exercised by state institutions(courts, prisons, mental hospitals etc) by different social groups(family, school, associations, organisations etc) or by particular individuals who possess a certain authority within a group(priest, householder etc);

2.by the means of which social control is exercised, is formally organised, achieved by specialized institutions and spontaneous, achieved by traditions, customs, public opinion etc

3.by the utilized means: the incentive of social control(positive), through the means of rewards, distinctions, suggestions etc and the coercive social control(negative), through rumors, manipulation(propaganda and advertising), prohibitions etc

4.by the methods(types of sanction) adopted in relation to the act of deviance, there is penal social control(punishment), compensatory (payments as a consequence of damaging other individuals property or state property), conciliator(negotiations and mutual understandings), therapeutic(resocialization).

Starting from the last criteria Horowitz points out the existence of a number of social control ”styles”: penal(the punishment that the individual suffers as a consequence of his act), compensatory(which obligates the individual to compensate his acts through payment, thus restoring his place in society), conciliatory (can be carried out without the need of coercive sanction) and therapeutic(has the objective to change the individual personality in order bring him back to ”normality”. According to the last ”style”, the therapeutic style, individuals are being treated as victims of an illness which they cannot control by themselves thus being forced to a programme of medical treatment.

The deviant behaviour became a key concept in sociology in 1940, and as time went by, it has developed its own study, the sociology of deviance. Sociology of deviance studies crime, violence, alcoholism, prostitution, drug consumption, invalidity, suicides, mental illnesses, homosexuality and lesbianism. The definition of social deviance was first gave by two authors: Sellin and Merton.

Sellin defined it as being the force that disturbs the social equilibrium of institutions and the rules of conduct. A similar definition gave Merton. The type of behaviour that opposes the conformist type, and includes not only breaking the law but every deviation from the rules of cohabitation. Many behaviours can be categorized as being deviant from being indecent and obscene to antisocial behaviour. We can assume that although most deviant behaviours consist in breaking the law, there is a part that are not dangerous for society (victimless crimes). In order to clarify this concept a distinction is to be made: between the phenomenon of deviance and that of abnormality. The first is a sociological concept(deviance) and the second is a psychopathologic(abnormal). The last refers to the incapacity of the individual(medically valid) to adapt to social life and its requirements. A few observations are necessary to clarify the concept of ”deviance”. Deviance is a relative notion because of at least two reasons: because the normative system differs from a society to another and where in one society an act might be considered deviant and immoral in another the same act could be interpreted as being conformist. The second reason is that the law represents an important factor in the changes of society which could induce modifications in the reception of normative context of a society and it could even transform itself under the impact of a social change. For this reason, even in the same society at different points in time, an act could be seen as deviant or not. Tolerance to behaviour changes along with society, it evolves. These arguments sustain the fact that deviance is relative and is in accordance to age, law, culture and the form of society. It is also necessary to divide deviance from anomie. It must be clarified that deviance does not correspond with the absence of norms, with anomie, social disorganization. The term anomie comes from the Greek ”a nomos”(without law) and refers to the state of disorder of a social system or subsystem caused by the disintegration of the norms that assure social order and regulates the behaviour of individuals.

The sociologic term was established by Emile Durkheim who used it first in his work ”The Division of Labour”(1893) to explain one of the malfunctions of labour division and later on in ”Suicide” to assign on type of suicide within other types.

An example of anomie is revolutions. Revolutions overcome the old social order, creates situations of anomie because it provokes disorientation of norms, confuses system parts that should normally guide behaviour. Analysing the great tragedies of the Russian revolutions, Pitrim Sorokin, a Russian-American sociologist found that the state of anomie generated by revolutions are shortly followed by a downfall of human behaviour, with deviant tendencies. Consequences emerge from the revolution into individual and social behaviour of masses, such as:

-The disappearance of old customs and values and the appearance of others, in an extremely short time compared to the normal society.

-Individuals adopt new forms and methods of thinking, involving the religious, moral, aesthetic, political and professional realm.

-the involution of the individual to its primitive stage where his basic needs are his main interest.

-justification of the act of crime in the name of the fight for freedom, fraternity and equality.

-verbal and written reactions of the public amplifies(meetings, press articles etc)

-the increasing of the property crimes

-the growing number of divorces, sexual delinquency and other types of moral delinquency that affects the public

-the change in the relationship of authority and the negation of hierarchies and the authority of the law.

Understanding the concept of social control is a key understanding of crime, its causes, its effects and its ”surroundings” as it may lead to ways of preventing crimes, and social disorder. It describes the very foundation of crime and crime related behaviour. It provides a complex definition of both deviant behaviour, antisocial behaviour, or just eccentric behaviour and classifies each of them into categories by their different influence and importance to social health. Social control is the form society preserves itself from various internal threats, sets patterns of behaviour and norms that individuals must follow. It draws the relationship between individuals and institutions. I consider that understanding it is not only extremely important but vital into understand criminology.

Andrei Dan Cristian

SC.104, Spring essay: ”What do criminologists mean by social control and why should they be interested in it?”

Tutor: Darren Thiel

Throughout the history of human existence, there have always been questions that have plagued man for centuries. Some of these questions are “what is the meaning of life” and “which came first, the chicken or the egg”. Within the past 400 years a new question has surfaced which takes our minds to much further levels. The question asked is whether nature or nurture has more of an impact on the growing development of people. It is a fact that a combination of nature and nurture play important roles in how humans behave socially. However, I believe that nature has a more domineering role in the development of how people behave in society with regards to sexual orientation, crimes and violence and mental disorders.

Height, hair color, eye color and sex are just a few examples of ways our DNA has shaped us. But could it be possible that our DNA also affects the way we behave in society. It is possible that genetics affect us is more ways that we may have imagined. Dr. Peter B. Neubaur believes that shyness, eating disorders, obsessive behavior and psychological illness can all be traced back to our genetics. Sexual orientation is also believed to be derived from genes in our body which determine what sexual preference we prefer. Violence and other types of crimes can be linked back throughout a person’s lineage to witness that other family members have been committed similar crimes without ever meeting one and other.

Throughout our lives we have all been influenced by our environment and other outside forces. Our environment may change the way we think, act and behave in life. Since we are all products of our environment, it comes to no surprise that we, as humans, tend to behave in a society the same way others around us behave but at the same time we strive to find who we really are (Schaefer 73). Since birth, humans have always analyzed the world around them. With each day that passes, humans take in more and more information from the outside world. The information which humans obtain through their environment subconsciously influences the decisions people make throughout their daily life (Neubauer 16). On the other hand, our genetics also play a vital role in determining what type of person we are and what will we become.

The sexual orientation of a person has been a critical debate over the past several centuries. For several decades many people believed that nurture had a more profound impact on the sexuality of humans than did nature. Even the famous psychologist Sigmund Freud believed that sexual orientation was derived from nurture. Freud developed a theory which explains that at birth till the age of four every child is bisexual. When the child reaches the age of around four, he/she begins to learn to withhold their feeling for members of the same sex and start expressing those sexual feeling to members of the opposite sex. Freud proposed the idea that male homosexuality originates when this crucial developmental stage is hindered by some outside force also known as nurture. According to Freud, this can occur when either a chided is raised in a fatherless household or with an overbearing mother figure. However, when this idea was actually tested, it did not fall through as many would expect it would (Steen 185). Since many years after Freud’s passing, it has become apparent that nature holds a strong role in the development of sexual orientation of humans.

If nurture isn’t the cause for sexual orientation then nature must be. According to Grant Steen, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, a large study was recently conducted which gathered gay males who have either identical or fraternal twins or adopted brothers. The goal of the study would be to see if genetics played a role in twins. At the end of the survey more than half of the identical twins of gay men were also found to be homosexuals. At the same time only about 22% of the fraternal twins were found to be gay and only 11% of the adopted brothers were gay. What these statistics show is that DNA plays a very important role in determining sexual orientation. Nature seems to have such a large impact on the sexual orientation of individuals that I feel that nurture has almost little or no effect on whether a person is homosexual or not.

If homosexuality is genetic then there should be a dramatic occurrence of homosexuality with families who have many homosexual relatives than to families in the general public who do not have homosexual relatives. Another survey was conducted in which 114 openly homosexual men were asked questions about the sexual orientation of their relatives. The study showed that “homosexuality is indeed strongly clustered in some families; among the brothers of men in this study, the incidence of homosexuality was nearly seven-fold higher than in the population at large” (Steen 197). Homosexuality can be considered hereditary because families with one gay relative are more likely to have others somewhere in their family lineage.

Some skeptics may begin to raise the question that if homosexuality is genetic then there should be a “gay gene” in our DNA. After many studies, scientists have found that there is at least one gene which is responsible for homosexuality. Though this is not conclusive evidence because scientists still haven’t unlocked all of the DNA strands, scientists figure that with time and the advancement of technology we one day might be able to actually pin point this “gay gene” in DNA (Plomin 337).

Reporter Jeff McMullen of ABC interviewed David Reimer in May of 2000 who fell victim of a botched circumcision when he was only eight months old. The doctors at the time felt that David would be better off living the rest of his life as a girl. The doctors believed that the nurturing of a child and not nature would determine their psychological make-up. David explained to McMullen that throughout his entire childhood he felt out of place. It seemed that even though David grew up as a woman, inside he felt something was wrong. This interview strongly supports the idea that nature plays a vital role in determining sex. No matter how much of an effort was put in to surround David’s environment with feminine characteristics, it would not be strong enough to over come the resilient power of nature. From the time of conception, nature has already planed out many important factors which will effect our lives in so many ways. If nature does control our sexual preferences then it is possible that it could control many other facets of human existence.

In the United States about twenty million crimes occur each year and most of the time the criminals are repeat offenders. One may begin to speculate whether society in the United States promotes crimes or are criminals born with the desire to commit these heinous crimes. According to Steen there is “evidence from a large study of adopted children which shows that there is a tendency for children to reenact the criminal behavior of their biological parents”. So even if a child was adopted and was raised in a house which had no criminal activities, the child would be more likely to commit the same crimes as their biological parents which they have never met. This obviously disproves the notion that people are taught and raised to commit crimes.

The East Coast sniper John Lee Malvo would hide in remote places all along the east coast and would shoot and kill people when the opportunity arose. Doctor Patricia Haensly believes that the DNA of John Lee Malvo differed from most peoples DNA. She came to the conclusion that most criminals are born with the genes that allow them to not think about the actions that they are coming are immoral. This is a very true statement because most people commit some type of crime, granted not murder but more along the lines of littering, but we tell ourselves that it’s not a problem and forget about it moments later. Murderers may feel the same way about killing as some people feel about littering. Nature also has a strong impact on domestic violence. In the United States over 18% of all homicides involved family members killing each other (Steen 228). This can lead to the deduction that just as the households which have one gay member are more likely to have other homosexually oriented family members; households which have one member who commits violent acts are more likely to have other family members who commit similar acts of violence.

Sometimes nature cannot explain all the crimes committed in the United States. Some may feel that “simply living in such an environment places young people at special risk of falling victim to aggressive behavior” (Ferguson 81). For example, if a person is constantly surrounded by crimes and violence, then that person is more likely to commit the same crimes. However it may just be that people who live in bad areas would still commit those same crimes even if they resided in a low crime environment. Never-the-less your environment should not allow you’re to commit the same crimes no matter how much crime is going on. If a person keeps committing crimes in a bad neighborhood then it is most likely that the DNA of that person convinces them that it is all right to commit murders. This explains why many people in jails in the United States are repeat offenders. One may begin to wonder if there is more to these criminals than what is on the surface

Many mental disorders have been scientifically proven to be heritable. Manic-depression is a trait which is inheritable through family lineage. Many separate studies have arrived at the conclusion that identical twins are more likely to acquire manic-depression than do fraternal twins. In fact four out of every five twins tend to share the same types of mental disorders (Steen 141). One study found that risks of clinical depression are much higher in certain families than in others. Close relatives of those who are depressed are three times more likely to suffer from depression than people who don’t have depression in their family history (Steen 147). This further secures the fact that nature plays such a crucial role over nurture in our lives and within our own families.

There are some mental diseases such as schizophrenia which adults may suffer from which some people believed is cause from various problems in a person’s childhood. This leads many so speculate that the roots of schizophrenia extend far back into childhood. Within the past ten years a discovery was made which scientists were able to link a gene on our chromosome to schizophrenia. This “schizophrenic gene” would be a dominant gene which means that if any person had this gene in their DNA then it is likely that he/she would suffer from schizophrenia. Even though more research needs to be done on the “schizophrenic gene”, it still provides us information which could one day lead to the solving of schizophrenia and many other devastating diseases (Steen 151).

It has become clear that nature and nurture both play very important roles in how humans behave in a society. I feel that nature plays the more domineering role in the foundation of human existence. All though every day we are bombarded with outside forces, it is our internal make up that determines how we would react to our environment. Our environment only adds to what nature has given to us. If we use it in the correct ways then it will be beneficial to society and our selves. However, once the environment starts to turn to the ways of violence and crimes we can only assume that it will only have negative effects from any point you look at it.

The black report on Inequalities in health care was introduced by the Department of health in the UK by Health Minister, David Ennals in 1977. It wanted to point out why the NHS had failed to reduce social inequalities in health and to investigate the problems. He would do this by analysing people’s lifestyles and their health records from different social class backgrounds. It found that the overall health of the nation had improved but the improvement was not equal across all the social classes, and the gap in inequalities in health between the lower and higher social classes is widening. It seemed that some of the main causes of this were class and ethnicity.

Class

The black report was based mainly around social class and that middle and upper class people have better standards of living, better quality of life and health than the working class and the lower class people. The report stated that there were four types of explanations for the differences of life expectancy and illness within different social classes and they were:

The substantial artefact explanation: your age, your profession, and whether you are upper, middle, working or lower class.

Natural or social expectations: lower social class and lower wages, poverty and poor housing do not cause illness – it is in fact on the contrary. A lack of energy why they are placed in deprived circumstances.

Cultural or behavioural explanations: focuses on behaviour and lifestyle choices of people in lower classes. Poor nutrition and exercise, smoking and alcohol seemed to be connected to working class people. This is also related to illnesses such as cancer, bronchitis, and diabetes and heart disease. Difficult circumstances lead to this lifestyle choice. Not the other way around.

Material or structural explanations: Poor diet, poor housing, low income, poor environments and unsafe and insecure employment are more common in working class families. Studies in these areas confirm that social factors are the main causes which contribute towards ill health.

Ethnicity

There is evidence that there is a higher frequency of rickets in children from Asian families due to a lack of vitamin D in their diet. Most ethnic minority groups have shorter life expectancy and have higher infant mortality rates. This could be associated to the social economic situations face by migrant workers.

Cultural and language barriers can limit the use of health services. For example Asian women do not feel comfortable going to see male doctors. Translation is another language complication. This is because it is not easy to capture the same meaning when translating between two completely different languages.

There are regional differences in patterns of health and illness. Morbidity and mortality rates are different in other areas of the UK. For example within England, lung cancer is above average in North West, Northern, and Yorkshire regions and below average in the South Western, Southern and Eastern regions. This shows that the mortality rates and morbidity rates are higher in different areas in the country.

Chances of becoming ill and even dying are linked to several factors which include social class, gender, age and ethnicity. The two social groups that are being compared are social class and ethnicity. These social groups affect health issues and explain the sociological perspectives and the patterns and trends.

Social class and patterns of health and illness

Social class is the classification of people based on their education, occupation, income and manners. It is said that the healthier you are the higher your social class. Poverty and inequality in society have consequences on the social, physical and mental well-being of a human being. These two factors are closely linked.

The infant mortality rate – IMR – for children born to underprivileged parents are higher than that of a child born to wealthy parents. People from a higher social class are much less likely to die of illnesses such as cancer, heart diseases and strokes and would be likely to live longer compared to others.

The Black Report – which was introduced in 1980 – studied the health differences of people by dividing the population into five social classes and offers information on how social and environmental issues of health and illness and life expectancy are related to one another.

“There is overwhelming evidence that standards of health, the incidence of ill health or morbidity and life expectancy vary according to social groups in our society especially to social class”. (Stretch, B, 2007, Pg361).

One of the explanations for this is that the higher social classes can afford to pay for private healthcare. Their level of earnings is also much higher which then also results in a better lifestyle and housing. People who were in inadequately paid jobs meant they had poor housing and a reduced amount of money to provide nutritious food and heating.

In 2009 the main cause of infant mortality in Great Britain was ‘certain conditions originating in the perinatal period, accounting for around a quarter of all infant deaths among males (27 per cent) and females (25 per cent) (ONS, 2010c; NRS, 2010a).4

Life expectancy data for 2009 are period life expectancies from the 2008-based principal projections. Source: Office for National Statistics; National Records of Scotland; Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

Between 1930 and 2009 period life expectancy at birth in the UK increased by around 20 years for both sexes (Figure 2). In 1930 life expectancy at birth was 58.7 years for males and 63.0 years for females, increasing 33 per cent among males to 78.1 years and 30 per cent among females to 82.1 years in 2009.

At age 65 period life expectancy increased by more than 50 per cent for both sexes: from 11.7 years for males and 13.5 years for females in 1930, to 18.0 years and 20.5 years respectively in 2009.

In 2007-09 the UK period life expectancy at birth was highest in England at 78.0 years for males and 82.1 years for females and lowest in Scotland at 75.3 years and 80.1 years respectively (ONS, 2010b).

An important reason for the increase in life expectancy is the fall in infant mortality rates (deaths under one year old), which decreased by 93 per cent from a rate of 63.1 per 1,000 live births in 1930 to 4.5 per 1,000 in 2010, the lowest on record. Similarly, neonatal mortality rates (deaths under 28 days old) have fallen by 90 per cent to their lowest recorded level, from 31.5 per 1,000 live births in 1930 to 3.1 per 1,000 in 2010.

There are also differences in health between the ethnic groups. In April 2001 Pakistani and Bangladeshi men and women in England and Wales reported the highest rates of both poor health and limiting long-term illness, while Chinese men and women reported the lowest rates.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhealth/286/28608.gif

Age-standardised limiting long-term illness: by ethnic group and sex, April 2001, England and Wales

South Asian people are reported to have high rates of heart disease and of hypertension;

Black Caribbean people are reported to have high rates of hypertension, but not of heart disease;

All ethnic minority groups are reported to have high rates of diabetes, but low rates of respiratory illness;

Black Caribbean people, particularly young men, have high rates of admission to hospital with severe mental disorders (psychosis).

According to the January 2007 report by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Why are some ethnic minority groups at more risk of ill health than others?

Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups commonly have worse health than the general population, although some BME groups are much worse than others, and patterns differ from one health condition to the next.

Evidence proposes that the poorer socio-economic position of BME groups is the main reason which is motivating ethnic health inequalities. A number of strategies have aimed to challenge health inequalities in recent years, although to date, ethnicity has not been a continuous focus.

Ethnicity results from various aspects of variation, which are socially and politically fundamental in the UK. These comprise race; culture; religion and nationality, which influence on a person’s identity and how other individuals see them. Identification with ethnic

groups is at many different levels. They may see themselves to be: British, Asian, Indian, Punjabi and Glaswegian at different times and in different circumstances.

Health Survey for England exhibit showed that Black and Minority Ethnic groups (BME) as a whole are expected to account ill health. Amongst the BME this begins at a younger age than the White British. There is more deviation in the rates of some illnesses by ethnicity than other socio-economic factors.

On the other hand, patterns of ethnic variation in health are particularly diverse, and inter-link with a lot of overlapping factors:

Some BME groups experience worse health than others. For example, surveys commonly show that Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Black-Caribbean people report the poorest health, with Indian, East African Asian and Black African people reporting the same health as White British, and Chinese people reporting better health.

Patterns of ethnic inequalities in health vary from one health condition to the next. For instance, BME groups tend to have higher rates of cardio-vascular disease than White British people do, but lower rates of many cancers.

Ethnic differences in health vary across age groups, so that the greatest variation by ethnicity is seen among the elderly.

Ethnic differences in health vary between men and women, as well as between geographic areas.

Ethnic differences in health may vary between generations. For example, in some BME groups, rates of ill health are worse among those born in the UK than in first generation migrants.

Sociologists try to describe how society ranks itself but there are many different philosophies for this, which often clash with one another. Some of these common theories include Marxism, Functionalism, and Interactionism. There are also more modern or current theories such as Feminism. Each sociological perspective has different views.

Marxists are concerned with the distribution of economic power and wealth. They believe that society is in conflict between two classes. Those classes are the Bourgeoisie; who own the means of production, i.e. land and the Proletariat; who sell labour to these owners for wages. The Proletariat are being exploited in order for the Bourgeoisie to gain economic and cultural power over them; Marxists believe this leads to antagonism, arguments and conflict between the two classes.

Functionalists argue that society is organised much like the Human Body. Everything must function correctly in order for society to work as a whole, just like every organ in the body must function correctly in order for the body to work as a whole.

Another classic view is Interactionism. We can liken Interactionism to a play; everyone must play their respective roles in order to create a successful performance – in society everyone must do their jobs in order to create a successful society. This approach is much like the functionalism viewpoint.

The biomedical model of health looks at individual physical functioning and describes bad health and illness as the presence of disease and symptoms of illness as a result of physical causes such as injury or infections and doesn’t look at the social and psychological factors. E.g. biomedical models assume that the complexity of individual can be reduced so that by accumulating facts about the parts that make up their body a decision about how to fix that part will result in health

The social model of health looks at how society and our environment affect our everyday health and well-being, including factor such as social class, occupation, education, income and poverty, poor diet and pollution. E.g. poor housing and poverty are causes to respiratory problems and in response to these causes and origins of ill health. The socio-model aimed to encourage society to include better housing and introduce programmes to tackle poverty as a solution.

The focus of these models is principally to explain why health inequalities exist and persist. The key cultural explanation places emphasis upon pathological (i.e. personal/individual) consequences of behaviour such as poor diet, excessive alcohol consumption, smoking, drug addiction, sexual practices or lack of exercise. On this argument, inequalities in health will be reduced when people make healthier personal behavioural decisions.

The health selection explanation argues that people in ill health will inevitably fall to the bottom of society and that therefore inequality is inevitable and will persist. People in this group are also least likely to alter unhealthy lifestyles. The structural explanation sees factors outside the individual’s control affecting life and health chances. Issues relating to the form and nature of employment and unemployment are critical; as is the individual’s position in society relating to, for example, home ownership, education, income, quality of life, living conditions and poverty (where few people have any real choice). Knowledge of health issues and of how poor health can be avoided or treated is equally critical

Socio- model of health is one where:

The state of health is socially constructed resulting historical, social and cultural influences that have shaped perceptions of health and ill health.

The root causes for diseases and ill health are to be found in social factors, such as the way society is organised and structured.

Root causes are identified through beliefs and interpretation for example, from a feminist perspective, root causes relate to patriarchy and oppression.

Knowledge is not exclusive but has a historical, social and cultural context as it is shaped by these involved.

The biomedical of health is where:

The state of health is a biological fact and the norm.

The body is a machine and ill health results from dysfunction of that machine.

Ill health is a deviation from the norm.

Ill health is caused by biological factors such as viruses, bacteria, genetic characteristics or trauma.

The cause of ill health is identified through the process of diagnosis, considering the signs and symptoms.

Individuals play little or no part in the interventions to restore the body to health.

There is no consideration of the individual’s interpretation of health and ill health or social factor that may contribute to ill health. Finding a cure is a greater concern than preventing ill health.

Culture plays an incredibly important role in the cause and reasoning of mental health. Cultural beliefs can shape the way people identify stress and the way in which they seek help. Indeed, in some cultures, people suffering from depression and anxiety disorders can also present with physical/psychosomatic symptoms.

As Britain becomes more culturally-enriched, striving for a melting pot of nations and ethnicities as opposed to a salad bowl of clearly defined ethnic groups, our society is slowly adapting.

Cultures differ in what is considered normal and what is considered abnormal. Therefore, the conception of mental illness is tied into whether or not members of a culture will seek help, what kind of help these individuals will seek and from whom. It should be remembered that traditional psychotherapy evolved from both the existential and psychoanalytic framework imported from Europe. Sigmund Freud has become a household word, and it was his approach to psychoanalysis that influenced much of the psychodynamic approach that is used today. The humanistic approach associated with Carl Rogers is an offshoot of the European existential theories which were evaluated by American psychologists as being too morbid. Many of these European theorists believed much of the individual’s problems are related to death anxiety. The humanistic approach puts emphasis on a more optimistic view of the individual. The therapist focuses on responding to the client with empathy, warmth and positive regard. Irrespective of the approach to treatment, it is important that mental health providers have some concept of what for the client constitutes mental illness (Hall, 2005).

The term ‘mental health’ was popularised in the early 1900s by physicians, social reformers and former asylum patients. They wanted to reduce the stigma surrounding mental illness, and said ‘illness’ reinforced prejudices against asylum patients because it implied segregation between the sick and the well. Focusing on health countered a persistent misconception that only some people are prone to psychiatric problems.

The label ‘mental illness’ is highly stigmatising to many given it encourages people to think of ‘the mentally ill’ as an entirely separate group from ‘people like us’, rather than as ordinary people who have, for whatever reason, more severe emotional difficulties to cope with. Popular misconceptions, fuelled by the media, depict ‘the mentally ill’ as violent and dangerous. These stereotypes are contradicted by ordinary people’s experiences of mental health problems affecting themselves, their family, friends or work colleagues.

Mental illness is a narrow meaning often used by psychological and psychiatric services. By placing an emphasis on the word illness we acknowledge the need for medical treatment. But there are certain difficulties with describing someone as mentally ill as there is no universally agreed cut-off point between normal behaviour and that described as mental illness. (Reader, David L Rosenham p p70-78) What is considered abnormal behaviour? An abnormal reaction to circumstances differs between cultures, social groups within the same culture and even different social situations.

The use of the term mental illness may be misleading if it is taken to mean that all mental health problems are solely caused by medical or biological factors. In fact, most mental health problems result from a complex interaction of biological, social and personal factors. For example, some people may be biologically vulnerable to experiencing depression, yet strong social support during difficult times can reduce their risk of becoming severely depressed. Similarly, in people with a higher than average genetic risk of schizophrenia, a particular psychotic experience may be triggered by stressful life events and circumstances. And for many people the existing systems of categorising illnesses do not relate closely enough to their experiences.

THE NATURE OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

OKUMAGBA, OGHENERO PAUL, FAYEYE, J.O. & EJECHI, EUCHARIA

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

DEFINITION AND MEANINGS

Different people see Sociological & theory in different ways. Different people have regarded different aspects of sociology as theory and students are also involved because their works are based on theories.

How do we define a theory? In other to give an answer to this question, we must have some definition which must help us in this task.

Mennell, S. (1972) distinguished what a theory should be and what by convention is named Sociological theory. He started by saying that sociology theory in some cases is not sociological theory. What this means is that, it deals in most cases with a body of ideas attached to theory, and this is not always their in the strict Sense of it.

For Mennel a real sociological theory is formalized and ultimately testable explanations which are accumulated to a large extent in the ordinary process of Sociology Research i.e. sociological theory must be related to Sociological Research. Our theories may only try to explain limited and specific properties of reality. They may belong to some or all area of sociology such as Urban sociology, Sociology of the Family, Political sociology etc. i.e. they may only cover an aspect of sociology and not all. They may be what R.K. Merton calls MIDDLE RANGE THEORIES, i.e. theories that are interested in specific or limited areas e.g Social roles.

Mennel goes on to ask the question, what is social theory in the customary sense. Sociological theory is a general collection to topics. it also tends to include the discussion of Some Epistemological issues such as what is science, what is sociological theory. Is it a science? Etc. this is what Stephen Mennel refers to as META THEORY. There is another category which Mennel calls PARA-THEORY. He got this from the works of Ralph Dorhendorf. He defines it as all statement before, around and after Sociological theory which are capable of empirical test themselves but are geared towards theories, We also wasn’t to distinguish this type of theory from what is known a s BASK THEORY. It does not necessary have to be scientifically validated, i.e. it does not contain empirical components as it basis. Although most of the great Sociologists may have developed theory without going on to test them. They ore more or less based on their experience or from reading.

Some writers have called the above type GRAND THEORY. This theory is concerned with providing a scheme that can be used to explain the empirical data of research. This type of theory depends on interrelated construct, concepts, prepositions, scientific statements etc. that presents a systematic view of phenomenon by specifying relationship among variables with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomenon. This type of their is based on data collected from society and it is usually used in explaining certain segments of social reality. We may s ay that Grand theory is based on abstractive ideologies, patterns and principles which undering given nature and social world order i.e. it is global scheme. Ware as empirically based theory concentrates on formulating, generalizing from specific data in other to explain phenomenon. We may say at this point, that the two seems necessary in order to provide a concueate analysis of social reality. However, they may not be isolated from each. other.

Grand theory tends to be constructed on abstract terms and we may question what process of abstraction does it given to the understanding of the whole social process. Empirically. based theory is derived solely from the data collected from social processes.

For Goode and Hatt:…. a theory states a logical relationship between facts. From this theory other prepositions can be deduced that should be true, if the first relationship holds. These d educed propositions are hypotheses. To them, and to many others as well, a hypothesis is a minor theory. it “states what” were looking for” and “Leads to an empiritical test”. It is a proposition capable to empirical verification but not yet verified.

It is apparent at there is more then a semblance of circularity in the reasoning of those who discuss the relationship between a theory and a hypothesis. It is commonly claimed that all “scientific” hypotheses arc- derivations from empirically supportable theory. It is also typically asserted that every theory had its beginnings in on hypothesis. Hence, one mans hypothesis may be another’s theory. It all depends on the aim and ingenuity of the investigator.

Scientific theories are logical systems of propositions which attempt to account for why phenomena ore the way they are and predict their behaviour. Theories are built of data generated, for example Mertonian paradigms and sociological perspectives are synonymous. The direct data generation and theorizing efforts to some aspects of the social world. Thus one can produce specific theories from a particular perspectives e.g. the theory of segmenting opposition and Merton’s social structure and anomie theory fall within the functional perspective. A theory can also be seen as a logically consistent statement of causal laws. Causal laws ore statements of regularities in concomitant occurrences between antecedents and events. The question we should be asking ourselves is, Are we limited by the process of data collection? We have to have a facilitating relationship between the two. Theories which are based on empirical footing helps to direct the grand theory and provides concrete data for the grand theory and helps the researcher develop a conceptual framework.

The word ‘theory’ derives its meanings and usage from the user. To call a statement a theory is sometimes intended to increase its value by suggesting that it goes beyond ‘mere facts’ e.g when a person says I hove a theory about James he means that he cannot be deceived by him. But sometimes, the word theory as clearly used to reduce the value of a speculative idea by denying it a close connection with reality. In this sense it is often asserted “tings are all right in theory” but not in practice.

Theories would have no value if they did not go beyond facts. Facts are nothing more than statements which we believe to bear truth about particular events which have occurred.

Theories ore not meant to be about particular events but about the whole categories of events, it is generally said that Theories or some theories are nothing but general facts.

A statement general fact would be either a shorthand or number of statements of the same kind or type, a general statements of the characteristics of a type of events.

It is true that all theories go beyond facts; however not all statement which go beyond facts are theories. For example if say that, the colonial masters colonized Nigeria, and established a foreign culture that would otherwise not have developed. I am going beyond facts, but no one can know what culture would have developed if there had been no Colonization in the first instance.

However, one can guess, and ones guess is an hypothesis. This guess is not a theory; because it stated something about particular events or particular complexes or events but it states nothing in general about the characteristics of colonial domination.

To be testable this theory would have to state the kind of evidence that could be treated as refuting it. Instances of species which have survived being w c-Il adapted to particular environment or instances of Species which were well adapted to a particular environment but which had not survived.

In the final analysis, the criterion of a adaptability is the capacity for survival 1.e. One does not really know how adoptable a species is until one has already observed its Capacity for survival. The fact that such a theory is not strictly testable does no mean that it has little value. Its values lies in directing inquiries of the students of evolution In conjunction other theories, some of which are highly testable it has helped evolutionary biologists to explain a great deal.

Its own role is programmatic, it says if you are making enquires of this kind, makes a species more or less adaptable table in a particular environment This has proved useful. This example removed the assumption that if is only the social sciences attempt to be satisfied or utilize theories which ore not strictly testable.

TYPES OF THEORY

Cohen; (1968) in his book Modern Social Theory out lined four broad types of theories and they are as follows: –

Analytical Theory
Normative Theory
Metaphysical theory
Scientific theory
ANALYTICAL THEORY

These are like theories of mathematics or logic which may state nothing about the real world but consist of some sets of axiomatic statements which are true by definition and from which other statements ore derived for example Adam Smith’s their on human economy which stress that people tend to maximize their gains while minimizing their losses.

NORMATIVE THEORY

These theory elaborates a set of ideal state of which one may aspire for example, ideologist fall within this category Normative theories are subjective in the sense that they deal with the ideal or what ought to be rather than what is.

METAPHYSICCAL THEORY

These are theories which are beyond the senses in other words, they have no empirical foundation. A good example is Darwin’s theory on Evolution of man and Malthusian’s theory of population.

SCIENTIFIC THEORIES

This is ideally a universal empirical statement which exacts a causal connection between two or more variables (or types of events). At this simplest, it has this form e.g. whenever x occurs they Y occur X = Y.

Scientific theories are universal because it state something about the condition under which some events or types of events always occur

If theories go beyond facts, they must have a connection with reality. Hence no experience of reality is worth recording, or could be recorded if it is not for theories.

The most elementary theories, which we use a re embedded in our language. All language must use certain universal, categories; and to use a universal category is in effect to use a theory. If for example It says’ that ‘James is a deviant presume certain universal characteristics associated with deviance, as opposed to conformity.

Without universal categories there will he no communication, without communication there will be no culture, no society, no science, no technology, no shored experience of die world of reality. Theoretical consideration end theoretical concepts, implicit or explicit have an essential rule in shaping the direction of research, in direction observation an and in guiding description itself,

For a theory to be used wisely with sharp awareness, awareness users must have the knowledge of its nature and of its varieties. We need to know its concepts and diverse terminological forms they take.

We should be familiar with the history of sociological theoretical endeavours with its changing emphasis, its successes and failure, and its promise for the future, These in themselves constitute the subject matter of the studying of sociological theories.

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORYAND SOCIAL ORDER

Theory is a set of prepositions complying ideally with the following conditions;

The propositions must be put in terms of exactly defined concepts.
They must be consistent with one another.
They must be such that from them the existing generalization could be deductively derived.
They must be fruitful i.e. show the way to further observation and generalizations were increasing the scope of knowledge.

From the foregoing, sociological theory can be understood in the sense in which the word theory is used in other sciences. Hence it is;

‘a structure of systematically organized law like propositions about society that con be supported by evidence.

The aim a sociological theory from the foregoing is explanation that goes beyond description and systematic definition (or taxonomy). Some characteristics of sociological theory. It is needful to odd that many sociological theories do not meet the ideal criteria of science (i.e. universality, empruism, and causality).

CHARACTERIST1C OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Theories are thoughts and ideas used to explain particular Social phenomenon or situations in society. It is a set of systematically relatered propositions a imed at explaining a particular situation. They are thoughts, ideas, or conceptual schemes used to solve societal problems. A theory is good and useful when it is able to solve problems successfully.

Sociological theories attempts to explain and investigate problems, issues or events within the context of observable social phenomenon, they attempt to offer scientific and theoretical explanation which on the basis of the past have immediate applicability and are also capable of application to similar problems in the future. All theories attempt more than anything also the question “Why”.
All contemporary sociological theories are selective in their analysis of social phenomenon. No one theory con interest or explain a total social phenomenon (such as the Grand Theory by TALCOTT PARSONS and middle range theories by ROBERT K. MERTON) for example, DEMOGRAPHISM as a sociological perspective is concerned with man’s various responses caused by increase in population. Then TECHNOLOG1SM emphasizes the effect of technology on man and social organization, while ECOLOGISM emphasizes the influence of non human environmental on human behaviour.
Contemporary sociological theories must be empirically grounded. They are not merely thoughts or speculations. They are not “armed chair theories” but are based on observable facts that can be subjected to scientific observation and analysis. They are thoughts backed by verified fact or knowledge.
Sociological theories tends to state scietific and observable relationships between variables usually between the dependent and independent variables.

independent Variable -independent Variable

X Y

All sociological theories attempts to solve the problem of order in the society,
All contemporary sociological theories deal with social phenomenon that are either imposed or generated by the individuals and these imposed or generated phenomena must either be subjective or objective.

Finally, any sociological theory that does not fall into these set of categories is not qualified to be called a sociological theory.

FUNCTIONS OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

Theories in any discipline have certain function which they perform in investigation info societal problems,

It extends the Scope of the original empirical findings by showing the interrelationship between various variables.
It provides facts for the accumulation of both theory and research findings.
If increase the fruitfulness of research through the successive exploration of the implicajiohs of research findings.
lt introduces a ground for the predictions.
It entails precision which is derivable from test-ability or verification The importance of precision in theory was stated by R.K, Merton when he wrote those theories which admits a precise precision confirmed by observation taken on strategic importance since they provide an initial basis for choice between competing hypothesis.

THE CENTRAL PROBLEMS OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY AND SOCIAL ORDER

The Problems of Order

To take the position that sociological theory centers around the problem of social order may result into laying criticism of conservation ideological bias. To those who sees conflict, they will assume that the position presents or emphasizes order and affirms its desirability.

It is certain that people in most societies desire order, they may not accept any kind of order at all cost. The fact that order is desired by many does not justify its central position in sociological theory.

When order is presented as being at the centre of sociological theory it is done so because of the following

Order is itself something positive, and its opposites only conceivable in terms of it.
The very idea of human society presupposes order.
The existence of social order is problematic and cannot be taken for grated.
The investigation of the problem of order illuminates (or shows) the nature of disorder in its various aspects.

Prejudice has been around since the seventeenth century this behavior still exists and continues to surround us all in each population. In many countries today prejudice is still a big issue among different cultures people always tend to stereotype others just because of race,sex,color or whatever the case may be I fell this is unfair because people lives are at jeopardy in so many ways because of the negative thinking. Prejudices are opinions formed beforehand without any reason knowledge or thought. I have been taught about the history of prejudice and how serious it had been in the past. So many people and great leaders lost their lives because of stereotyping.

The nature and power of prejudice

There are so many prejudices in the world today from racial, gender, and culture. I have experienced all three in some way or other gender being one I have a family member that prefers the same sex and I have watched my own family tear him apart. it upsets me because he is family have heard these same people sit around and talk about how other people are prejudice and they are doing the same thing to a loved one. I have witnessed him being told that he needs to stop acting and straighten up or he will be disowned from the family now that they have made him feel out cast he has not come to a family gathering in three years. I know that in the bible it says you must not commit this sin but people are only human and they are going to choose to live how they want. I feel that people can live their lives how they choose they will suffer their own consequences when the time comes.

However, racial and culture prejudice is the most despicable and ignorant people should not be judged for the color of their skin these days all colors have some kind of racial slur about all cultures. On the other hand, many people have moved away from being prejudice. For example, people of different races now share many of the same attitudes and aspirations (Etzioni1999). For instance, where I work there are blacks, white, Hispanics and when Obama was being elected in to office only a few where upset and out of that few they were black majority of the white were agreeing that we need a black president in office. I feel that racial prejudice may be disappearing many people attitudes are changing with time from how it has been in the past. I am a very neutral person even when I am hearing my friends or family say negative things about Caucasians’, I pretty much get along with everybody it really just depends on that persons attitude you should do unto others as you wish them to do unto you the world would be a much better place.

Social sources of prejudice

Social sources of prejudice starts from family influences there are so many children raised to be prejudice. Prejudice springs from unequal status and from other social sources, including our acquired values and attitudes (Castelli&others2007). Sinclair stated that children implicit racial attitudes reflect their parents explicit prejudice (Sinclair&others). When raised in these types of homes puts society at risk, many children hold a lot of anger depending on what they were taught by their family.

One example being, I watched this movie called bowling for columbine and he talked about a lot of prejudice issues and people who have the authoritarian attitude. He talked about how the KKK still lives and showed clips of how they live and train their children. Many of the clips were disturbing they showed how they taught children to shoot guns and a lot of negativity towards African Americans. He also discussed how those boys killed many students at columbine high school. I remember one clip showing the boys talking about whom they were going to shoot and one of them had stated we are going to get the black boy just because he is black. “The insecurity of authoritarian children seemed to predispose them toward an excessive concern with power and status and a flexible right-wrong way of thinking that made ambiguity difficult to tolerate. Such people therefore tended to be submissive to those with power over them and aggressive or punitive toward those whom they consider beneath them.” (Myers 2010) I fear for society if people are out here teaching their children to hate, I am almost afraid to send my children out in the world when we have people out here with these negative thoughts.

Religion and prejudice

However, religion and prejudice stated by William James those who benefit from social inequalities while avowing, “All are created equal “need to justify keeping things they way they are (Myers2010). I agree with this statement there are so many hypocritical people that attend church they are the most judgmental and stereotypical people I have ever seen. So many churches lead people to support their prejudices. I have an uncle and aunt whom are very deep off into church.

They are always quick to judge, I remember when I was a little girl they would call my father the devil. Because he drank, instead of trying to help him, they would talk about him and he would constantly talk about how he hated lesbians and gays. Sometimes you have to be careful of what you say now their children have grown up and they are now doing those devilish things like drinking, and relationships with the opposite sex. The church that I attend is not bad when it comes to judging people. This church is a come as you are there are different races, cultures and people with the opposite sex whom attend church. My pastor teaches us to love one another and not to be so judgmental towards people. He always says each of us will have our judgment day when that time comes. I feel that people should live their lives how they want they are the only ones whom have to answerer to god.

Social institutions support racial prejudice these people use their superiority to justify their beliefs. This was most common in the 1960s. For example segregation in schools and banks whom would not offer opportunities to unmarried women and African Americans. I do remember a couple of years back reading an article about how a school down south wanted to segregate the prom and how parents were protesting not to segregate the prom. I feel racism still exists in many communities in America.

Sources that motivate prejudice

Frustration and anger has a lot to do with issues of being prejudice when people are competing for things that may be scare to society. Now that we are in recession, many people feel that Caucasians’ have a better chance at job opportunities than African Americans. I feel that in some ways it is true because how society is so judgmental these days and this is why many people have so much hate towards each other. Things will never get better it just seems like everything just keeps going around in a circle. For example, my Caucasian friend and I conducted an experiment to see who would really get the job I had all the qualifications for the position and she did not have any skills for that position. At the end of our interviews, she had been the one chosen to fill the position. This is what keeps society frustrated and anger and this is what showed us how I had been stereotyped just that quick.

Social identity and feeling superior to others was one way that our ancestors lived to protect themselves by living in groups. People will do whatever they have to do to protect their groups in most countries. For example, over in Iraq when the war first started how these people are so willing to kill themselves to protect their country. When lacking self-esteem this is what causes people with social identities to become confused. Many disadvantage people find security in groups and this is what makes them so willing to do anything in their power for their group. Many feel that by being in groups this is a need for status and feeling superior over others.

I have noticed that we do tend to still group when you look at different communities you can see how we segregate ourselves there are many communities where there are all African Americans. Hispanics and Caucasians’ where as some communities have a mixture of all races that live and get along in the same communities with no problems. I feel that in some way or another we all have some kind of issue with prejudice even if you do not feel like you are it is somewhere deep down inside and that is why we segregate our selves. I have heard some people say that neighbor hoods were blacks live are terrible I could never live there. I have heard people talk about communities saying that the police are prejudice where there are majority whites. That is why they choose to live elsewhere. Nevertheless, these are the same people that are quick to call someone else prejudice and not willing to admit to their own.

However, we must learn to avoid prejudices by suppressing unwanted thoughts this can be very hard for people that have phobias about homosexuals and elderly people. This would be because this is all that that have known all of their lives. I can remember when I use to work in a retirement home in dietary their were a lot of elderly people and they use to always make racial comments when I waited on their tables I would just look at them and ignore the ignorant slurs. I had to deal with this for six years I use to feel so much anger towards Caucasian people. I then started to realize that I could not hate all Caucasians’ because of what a couple of elderly people were saying. This is the way that they had been raised all of their lives and they were from the segregation days and times are changing now. Not all Caucasians’ have this same racial attitude. I am proud of myself by going through that experience it had brought me to break the prejudice habits that I may have had.

Cognitive sources of prejudice

Cognitive sources of prejudice are in categories by classifying and grouping people from what we perceive. We as people are always quick to put people in two categories by their appearance. “Jim Blascovich stated it is necessary for prejudice social identity theory implies that those who feel their social identity keenly will concern themselves with correctly categorizing people as us or them”(Jim Blascovich1997). For example, when I first moved in to my home my neighbors are Caucasian I had lived here for a couple of months she and I had never spoken so I instantly categorized her thinking she was prejudiced as she had already assumed the same for me.

Until one particular night, someone was trying to break into my home while I was here asleep and she sent her son out to scare him away. The next morning she came over knocked on the door and told me what had happened. I then realized she was not what I had thought about her all along she is a very nice person and every since that day we speak on a daily basis and we always keep each other informed on what is going on in the neighborhood. Sometimes we have to be careful on how we judge people because you may actually miss having a good friendship with someone.

I feel that black men in society today or categorized, as dangerous gang members, and drug dealers. This is why when a crime has been committed black men are the first to be accused. I have always heard statements like was he black or white. The main thing that gets me is that they ask if he was black first as if they had already been assumed that he is black. I remember a couple of years back when a Caucasian woman drowned her own children she blamed a black man of kidnapping her children and stealing her car the police and media were on this big man hunt for this black man just because they are assumed as criminals every time something happens.

I feel that because of all of our negative perceptions of people we all tend to categorize on another. For instance, how men use to categorize women as only being able to stay home and bear children and not being intelligent enough to work. These perceptions also feel that all blacks are uneducated hoodlums, and the same is for how homosexuals are a disgrace to the world. These errors occur because most of us focus on the person and not on their situations. The more we continue to have these types of stereotypical attitudes it is a lesser chance that the world will be willing to accept one another as equal human beings.

Consequences of being prejudice

There are have been many problems in society because of the ignorance of prejudice. When society tends to label, it can sometimes lead to dangerous activity. I can remember learning in school about all of our civil rights leaders and how many of them had lost their lives, how people acted out with violence in the sixties. There were billions of dollars lost, because of riots due to the violence in society. They were only trying to bring people together in harmony, so that we can all treat each other’s as equals to put an end to stereotyping. There were so many people at this time that were angry that they felt there should not be equal rights between each human being and this is what lead them to take the lives of these very heroic men. So many innocent people have been targeted by prejudice actions, and affect the behavior of the person holding the prejudice issues as well. For example, for most homosexuals find it hard to tell their families that they are living this life style, because they feel they will not be accepted, so in order to avoid the rejection they end up committing suicide. the person whom holds all the anger with prejudice issues will eventually one day act out in society with some kind of violent act and this is how innocent people always end up getting killed for instance the 9/11 attack there were thousands of people who had died for nothing just because of the ignorance of prejudice.

In conclusion, Prejudice has been around since the seventeenth century this behavior still exists and continues to surround us all in each population. In many countries today prejudice is still a big issue among different cultures people always tend to stereotype others just because of race,sex,color or whatever the case may be I fell this is unfair because people lives are at jeopardy in so many ways because of the negative thinking. The world would be a better place if everyone would just stop being so judgmental towards each other.

Mongolias population of 2.8 million is growing annually by 1.5 percent. One-third of Mongolians live in the capital, Ulaanbaatar. Approximately one-fourth live in smaller cities, especially Darhan, Erdenet, and Choybalsan. The rest of the population is spread throughout rural Mongolia. Most of these inhabitants are nomadic herders. With rural conditions increasingly harsh, more people are moving to cities-a trend that threatens the survival of traditional nomadic society.

Reform has allowed freedom of religion, and more than one hundred monasteries have reopened. Many young Mongolians are receiving an education through these traditional centers of learning, and people are once again able to practice cherished traditions. Boys are increasingly applying to become monks, and Buddhism is rapidly regaining its popularity. Kazakh Muslims (about 4 percent) are free to practice Islam. Christianity is gaining influence.

Urban wedding ceremonies take place in “wedding palaces.” Afterward, many couples now go to a Buddhist monk to receive a blessing or have their future predicted. A large feast treats as many relatives and friends as the new couple’s families can afford to feed. In rural areas, common-law marriages are typical. Rural couples receive a ger from the husband’s family. Mongolian families traditionally exchange gifts in conjunction with a wedding. The groom’s family usually gives livestock, while the bride’s family offers jewelry and clothing.

(Culture Grams)

National culture-including societal organization, governance, land management, cultural customs, and material culture-was largely shaped by the nomadic pastoral lifestyle. The legacy of Genghis Khan’s empire is a rallying point for Mongol nationalist pride today.

http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/Mongolia.html

Lamaism, the Tibetan form of Buddhism, entered the Mongolian society in the sixteenth century. It had a strong impact on the Mongolian culture for centuries. Mongols sought the counsel and help of the lama (priest or monk) for every aspect of their life: migration, marriage, childbirth, disease, and death. Since 1949, Lamaist beliefs and practices have decreased drastically.

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Mauritania-to-Nigeria/Mongols.html

After the fall of communism, Mongolia witnessed a religious revival and more and more people sought comfort from spiritual activities. Despite being unfamiliar with religious ceremonies and prayers, people flocked to temples for religious services and many families began to send one of their children to join the monkhood.

The devout also contribute money to the temples and invite the Lamas to their homes for lavish feasts.

(REL)

Due to Mongolia’s small population, women are a vitally important part of the workforce. Men and women have an equal place in the Mongolian economy and this equality carries over into the home. Women still tend to do more than half the housework and play the primary role in supporting the family, but the role of the Mongolian woman is undergoing rapid change.

(WIC)
People
Mongolia

Top of Page

Population:

2,832,224 (July 2006 est.)

Age structure:

0-14 years: 27.9% (male 402,448/female 387,059)

15-64 years: 68.4% (male 967,546/female 969,389)

65 years and over: 3.7% (male 45,859/female 59,923) (2006 est.)

Median age:

total: 24.6 years

male: 24.3 years

female: 25 years (2006 est.)

Population growth rate:

1.46% (2006 est.)

Birth rate:

21.59 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)

Death rate:

6.95 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

Net migration rate:

0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)

Sex ratio:

at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female

under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female

15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female

65 years and over: 0.77 male(s)/female

total population: 1 male(s)/female (2006 est.)

Infant mortality rate:

total: 52.12 deaths/1,000 live births

male: 55.51 deaths/1,000 live births

female: 48.57 deaths/1,000 live births (2006 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:

total population: 64.89 years

male: 62.64 years

female: 67.25 years (2006 est.)

Total fertility rate:

2.25 children born/woman (2006 est.)

HIV/AIDS – adult prevalence rate:

less than 0.1% (2003 est.)

HIV/AIDS – people living with HIV/AIDS:

less than 500 (2003 est)

HIV/AIDS – deaths:

less than 200 (2003 est.)

Nationality:

noun: Mongolian(s)

adjective: Mongolian

Ethnic groups:

Mongol (mostly Khalkha) 94.9%, Turkic (mostly Kazakh) 5%, other (including Chinese and Russian) 0.1% (2000)

Religions:

Buddhist Lamaist 50%, none 40%, Shamanist and Christian 6%, Muslim 4% (2004)

Languages:

Khalkha Mongol 90%, Turkic, Russian (1999)

Literacy:

definition: age 15 and over can read and write

total population: 97.8%

male: 98%

female: 97.5% (2002)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mg.html#People

Birth

http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/Mongolia.html

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Mauritania-to-Nigeria/Mongols.html

http://www.birthdaycelebrations.net/traditions.htm (Birthday Celebration)

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/ (Birth – % of Skilled attendant at Delivery)

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/global_monitoring/data.html (Birth – % of Skilled attendant at Delivery)

http://map.sscs.org.au/Documents/cultural_dictionary.pdf (Similar to Cultural Grams)

Culture Grams which is in our WTP Folder —– Birth, Dating, Marriage, Family, Recreation, Death/After Life

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/profiles.htm (Abortion)

How is birth viewed in the culture?

Fertility is important in Mongolian society, so childless women usually experience social stigma.

(WIC)

Are there any customs regarding the way newborns should be swaddled, whether they stay in the house, carried around in public, etc.?

Are babies normally birthed in hospitals or at home?

Is there a preference for doctors or midwives?

Skilled attendant at delivery (%), 1997-2005*

97

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/mongolia_statistics.html

More than 95 percent of all pregnant Mongolian women receive ante-natal care. As of 2004, the maternal mortality rate was 98 deaths per 100,000 live births. Estimated infant mortality rates for 2006 are 52 per 1,000.

(WIC)

Are there any formalities/celebrations in the culture regarding newborns?

Among Buddhists there are many naming ceremonies. In some traditions, children are named between the ages of three and eight. After children are born, their parents have their Kika’s drawn up. The Kika is a very specific horoscope which many Buddhists believe determines all aspects of a person’s life including marriage and death. At the naming ceremony, a rimpoche, or Buddhist holy person, looks carefully at the child’s Kika and selects a name which reflects the traits and predictions described in the Kika. After cutting a strand of the child’s hair, the rimpoche announces the child’s name.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:ybpfeaiYiCUJ:rainbowwarrior.coa.edu/laura/ceremony/religiuosceremony.htm+Buddhist+naming+ceremonies&hl=en&gl=in&ct=clnk&cd=1

How are birthdays celebrated in the culture? Are they important events?

How does the culture view abortion?

Abortions are legal in Mongolia and available on request.

(WIC)
ABORTION POLICY
Grounds on which abortion is permitted:

To save the life of the woman Yes

To preserve physical health Yes

To preserve mental health Yes

Rape or incest Yes

Foetal impairment Yes

Economic or social reasons Yes

Available on request Yes

Additional requirements:

An abortion can be performed during the first three months of pregnancy and later if the pregnant woman suffers from an illness seriously threatening her health. Approval of the family or of the spouse is required.

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONTEXT

Government view on fertility level: No official position

Government intervention concerning fertility level: No intervention

Government policy on contraceptive use: Direct support provided

Percentage of currently married women using

modern contraception (15-49*,1994): 25

Total fertility rate (1995-2000): 2.6

Age-specific fertility rate (per 1,000 women aged 15-19, 1995-2000): 47

Government has expressed particular concern about:

Morbidity and mortality resulting from induced abortion No

Complications of childbearing and childbirth Yes

Maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births, 1990):

National 65

Eastern Asia 95

Female life expectancy at birth (1995-2000): 67.3

For all women of ages specified.

BACKGROUND

Under the Mongolian Criminal Code of 6 July 1960, abortion was generally illegal. If it was performed by a physician, it was punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment. If it was performed by a person lacking the highest medical qualifications, or if performed under unsanitary conditions, the punishment was increased to up to five years’ imprisonment. Nonetheless, under general criminal law principles of necessity, an abortion could be performed to save the life of the pregnant woman.

In 1986, the abortion provisions of the Code were amended. Although abortion is in general still considered a serious offence, the Code authorized medical authorities to establish the conditions for the performance of legal abortions. Three years later in 1989, the health law was amended to reflect this change. Paragraph 56 of the Code was modified to provide that becoming a mother was a matter of a woman’s own decision. During the first three months of pregnancy she could obtain an abortion on request and, later in pregnancy, when necessary due to illness. Abortions were to be performed by physicians under hospital conditions, and the Ministry of Health was to approve a list of illnesses justifying the performance of an abortion on medical grounds.

The health law was revised in 1998 but its provisions on abortion remained the same. The 1996 National Population Policy of Mongolia adopted by Parliament stated that abortion should not be promoted as a means of family planning. The Government considers the abortion rate to be too high. The Government also reiterated in 1999 that abortion is generally permitted if a pregnant woman requests it and that abortion is publicly subsidized.

Prior to these amendments to the law enacted in the late 1980s, legal provisions governing abortion in Mongolia echoed the pronatalist population policy of the Government. In responding to the Eighth United Nations Inquiry among Governments on Population and Development, the Government indicated no position on the fertility level and no policy to modify it. The Government remains seriously concerned over the high levels of infant, child and maternal mortality.

The Government has attributed the relatively high abortion rate, 25.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44, to shortages of modern contraceptives, as well as to a lack of knowledge concerning contraceptive use. Many women choose to have abortions carried out illegally by private physicians because of cheaper costs. Induced abortion accounts for a large percentage of maternal mortality in Mongolia, causing at least 850 maternal deaths each year.

The Government seeks to increase the contraceptive prevalence rate to more than 50 per cent by 2001. The National Reproductive Health Programme was adopted in 1997. The Government reports that, since the International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1984, successful steps have been undertaken to ensure access of women to reproductive health-care services. Each provincial centre and some district cities have established reproductive health cabinets attached to the local public health centres. These cabinets provide services such as counselling, and pregnancy monitoring and evaluation. A National Adolescent Health Programme was adopted in 1997.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/profiles.htm

Childhood

http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/Mongolia.html

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Mauritania-to-Nigeria/Mongols.html

http://www.right-to-education.org/content/age/armenia.html

http://www.cohre.org/get_attachment.php?attachment_id=3069 (Sub-Saharan Africa – Rights of Women

http://map.sscs.org.au/Documents/cultural_dictionary.pdf (Similar to Cultural Grams)

Culture Grams which is in our WTP Folder —– Birth, Dating, Marriage, Family, Recreation, Death/After Life

What is a normal childhood in the culture?

Are children raised by their parents or grandparents?

What role do grandparents and extended family members play in the raising of a child?

Attitudes about child rearing are generally quite relaxed and all family members participate in the supervision and moral education of children.

http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/Mongolia.html

What are normal childhood activities in the culture?

Are children revered or just another piece of the population?

Are male children valued more?

At what age do children begin school?

Offices are generally open weekdays from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 to 6 p.m. Shops are open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Grocery stores have the same hours as shops but often are open on Sunday. A large open market featuring consumer goods, rural crafts, and assorted items operates several days a week on the outskirts of Ulaanbaatar.

(Culture Grams)

Are children expected to contribute to household income?

How is child labor viewed in the society?

Coming of Age

http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/Mongolia.html

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Mauritania-to-Nigeria/Mongols.html

http://map.sscs.org.au/Documents/cultural_dictionary.pdf (Similar to Cultural Grams)

Culture Grams which is in our WTP Folder —– Birth, Dating, Marriage, Family, Recreation, Death/After Life

What marks a child’s coming of age in this culture?

At what age do children normally “come of age?”

Are there certain rites or celebrations that mark coming of age?

What is expected of youth in this phase of life?

Are there certain difficulties experienced by this age group?

At what age are children expected to work & contribute to the maintenance of the family?

Dating & Courtship

http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/Mongolia.html

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Mauritania-to-Nigeria/Mongols.html

http://kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/ (Sexuality )

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/ (Sexuality)

http://map.sscs.org.au/Documents/cultural_dictionary.pdf (Similar to Cultural Grams)

Culture Grams which is in our WTP Folder —– Birth, Dating, Marriage, Family, Recreation, Death/After Life

What are the general attitudes about dating in the culture?

Dating is fairly common.

(WIC)

Dating between schoolmates and coworkers commonly leads to marriage.

(Culture Grams)

Is there are distinction between courtship and dating in the culture?

At what age do people generally start dating?

How do men and women meet each other?

Mongolian women usually meet men at schools, in the workplace, and at social gatherings.

(WIC)

If dating is not customary, describe how people get together for marriage? Is it arranged?

If marriages are arranged, talk about how. What are the rituals around it (classified ads, matchmakers, astrology, etc.). If marriages are arranged, what are the factors in finding a suitable mate?

Are chaperones customary? If so, who serves as the chaperone?

Are there popular venues for dating?

Does a man or woman pay for dating expenses?

Describe a typical dating experience.

How long do people generally date before they get married?

Generally speaking in the culture, what are considered desirable attributes in a man?

Generally speaking in the culture, what are considered desirable attributes in a woman?

Does religion play a role in dating?

What are taboos of dating in the culture?

Is sex in dating common or taboo? What is the view of pre-marital sex?

If premarital sex is common, is birth control promoted, practiced, or taboo?

Is cross-cultural dating or cross-religious dating allowed or encouraged? Do people date outside their social, economic, education, religious, and ethnic categories?

How important are parents’/family approval for dating?

How does a proposal for marriage occur?

Arranged marriages are traditional in Mongolia, but for the last century, young Mongolians have become increasingly free to choose their own partners with minimal parental involvement. They normally marry within their own tribes.

(WIC)
Marriage

http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/Mongolia.html

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Mauritania-to-Nigeria/Mongols.html

http://www.worldweddingtraditions.com/locations/asian_traditions.html

(Wedding Celebration)

http://www.myhappylove.com/lyrics/wedding-traditions.html (Wedding Celebration)

http://www.right-to-education.org/content/age/armenia.html

(Minimum Schooling / Marriage / Employment Age )

http://www.coe.int/t/e/social_cohesion/population/demographic_year_book/2003_edition/04%20country%20data/ ( Population/Marriage/ Divorce/ Fertility)

http://www.cohre.org/get_attachment.php?attachment_id=3069 (Sub-Saharan Africa – Rights of Women

http://kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/ (Sexuality)

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/ (Sexuality)

http://map.sscs.org.au/Documents/cultural_dictionary.pdf (Similar to Cultural Grams)

Culture Grams which is in our WTP Folder —– Birth, Dating, Marriage, Family, Recreation, Death/After Life

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reports.htm (For the status of women rights)

http://www.international-divorce.com/ (Divorce & Custody)

http://www.aupairinamerica.com/hostfamilies/culturequest_index.htm

Is marriage considered a sacred/spiritual act or simply a legal act in the culture?

At what age do people normally get married?

The legal marriage age for Mongolian women is 18, but most women marry in their early to mid twenties.

(WIC)

Mongolians usually marry between the ages of 18 and 25.

(Culture Grams)

Does hierarchy in the family play a role in who is able to get married or who gets married first?

How are marriages celebrated? What are the rituals associated with the marriage ceremony?

A custom of “denying entrance on marrying” has been common among the nomadic and seminomadic Mongols. The bridegroom, accompanied by relatives, rides to the bride’s yurt (house). He finds the door slammed in his face. After repeated requests, the door is finally opened. He presents a hada (ceremonial silk scarf) to his parents-in-law on entering and is given a banquet with a whole lamb. After the meal, the bride sits with her back to the others. The bridegroom kneels behind her and asks what her nickname was in childhood. He drinks at her house all night long. The following day, the bride leaves the yurt first. She circles the yurt on horseback three times, then speeds along to the bride-groom’s house. The bridegroom and his relatives ride after her. The door is also slammed in her face and is only opened after repeated requests.

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Mauritania-to-Nigeria/Mongols.html

Urban wedding ceremonies take place in “wedding palaces.” Afterward, many couples now go to a Buddhist monk to receive a blessing or have their future predicted. A large feast treats as many relatives and friends as the new couple’s families can afford to feed. In rural areas, common-law marriages are typical. Rural couples receive a ger from the husband’s family. Mongolian families traditionally exchange gifts in conjunction with a wedding. The groom’s family usually gives livestock, while the bride’s family offers jewelry and clothing.

(Culture Grams)

The wedding day is begun at a local temple where the couple separately asks for the blessings of Buddha. Both bride and groom are then dressed in outfits traditional to their region.

At the mutually auspicious astrologically designated wedding time, the bride and groom are individually taken to the shrine room of their local temple or a hall hired for the occasion. Here, the couple sees each other for the first time on that day.

Spiritual Buddhist wedding traditions don’t necessarily require the presence of monks or the use of a temple’s shrine room. For these traditions, the wedding location would be equipped with a shrine to Buddha featuring candles, flowers, incense and a statue or image of Buddha.

The ceremony begins as the entire assembly recites the Vandana, Tisarana and Pancasila readings. The couple then lights the candles and incense sticks surrounding Buddha’s image and offers him the flowers within the shrine. Because of the secularity of Buddhist weddings, there is no assigned set of marriage vows. However, the bride and groom will recite their expected undertakings using the Sigilovdda Sutta as a guide. The Sigiloydda Sutta says:

“In five ways should a wife, as Western quarter, be ministered to by her husband: by respect, by courtesy, by faithfulness, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with ornaments. In these five ways does the wife minister to by her husband as the Western quarter, love him: her duties are well-performed by hospitality to kin of both, by faithfulness, by watching over the goods he brings and by skill and industry in discharging all business.”

After these vows are spoken, the bride and groom can exchange rings. If monks are present, the marriage vows will be both preceded and proceeded by their chanting.

After the Wedding

Once officially married, the couple receives their guests with the huge feast and decorations prepared in the previous days to the wedding.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udnl2/nl021004.html

Finally, the assembly or perhaps the parents only, should recite the Mangala Sutta and Jayamangala Gatha as a blessing.

http://www.buddhanet.net/funeral.htm

What are the cultural expectations of marriage?

Do men and women have equal say in their marriages?

What are the typical roles of the man and woman in marriage?

How much do parents or in-laws have to say about their offspring’s marriage? What degree of involvement do they generally have?

Where do couples normally reside–in their own place, with parents, etc.?

The sons, after marrying, move out of their parents’ home. However, they live nearby and may travel with their parents in search of new pastures. In seminomadic districts, families often include parents, sons, and daughters-in-law.

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Mauritania-to-Nigeria/Mongols.html

Are affairs common? Are they culturally accepted?

Are men or women allowed to have multiple spouses?

Mongolian traditional society allowed polygamy as long as the husband could provide for each wife. However, polygamy was legally banned some time ago and is no longer practiced.

(WIC)

Do laws equally protect the rights of individuals in a marriage?

How are anniversaries celebrated in the culture?

Is divorce legal or acceptable in the culture? Under what circumstances is it acceptable to divorce?

What is the process in the event of a divorce?

Mongolian women could initiate divorce and remarry afterwards. In such cases the new husbands usually accepted a divorced woman along with her children, as acquiring a “ready-made” family was believed to indicate an existing spiritual connection.

(WIC)

Do women retain any rights?

What happens to children of a divorce?

A Mongolian woman can initiate divorce. In most divorce cases, the mothers get custody of minor children.

(WIC)

Is remarriage for widows condoned in the society?

Family & Parenting

http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/Mongolia.html

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Mauritania-to-Nigeria/Mongols.html

http://www.cohre.org/get_attachment.php?attachment_id=3069 (Sub-Saharan Africa – Rights of Women

http://map.sscs.org.au/Documents/cultural_dictionary.pdf (Similar to Cultural Grams)

Culture Grams which is in our WTP Folder —– Birth, Dating, Marriage, Family, Recreation, Death/After Life

http://www.unece.org/stats/trend/ (Population/ Families & households/ Employment/ Housing)

http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/country-profiles.html (Family)

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reports.htm (For the status of women rights)

http://www.international-divorce.com/ (Divorce & Custody)

What does the family unit in a home look like? (i.e. 2 parents, children? Parents, children, all relatives?, etc.)

Is there an imposed or cultural idea about how many children are the right amount for a family?

What is the typical family size?

Nomadic extended families often live in a camp of several gers. Husbands take care of herding and slaughtering, while wives handle milking and food preparation. Older children care for younger siblings.

Urban families live either in high-rise apartments or in a ger, with its surrounding fence and storage shed. A ger in or near a city will have electricity but not heat or water. Due to a housing shortage, three generations must often share a small apartment; parents sleep in the living room and children and grandparents in the bedrooms. Urban families have one or two children. Both parents generally work outside the home. Networks of family reciprocity are an important means of support. For example, rural relatives may supply their city relatives with meat and dairy products, and the urban dwellers may reciprocate by taking one or more of the rural family’s children to live with them in the city so they may receive a better education.

(Culture Grams)

Traditionally, families were the main unit of production in this herding society. The kinship system was patrilineal and sons generally established households in a common camp with their fathers.

Several generations of families customarily live together in a nomadic camp known as a khot ail (“group of tents”) and share herding tasks. This camp, generally consisting of two to seven households, serves as a way of pooling labor for herding and has numerous social and ritual functions.

http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/Mongolia.html

A Mongolian family generally consists of a husband, a wife, and their young children.

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Mauritania-to-Nigeria/Mongols.html

How central are children to the family?

What are the general reasons for having children?

Children have always been treasured in Mongolian culture, and large families were historically the norm. Large families were considered desirable because many children ensured extra help and security in old age. Although family size is changing today, the country is still so sparsely populated that some people still believe it is advantageous to have “as many Mongolians as possible.”

http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/Mongolia.html

How important is birth or gender order?

Is there a family hierarchy or cultural custom in terms of childbearing (i.e. the youngest child of a family may not have children until the eldest has had them, etc.)

What is the expectation or role of each parent after the birth of the child?

Who is the “head” of the household?

Mongolian women traditionally held a higher social status than women in many Asian cultures. Still, a woman’s primary role was as a homemaker.

(WIC)

The father is head of the family, but the mother is responsible for household affairs.

(Culture Grams)

Who makes the chief decisions for the family?

The Mongols are monogamous. The family is dominated by the man, but herders usually consult their wives about major decisions.

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Mauritania-to-Nigeria/Mongols.html

Traditionally, Mongolia has always been a patriarchal society. Mongolian proverbs such as “If a husband does not beat his wife once a month, he is not a man”

Today, Mongolian men often maintain the appearance that they are the family decision-makers, even if their wives actually make the decisions. However, the number of single-parent families headed by women is growing in Mongolia.

(WIC)

Who earns the income?

Who customarily manages the household? (Mother, Father, Grandparent?)

Describe typical family life? (daily routines)

What are the roles of the children (up to 10 yrs.)?

What are the roles of adolescents (11 and up)?

What are typical/favorite family activities?

Urban wedding ceremonies take place in “wedding palaces.” Afterward, many couples now go to a Buddhist monk to receive a blessing or have their future predicted. A large feast treats as many relatives and friends as the new couple’s families can afford to feed. In rural areas, common-law marriages are typical. Rural couples receive a ger from the husband’s family. Mongolian families traditionally exchange gifts in conjunction with a wedding. The groom’s family usually gives livestock, while the bride’s family offers jewelry and clothing.

(Culture Grams)

Is meal sharing with the family typical/mandatory?

Dinner is considered the main meal of the day. The whole family generally eats dinner together.

(Culture Grams)

Is divorce common?

Today, divorce is relatively rare in Mongolia. In most divorces, mothers receive the custody of children and are entitled to child support and alimony.

(WIC)

With whom to the children go if there is a divorce?

What cultural expectations are there in terms of “duty” to parents?. What or how much do children “owe” their parents in adulthood? Does hierarchy/economics/education/or other play a role in terms of which child has more “responsibilities” or “duty requirements”? (i.e. in Japan/Korea, etc.)

Most Mongolians live in nuclear families, tho

There are various types of works and with each type there is a different type of work orientation attached, for example in a regular manual labour one would not expect the worker to bring on high commitment to work as this worker will be working in order to meet ends with taking care of the family as his main goal. On the other hand in a skilled laboratory, for example, the scientist will be expected to work and bring along a good quality of work orientations so that the work goes on smoothly and the other research counterpart benefits due to a workers high quality work. Here the worker has the science related work as the main goal, and family and other criteria comes secondary.

Initial studies have concentrated in generalising the work force and the work orientations they bring about at a work place. Though this was not very wrong at their times but in modern times this has changed as there is a lot of division in a similar type of work itself. For example, in a production company, there are people who are working at a manufacturing level, there are people who are working at R&D level, and there are people who are working at business level. At the business level there are further divisions including HR, sales, marketing etc. At each level there are different types of orientations expected out of the worker. A skilled labourer working at a plant will have different expectations and future goals as compared to the ‘big boss’ sitting at the executive level.

The main issue here is that the old studies have concentrated on generalising the work orientations. In these new times there are new requirements to consider in order to make the work a better place which is beneficial for both the worker and the employee. Though we can learn a lot from old researches, newer studies are still required as the times have changed in a major ways. Therefore specific studies are required in order to understand what is beneficial for both.

The meaning of work

There are many definitions of work. In theology work can be the Karma or “deed”, in “physics” it happens when and where a certain amount of energy moves a body of specific weight through a specific distance and at the level of ‘human labour’ it may involve employment or house work.

In economic term labour is the amount of work done by humans and can include ‘manual labour’ (which is the physical work done by someone or a group of people), ‘waged labour’ (where a worker sells his labour and an employer buys it for hourly/pre-decided payment), or ‘project management’ (where the main aim is to finish a task).

“Work is a social duty and contributes to social order in any society, it is also there to promote moral worth in the individual” (Anthony 1977) The Ideology of Work (International Behavioural and Social Sciences Library), Even religion has paid emphasis to work like in Islam, work ethic argues that life without work has no meaning and engagement in economic activities is an obligation (Yousef 2001:153) even Buddha singled out laziness as a cause of downfall of men and nations and urged that everyone should put forth effort (Niles 1999:858).

The basic reason for a person to work is for economic gains. Working to survive, to gain food, shelter, etc. a person wants to work to gain self- respect. But is it all about money? This is a question mostly asked to people who wants to associate career success to the amount of money they earn. Work is not always about money, this is because there are certain other terms involved including job satisfaction and career growth. Gallie, D and White, M (1993) Employee Commitment and the Skills Revolution, London: Policy Studies Institute. At the level of nations, every nation wants its people to work in order to contribute to the society. In certain countries it is an obligation where everyone must work to the best of their ability and contribute to society (Britain, Japan, USA) in others it is an entitlement where everyone has the right to a meaningful and interesting job with proper training (Netherlands, Belgium, Germany) [Status and type of job (Baruch, 2004)]

The ‘modern’ work ethic and introducing orientations to work

According to Watson, work is the essential prerequisite of personal and social advancement and of self-fulfilment (Watson 1995:115). It is the meaning that working individuals attach to their work, which predisposes them to think and act in particular ways and with regard to work it is very important (Watson 2002).

There are two types of works (Watson 1995), one which gives intrinsic satisfaction is enriching, provides any kind of a challenge, enables development and self-fulfilment, so here the work has an expressive meaning. On other hand, work which gives extrinsic satisfactions yields no value and is only a mean to meet the ends. Here, satisfaction or fulfilment is sought outside of work like in a hobby of some sort. Here the work has an instrumental meaning

Work orientation basically Refers to the ethics, expectations, and state of mind that any worker brings to an establishment. This topic has been of concern to many people. There have been studies which have revealed that “work orientation” influence the experience of job. Work orientation is related to motivation but is not motivation, it is associated with commitment but is not commitment.

In the year 1960, studies were carried out in a car plant in Luton by Goldthorpe, Lockwood et al. Here he concluded his study with a paradox which was that workers were neither satisfied nor dis-satisfied with their work. They did not appear to be deriving any intrinsic or social satisfaction from job but did not express dissatisfaction with their work. [Goldthorpe J, Lockwood D, Bechhofer F and Platt J, 1968, The Affluent Worker: industrial attitudes and Behaviour, Cambridge Univ. Press.] Here he showed that an instrumental worker works to meet an end , has a calculative involvement, i.e. is not too indulgent or job oriented, and there is a clear separation within job and non-job related activities. Therefore the worker brought a only a limited amount of work orientation into the work organisation. Though in conclusion Goldthorpe says that the worker has a choice to leave the job and go elsewhere where he can have a better job satisfaction.

This work by Goldthorpe has been criticized by many including Devine Grieco, Daniel Beynon and Blackburn. They said that all the work in industrial societies has an instrumental basis or nature, i.e. the worker joins the work knowing that this will be only to meet the end not to gain other things (Devine 1992; Grieco 1987). The ‘instrumental worker’ does not have much choice as concluded by Goldthorpe (Beynon and Blackburn 1972) because either he is unskilled in other kind of work or he is limited in initial resources to start a work of a specific kind. Also Daniel said that Work orientation is not static (Daniel 1973).

According to these critiques, Goldthorpe was overly simplistic with focus on money or as they said ‘fulfilment’ because he chose a problematic group for managers to work upon, also he forgot to understand that manual labour was a lot more accessible to investigation which in the first place is not liked by workers who are doing this kind of job.

Also his studies, did not had a control comparison with professionally orientation to work which includes qualifications, feeling of success, values placed on ‘hard work’, extent of control over destiny and feeling good about current job and attachment to organisation. His studies also did not include gender which is an important part to study at a society level because of many families now a days have both members working.

Introducing gender

There have been many studies done including by Hakim in which there is introduction of women and men at a same level in the work force and their studies. Since Goldthorpe et al’s study ignores gender, Hakim’s (1991) talks about women ‘grateful slaves’ and self-made women and men and compare them. Hakim’s (1995) polarity thesis: work-centred women, home-centred women and ‘drifters’ / Hakim’s (1998, 2001) preference theory

He put forwards a ‘preference theory’ in which there are 3 kinds of women;

Work-centred women which constitutes of (25%) of the total population surveyed. These women were childless and were committed to work, investment in training, qualifications etc.

His second group consisted of Home-centred women which constituted of 28% of the surveyed population who had family as their main priority. They did not prefer to work as they believed in qualifications as only for intellectual dowry.

The third category of working women were adaptives’ which were a mix of both (47%) and combined a balance between raising children and reaching career goals despite of not totally being highly committed to career. According to them qualifications obtained for working was there to help them gain promotions etc.

His work challenges the traditional feminist ‘myths’ and shows that women were aware of individual differences (preferences). Though his work was survey based there were no dialogs with the women themselves (Procter and Padfield 1998; Caven 1999; Fagan 2001). He also assumed that orientation to work is static and predetermined (Fagan 2001). According to many critiques he Overemphasised choices and preferences and totally ignored structural and economic factors involved.

Bringing men back in

“It is notable that there is in practice only one ‘choice’ of work history for men, compared to three for women. Feminists who emphasise that women’s choices are constrained and not ‘completely free’ overlook the fact that women have more choices than men” (Hakim 1996:134,

But is this really the case? According to Nolan this is not the case as many men fits the ‘adaptives’ category (Nolan, 2009). Fagan shows this by talking about how Men’s commitment to work declines around time of childbirth (Fagan, 2001). Also Structural demands prevent men from spending time with family (Pleck, 1985) which makes them prefer to be adaptive rather than being totally work oriented.

Work orientation and gender relation:

Work orientation basically Refers to the values, anticipations, and feelings that any worker brings to an organisation. This topic has been of interest to many people. There have been researches which have shown that “work orientation” effect the experience of job. Work orientation is Related to motivation but is not motivation, it is associated with commitment but ISN’T commitment and it links with effort bargain and implicit contract

Men mostly prefer to work in order to have a personal satisfaction and job related satisfaction i.e. their orientations to work are similar (Caven, 2009). More related research is needed in this area as this is a topic which integrates many other things including salary related rewards, career growth, time spent in job compared to time spent at home balance (Hakim, 2008; Raiden and Caven, forthcoming). There is also a need to show how and why a person’s orientation towards a particular job or from a particular job changes.

Conclusions

The further research is indeed needed because initial studies have concentrated more upon general way of obtaining data. Also there has been a generalization of groups and initial researchers thinks that they can generalise people from all sorts of work in a specific category, this is not true as various types of jobs have their own requirements and faults which can attract a person or repel a person from that job, for example, a manual labour job given to a student during his time at the university will help him financially and keep him busy but the same job to the same student after his graduation will have no reason for the student to continue to work upon unless he is not getting a job in his specified field.

Also original studies focussed on men and manufacturing and from that time there has been a lot of changes in the types of jobs available in the market today, there are jobs in various kinds of fields including science, arts, skilled labour, etc, also there have been sub division of work and thus there are different requirements at different levels. Further research in required to find out different orientations to work and the specified areas related to different aspects of work.

Just like there are various definitions of work, there are many types of works done in a society. When a worker goes to an office there are certain things accepted out of him like work ethics, good practice, better outcome at highest level of quality, similarly the worker also expects certain things out of the employee.

This essay will attempt a brief review of the history of the concept ‘culture’ and its relationship with the concept ‘civilization’, in order to understand the two concepts, without making any claims towards offering anything new in the analysis of the chronological account of how the definition of culture changed over time. [1] Instead, the essay will attempt to explore the harmonies and dis-harmonies in the utilization of the two concepts, as a way of coming to terms with immanent ruptures and continuities which were explicated in various ways in which the logic and lexicon of these concepts were deployed in the different anthropological traditions over the years.

From the outset, I would like to mention that I almost abandoned this particular topic because of the difficulties I encountered in finding a concise definition of, mainly the concept of ‘culture’. When, after several weeks of reading, it finally dawned on me that actually there was none, it all started to make sense – that the subject of defining the concept of ‘culture’ has never been closed and was never intended for foreclosure. This meant that understanding how the concept was variously deployed was as important as appreciating the manner of its deployment, especially in ways in which this was always associated with the concept of civilization, whose definition was more straightforward.

The notion of Culture:

Following a very unsuccessful search for a concise definition of the concept ‘culture’, it dawned on me that Terry Eagleton and several others was after all correct when he said that ‘culture’ was one of the few very complicated concepts to have ever graced the English language (Armstrong, 2010: 1; Eagleton, 2006: 1; Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952). Culture was a very difficult concept to define because the evolution of its etymology and its deployment varied in different contexts and anthropological traditions, both contemporary and classical. Its meaning in one setting was often contested in another.

The word ‘culture’ was first used in America [2] , and in etymological terms, its contemporary usage has its origin in attempts to describe man’s relationship with nature, through which resources were extracted. It depicted the outcomes of extraction of resources from nature through a process of labor, for example, through crop farming and livestock production (Eagleton, 2006: 1). It was in this sense that the concept was first formally deployed in the 19th century in Germany, where the word used was ‘Kultur’, which in German referred to cultivation. [3] The early German usage of the word culture was heavily influenced by Kant, who, like his followers, spelled the word as culture, and used it repeatedly to mean ‘cultivation’ or ‘becoming cultured’, which subsequently became the initial meaning of civilization (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952: 10). The way the concept was first used in modern English borrowed from the usage first made of the word by Walter Taylor, which dates back to 1871, although according to Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952: 9), Taylor’s use of the word culture, which was borrowed from German, was similar to the way the word civilization was used in Germany.

The above sense in which the concept culture was for long deployed depicted it as an activity or occupation that entailed a materialist dimension related to the extraction of resources from nature. Coming from Walter Taylor, the modern scientific sense of the word culture no longer refers primarily to the process of cultivation, but more generally as a manifestation of customs, beliefs and forms of government (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952: 10). The latter sense signifies some abstraction to the transcendent and divine realm of spiritualism. Over time, the concept was also deployed in other ways that depicted it as an entity (Eagleton, 2006: 1). There was also a sense in which the concept of culture also depicted the transformation that took place in society’s experiences with changing technologies of production as capitalism developed, although this understanding was quite often deployed in racist terms to differentiate between less industrialized nations of the non-west from the more industrialized European societies.

It is true, as observed by Eagleton that the relationship between nature and culture was such that ‘nature produces culture which changes nature’ (Eagleton, 2006: 3). In this sense, there is a part of nature that is cultural, and another that is not. The part of nature which is cultural is that part which labor transforms, for example, into works of art, monuments, skyscrapers (or building structures) or cities. Such products of culture are as ‘natural as rural idylls are cultural’ (Eagleton, 2006: 4). Because culture originally meant ‘cultivation’, or managing the growth of crops, which means ‘husbandry’, the cultural therefore would imply that which was within ones means to change. As pointed out by Eagleton (2006: 4), ‘the stuff to be altered has its own autonomous existence, which then lends it something of the recalcitrance of nature’ in much the same way as the extent to which culture transforms nature and also influences the rigorous limits nature imposes on the cultural project.

To this extent, I am in agreement with Eagleton (2006: 4-5) that the idea of culture signified a double rejection, of, on the one hand, the representation of culture as an organic (biological) determinism; and, on the other, as an interpretation of culture as an embodiment of autonomous spiritualism. To this extent therefore, culture rebuffs naturalism and idealism founded in biological determinism by insisting that from the point of view of culture, there was also a representation within nature which exceeded and dismantled nature. It also represented a refusal of idealism because even the highest-minded human agency had its humble roots in our biology and natural environment.

The resulting contradiction from this rejection of naturalism (emanating from organic determinism) and idealism (as a result of autonomy of spirit) led to a contest between what had actually evolved and what ought to, which transfigured into what Eagleton described as ‘a tension between making and being made, between rationality and spontaneity’ (Eagleton, 2006: 5).

Consequently, although the relation between humans and nature was important to an understanding culture, in this paper, I consider the social relations between humans and nature in the course of extracting from nature, through which humans change nature to be the most important. This is what is central to understanding the concept of culture, which makes it possible to view it as a systematic way of life and living, that humans consciously develop that is transferred from the past to the present and into the future. It depicts some semblance of historically assembled normative values and principles internal to social organizations through which a diversity of relationships are ordered. In this way, it is possible to see how culture becomes an abstraction of itself, in its own right, which does not reify culture as a thing as this essentializes culture. I am inclined to agree with Armstrong (2010: 2) in her definition, which presents culture more as a process of meaning making which informs our sense of who we are, how we want to be perceived and how others perceive us.

The above said, we also need to recognize that while culture is important, it is also not the only factor that shapes social relations between humans in the course of impacting on nature in ways that change it. Several other social, economic, political, geographical, historical and physical factors come into play. It is necessary to recognize that culture, which embodies as much as it conceals its specific history, politics and economics; is, as also pointed out by Franz Boaz [4] , not inert. It is an inherently Boasian conception to view culture as extremely dynamic; as having life, and existing in a continuous state of flux, as new notions of and about culture continues to emerge. This means that cultures cannot be expected to be static and homogenous. As new cultures emerge, tensions are usually generated. The totality of any culture and its individual trait cannot be understood if taken out of its general setting. Likewise, culture cannot also be conceived as controlled by a single set of conditions (Benedict, 1934: xv).

It is also Franz Boaz [5] who noted that culture is some form of standardized or normative behavior. An individual lives in his/her specific culture, in as much the same way as culture is lived by an individual. Culture has a materiality that makes it manifest in diverse patterns implying that it meaningless to try and generalize or homogenize about cultural patterns (Benedict, 1934: xvi). Thinking of culture as socially constructed networks of meaning that distinguish one group from another implies not only a rejection of social evolution but also an endorsement of ‘cultural relativism’, which is also a Boasian tradition. [6] Boaz [7] rightly argued that perspectives that view culture in evolutionary terms tend to end with the construction of a unified picture of the history of culture and civilization, which is misleading. Tendencies which view culture as a single and homogenous unit, and as an individual historical problem is extremely problematic (Benedict, 1934: xv). I consider the distinctive life-ways of different people as the most basic understanding of the notion of culture. ‘Cultural relativity’ is a recognition that different people have cultures and life-ways that are distinct from those of others.

The notion of civilization:

The concept of civilization, like culture, also has a complex etymology. By 1694, the French were already using the verb civiliser, and referred to the polishing of manners, rendering sociable, or becoming urbane as a result of city life (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952: 11). The French notion of civilization referred to the achievement of human advancement manifest in certain customs and standards of living. The French considered civilization as the end point of a process of cultivation that took place over centuries (Elliot, 2002). The English lagged behind the French. [8] In 1773, Samuel Johnson still excluded civilization from his dictionary, preferring civility, and yet civilization (from the word civilize) captured better the opposite of ‘barbarity’ than civility. The English subsequently adopted the concept of civilization deriving it from the verb to civilize and associated it with the notion of civilizing others. The 1933 Oxford Dictionary defined civilization as: “A developed or advanced state of human society; a particular stage or type of this” (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952: 12). By the 18th century, the word civilization in German was associated with the spread by the state of political developments akin to the German state to peoples of other nations. It was somewhat similar to the English verb to civilize (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952: 11). For the Germans and English, the concept of civilization invoked an imperial political agenda that was apparent in the way they deployed the concept.

The harmony and dis-harmonies in deployment of concepts of culture and civilization:

The evolutionary thinking about culture and civilization in the philosophy of Durkheim:

Among the scholars who attempted a very rigorous narrative intended to distinguish between culture and civilization was Emile Durkheim, whose writings were first published in 1893. In trying to come to terms with the complex division of labor and associated behavioral changes that occurred with the industrial revolution in England, Durkheim, argued that inside modern industry, jobs were demarcated and extremely specialized, and while each product was a specialty, it entailed the existence of others in form of the labor they input into its production. As society evolved from agriculture to industry, so did culture of the pre-industrial era give way to civilization associated with the conditions of progress in human societies. Durkheim extended the concept of division of labor from Economics to organisms and society, from which its association with culture was derived, arguing that the more specialized an organism’s functions were, the more exalted a place it occupied in the animal hierarchy. For Durkheim, the extent of division of labor in society influenced the direction of the development of the evolution of mankind from culture to civilization (Durkheim, 1984: 3).

Durkheim used division of labor to make the distinction between culture as a preserve of the pre-modern mediaeval society and civilization as belonging to the modern industrial society. Durkheim argued that all societies are usually held together by social solidarity. In the pre-industrial societies, where social bonds were based on customs and norms, this solidarity was mechanical while in the industrial societies, which were highly individualistic, the solidarity was organic, and social bonds were maintained by contracts which regulated relations between highly individualistic beings. To Durkheim, societies transition from relatively simple pre-modern societies to relatively more complex industrial societies (Durkheim, 1984: 3).

Durkheim argued that division of labor influenced the moral constitution of societies by creating moral rules for human conduct that influenced social order in ways that made industrial societies distinct from the pre-industrial ones. It created a civilized, individual man, capable of being interested in everything but attaching himself exclusively to nothing, able to savor everything and understand everything, found the means to combine and epitomize within himself the finest aspects of civilization. For Durkheim, tradition and custom, collectively defined as culture were the basis of distinction of the simpler societies which defined their mechanical form of solidarity that they exhibit. The modern societies, according to Durkheim, were characterized civilization (Durkheim, 1984: 3-4).

Durkheim advanced an essentially Darwinian argument. In the biological determinism of Durkheim, it is argued that the shift from mechanical to organic solidarity was comparable to the changes that appeared on the evolutionary scale. Relatively simple organisms showing only minimal degrees of internal differentiation ceded place to more highly differentiated organisms whose functional specialization allowed them to exploit more efficiently the resources of the ecological niche in which they happened to be placed. The more specialized the functions of an organism, the higher its level on the evolutionary scale, and the higher its survival value. In similar ways, the more differentiated a society, the higher its chances to exploit the maximum of available resources, and hence the higher its efficiency in procuring indispensable means of subsistence in a given territory (Durkheim, 1984: xvi).

There were fundamental contradictions in the perspectives of Durkheim. If Durkheim denigrated culture to the pre-modern, and viewed society as developing in evolutionary terms to the industrial, it could be assumed that he also believed that the solidarity which was associated with the industrial society was better. What then explains the fact that Durkheim was deeply convinced of and concerned about the pathology of acquisitiveness in modern capitalist society? Durkheim did not believe that the pathological features of the industrial society were caused by an inherent flaw in systems built on organic solidarity. Rather, he thought that the malaise and anomie were caused by transitional difficulties that could be overcome through the emergence of new norms and values in the institutional setting of a new corporate organization of industrial affairs (Durkheim, 1984: xxi).

For Durkheim, the flaws in industrial and class relations did not mean that the pre-modern characterized by culture was better. That the class conflicts which were inherent in the industrial society and were associated with the structure of capitalist society would be overcome by the emergence of a new corporate society in which relations between employers and employees were harmonized. Beholden to none of the political and social orientations of his day, Durkheim always attempted to look for a balanced middle way (Durkheim, 1984: xxii).

The contemporary play of relationships between culture and civilization has, to say the least, rendered wanting, the ideas which were advanced by Durkheim. For example, if culture is a preserve of the pre-modern, what explains the pervasiveness of barbarism within civilized formations of the industrialized world? Can we have culture in societies that are characterized as civilized or with civilization? Or are societies that are said to possess culture devoid of civilization?

The contradictions in the etymology and deployment of concepts of culture and civilization:

The usage of ‘culture’ and ‘civilization’ in various languages has been confusing. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary for English defined both ‘culture’ and ‘civilization’ in terms of the other. ‘Culture’ was a particular state or stage of advancement in civilization. ‘Civilization’ was called advancement or a state of social culture. In both popular and literary English, they were often treated as near synonyms, though ‘civilization’ was sometimes restricted to ‘advanced’ or ‘high’ cultures (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952: 13). As early as the 1950’s, there were some writers who were inclined to regard civilization as the culture of urbanized societies characterized by cities. Often, civilization was considered a preserve for literate cultures, for instance, while the Chinese had civilization, the Eskimo were seen as in possession of culture (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952: 13).

The English language distinction between civilization and culture made in the past was different from that made in the German language. In German, civilization was confined to the material conditions, while the English expression sometimes included psychic, moral, and spiritual phenomena (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952: 13). The German Kultur also referred to material civilization, while culture in English over time came to mean something entirely different, which corresponded to the humanities. The German Kultur also related to the arts of savages and barbaric peoples, which were not included in any use of civilization since the term civilization denoted a stage of advancement higher than savagery or barbarism. These stages in advancement in civilization were even popularly known as stages of culture; implying that the word culture was used synonymous with the German Kultur (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952: 13). In English, ‘culture’ was a condition or achievement possessed by society. It was not individual. The English phrase ‘a cultured person’ did not employ the term in the German sense. There was a sense of non-specificity in the way in which the concept ‘culture’ (‘Kultur’) was deployed in the German sense (Krober & Kluckhorn, 1952: 13).

From its etymological roots in rural labor, the word culture was first deployed in reference to ‘civility’; then in the 18th century, it became more or less synonymous with ‘civilization’, in the sense of a general process of intellectual, spiritual and material progress. In Europe, civilization as an idea was equated to manners and morals. To be civilized included not spitting on the carpet as well as not decapitating one’s prisoners of war. The very word implied a dubious correlation between mannerly conduct and ethical behavior, which in England was equated to the word ‘gentleman’. As a synonym of ‘civilization’, ‘culture’ belonged to the general spirit of Enlightenment, with its cult of secular, progressive self-development (Eagleton, 2006: 9).

Form my reading of the literature on this subject, it was not clear at what point culture and civilization begun to be deployed interchangeably. Suffice to mention, however, that in English, as in French, the word culture was not unconditionally interchangeable with civilization. While it was not entirely clear, between the two concepts of culture and civilization, which predated the other, they both shared a transcendental association with the notion of cultivation, as something which is done to (or changes in) humans in the course of exacting labor upon nature to change it, that leads to the development of human qualities to suit the needs of collective humanity. Culture, which emerged in German from the notion of Kultur, which meant cultivation, appeared as a form of universal subjectivity at work within the particularistic realm of our separate individualities. For Eagleton (2006: 8), it was a view of culture as a component of civilization which was neither dissociated from society nor wholly at one with it.

This kind of focus also portrayed an essentially Kantian notion of man as becoming cultivated through art and science, and becoming civilized by attaining a variety of social graces and refinements (or decencies), in which the state had a role to play. This Kantian conception therefore distinguished between being cultivated and being civilized. Being cultivated referred to intrinsic improvement of the person, while being civilized referred to improvements of social interrelations (interpersonal relations), some kind of ethical pedagogy which served to liberate the collective self buried in every individual into a political citizen (Eagleton, 2006: 7; Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952: 11).

There was a sense in which the concept of civilization had an overwhelming French connection (coming from the concept civilizer), in the same way culture was associated with the Germans (from the concept Kultur). To be described as civilized was associated by the French with finesse with regards to social, political, economic and technical aspects life. For the Germans, ‘culture’ had a more narrowly religious, artistic and intellectual reference. From this point of view, Eagleton (2006: 9) was right when he observed that: (i) ‘civilization’ was deployed in a manner that played down national differences, while ‘culture’ highlighted them; and, (ii) the tension between ‘culture’ and ‘civilization’ had much to do with the rivalry between Germany and France. I am reminded here of Eagleton’s famous phrase that: ‘civilization was formulaically French, while culture was stereotypically German’ (Eagleton, 2006: 10-11).

Towards the end of the 19th century civilization and culture were invariably viewed as antonyms. If, however, the description by Eagleton (2006: 9) of French notion of civilization as a form of social refinement is acceptable, then one can also accept Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952: 14) description of civilization as a process of ennobling (or ‘creating nobility’) of humanity through the exercise by society of increased control of the elementary human impulses. This makes civilization a form of politics. In the same light, I also agree with Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952: 14) that culture’s German connections link it with the control of nature through science and art, which means culture embodies technology (including equipment) as well as knowledge systems (including skills) relevant for subduing and employing nature.

The implications of the above are two-fold: (a) culture and civilization, can not be looked at as antonyms or binary opposites, in the sense in which evolution theorists would want us to view the relationship between these two concepts – with culture as being akin to an inferior status while civilization is ascribed to the superior; (b) both tend to depict not only elements of normativity in advance in life-forms, but also constantly improving internal conditions of the internal elements of these concepts that define humanity which they embody. There is a way in which the elements embodied by these concepts depict superiority in their respective life-forms. Even when there are tendencies for overlaps in the elements depicted by these two concepts, for example, their association with politics, art, technology and urban living, there is a sense in which both concepts cannot be viewed as stages of development one from the other.

It appears to me that Eagleton viewed civilization as a value-judgmental concept that pre-supposed an improvement on what went before, to whatever was not only right, but a great deal better than what was (Eagleton, 2006: 10). Eagleton was also non-presumptive when he pointed out that historically, the deployment of the term put it within the lexicon of a pre-industrial European middle class, which used the concept to justify imperial ambitions of mercantile and early industrial European capitalism towards those they categorized as of inferior civilization (Eagleton, 2006: 10). This fact has to be borne in mind if the concept when the concept is deployed today.

Culture on the other hand, required certain social conditions that bring men into complex relationships with natural resources. The state becomes a necessity. Cultivation was a matter of the harmonious, all-round development of the personality. Because there was overwhelming recognition that nobody could do this in isolation, this helped to shift culture from its individual to its social meaning. Culture had a social dimension (Eagleton, 2006: 10).

Whichever was, between culture and civilization, the progenitor of the other, there is a dual sense in which these concepts appear linked by their enlightenment era roots; and also not linked at the same time. I agree with Eagleton that “civilization sounds abstract, alienated, fragmented, mechanistic, utilitarian, in thrall to a crass faith in material progress; while culture seems holistic, organic, sensuous, autotelic and recollective”. However, I have reservations with Eagleton’s postulation of, first, a conflict between culture and civilization, and secondly, presentation of this conflict as a manifestation of a quarrel between tradition and modernity (Eagleton, 2006: 11).

One of the greatest exports from the Enlightenment era was its universalism. Post-enlightenment political philosophy contributed significantly to critiques of enlightenment’s grand unilineal narratives regarding the evolution of universal humanity. We can look at the discourse of culture as a contribution to understanding the diversity inherent in different life-forms with their specific drivers of growth. Increasingly, it had become extremely perilous to relativize non-European cultures, which some thinkers of the time idealized as ‘primitive’ (Eagleton, 2006: 12).

In the 20th century in the primitivist features of modernism, a primitivism which goes hand-in-hand with the growth of modern cultural anthropology emerged, this time in postmodern guise, in form of a romanticizing of popular culture, which now plays the expressive, spontaneous, quasi-utopian role which ‘primitive’ cultures had played previously (Eagleton, 2006: 12).

While todate the concepts ‘civilization’ and ‘culture’ continue to be used interchangeably, there is also still a sense in which culture is still deployed almost as the opposite of civility (Eagleton, 2006: 13). It is not uncommon to encounter culture being used in reference to that which is tribal as opposed to the cosmopolitan. Culture continues to be closed to rational criticism; and a way of describing the life-forms of ‘savages’ rather than a term for the civilized. If we accept the fact that ‘the savages’ have culture, then the primitives can be depicted as cultured and the civilized as uncultured. In this sense, a reversal means that civilization can also be idealized (Eagleton, 2006: 13). If the imperial Modern states plundered the preA­-modern ones, for whatever reasons, is it not a statement of both being uncultured and lack of civility, quite antithetical to what one could consider as civilization of the west. What sense doe it therefore make to posture as civilized and yet act in an uncultured manner?

Can viewing culture as civilization, on one hand, and civilization as culture, on the other hand, help to resolve the impasse in the contemporary deployment of these concepts? One fact is clear, either way; it has potential to breed ‘postmodern’ ambiguities of cultural relativism (Eagleton, 2006: 14). Alternatively, if culture is viewed, not as civilization, but as a way of life, it simply becomes an affirmation of sheer existence of life-forms in their pluralities (Eagleton, 2006: 13).

Pluralizing the concept of culture comes at a price – the idea of culture begins to entertain cultural non-normativities or ‘queer’ cultures, in the name of diversity of cultural forms. Rather than dissolving discrete identities, it multiplies them rather than hybridization, which as we know, and as Edward Said observed, all cultures are involved in one another; none is single and pure, all are hybrid, heterogeneous, extraordinarily differentiated, and non-monolithic (Eagleton, 2006: 15).

Attempts to valorize culture as a representation of particular life-forms associated with civility can also be perilous. There is a post-modern sense in which culture can be considered as an intellectual activity (science, philosophy and scholarship), as well as an ‘imaginative’ pursuit of such exploits as music, painting and literature. This is the sense in which ‘cultured’ people are considered to have culture. This sense suggests that science, philosophy, politics and economics can no longer be regarded as creative or imaginative. This also suggests that ‘civilized’ values are to be found only in fantasy. And this is clearly a caustic comment on social reality. Culture comes to mean learning and the arts, activities confined to a tiny proportion of humanity, and it at once becomes impoverished as a concept (Eagleton, 2006: 16).

Concluding Remarks:

From the foregoing analyses, it is clear that understanding the relationship between culture and civilization is impossible until we cease to view the world in binaries in which the West (Europe) was constructed as advanced and developed with the non-West perceived as primitive, barbarous and pagan. Historically, the West’s claim of supremacy was always predicated on their provincialization of the non-west, whose behavioral patterns were judged from the experience of the West, and characterized in generalized terms as traditional customs and therefore culture. I agree with Benedict, that the West did all it could to universalize its experience to the rest of the world, even when this experience was different from that of those from the non-west (Benedict, 1934: 5).

Assumptions of the mutual exclusivity of culture and civilization in society are premised on perceived irreconcilability of values and beliefs. Religion was always used in the West to posit a generalized provincialism of the non-west. It was the basis of prejudices around which superiority was justified. No ideas or institutions that held in the one were valid in the other. Rather all institutions were seen in opposing terms according as they belonged to one or the other of the very often slightly differentiated religions.

In this contemporary era of highly globalized populations of footloose movements an

The Millennium Development Goals are an integrated set of eight goals and 18 time-bound targets for extending the benefits of globalization to the world’s poorest citizens. The goals aim to stimulate real progress by 2015 in tackling the most pressing issues facing developing countries – poverty, hunger, inadequate education, gender inequality, child and maternal mortality, HIV/AIDS and environmental degradation. UNDP helps countries formulate national development plans focused on the MDGs and chart national progress towards them through the MDG reporting process (Wacc, 2006).

In most developing countries, gender inequality is a major obstacle to meeting the MDG targets. In fact, achieving the goals will be impossible without closing the gaps between women and men in terms of capacities, access to resources and opportunities, and vulnerability to violence and conflict.

Millennium Development Goal 3 is ‘to promote gender equality and empower women’. The goal has one target: ‘to eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005 and to all levels of education no later than 2015’. Four indicators are used to measure progress towards the goal: the ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education; the ratio of literate women to men in the 15-to 24-year-old age group; the share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector; and the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments.

The existence of a separate goal on gender equality is the result of decades of advocacy, research and coalition-building by the international women’s movement. Its very existence demonstrates that the global community has accepted the centrality of gender equality and women’s empowerment to the development paradigm- at least at the rhetorical level.

“Gender inequality means inequality between men and women in accessing the existing resources” (Saroukhani 1991:673). In the view of Krammara & Treicehr “any kind of behavior, policy, languages, and other actions that represents a fixed, comprehensive, and institutionalized view in regard to women as inferior beings, means gender inequality”. (1985:185). Therefore, gender inequality refers to the differences between men and women in receiving social and economic advantages which is often to the benfit of men at the expense of women, which means men take superiority over women.

Men and women experience the world of work quite differently. Wage disparities, occupational sex segregation, and gender differences in authority, for example, are well recognized (e.g., Padavic and Reskin 2002). Despite distinguished changes in work, meaningful differences in these areas remain persistent features of contemporary society (England 2006, 2010).

While there are certainly other factors at play, this paper focuses on discrimination in a variety forms, including in hiring (Gorman 2005; Goldin and Rouse 2000), promotions (Olson and Becker 1983), wages (Meitzen 1986), glass ceiling, and as well as sexual harassment (Welsh 1999).Of course, documenting the contemporary occurrence of gender discrimination in employment is only a first step. As Reskin (2000, 320) argues, “We need to move beyond demonstrating that employment discrimination exists, and investigate why it persists in work organizations.” We must look at processes that lead to unequal outcomes for women and men. The real challenge is to uncover how discrimination unfolds in actual work settings.

The issue of gender inequality can be considered as a universal feature of developing countries.One of the areas of disparity between males and females is related to the difference in their employment status which is present through occupational segregation, gender-based wage gaps, and women’s unequal image in informal employment, unpaid work and higher unemployment rates (UNFPA, 2005). As women in developing countries have low status in the community, the activities they perform tend to be valued less; and women’s low status is also perpetuated through the low value placed on their activities (March et al., 1999).

In the case of Mauritius, even though there has been a rapid change in the society where women have reached a high level and hold status such as Judges, Directors, Engineers which were unconceivable to be the fields where women could emerged; there are still some occupation where women are entangled in the culture norms and could not take the lead. For example, there are some sectors such as Fire Men at the Fire Services where there are no female officers.

There are less women who work as Electrician, Plumber or even Carpenter, as these occupations do not allow women to perform well due to their physical strength. Besides there is no doubt that there are organisations which are gender biased. Most of the organisations are entirely rules by male managerial culture as when organisations were first performed; only males were in the paid workforce.

Despite there has been an increased in the education field at all level and the increase of women in the workforce, there has been a minor change to the men dominated culture in the workplace where women are still treated as inferior agents. Our study focused on how gender inequality still has an impact on the Mauritian female within the workplace.

General context
An Overview of Gender Inequality in Developing Countries

The issue of gender inequality can be considered as a universal aspect of developing countries. Unlike women in developed countries who are, in relative terms, economically empowered and have a powerful voice that demands an audience and positive action, women in developing countries are generally silent and their voice has been stifled by economic and cultural factors.

Economic and cultural factors, together with institutional factors state the gender-based division of labour, rights, responsibilities, opportunities, and access to and control over resources. Education, literacy, access to media, employment, decision making, among other things, are some of the areas of gender disparity.

One of the areas of disparity between males and females is related to the difference in their employment status which is distinct by occupational segregation, wage inequality, and women’s unequal representation in informal occupation, unpaid work and higher unemployment rates (UNFPA, 2005). As women in developing countries have low status in the community, the activities they perform tend to be valued less; and women’s low status is also perpetuated through the low value placed on their activities (March et al., 1999).

In-depth analysis of DHS by Hindin (2005) showed that only 17% of women in Zimbabwe, 12% in Zambia and 4% in Malawi have higher status job than their partners. The respective percentages of women whose partners have higher status jobs are 52, 43 and 53.

Women are also overrepresented in the informal sector. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 84% of women’s non-agricultural employment is informal compared to 63% of men’s. The figure is found to be 58% and 48% for women and men, respectively in Latin America (UNFPA, 2005). Studies generally show that women are more likely to be engaged in work which is for longer hours than men. For instance, in 18 of the 25 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, greater than 50% of women were employed and even in six of these countries the percentage of employed women was greater than 75% (Mukuria et al.,2005).

However, as most of the employed women work in agricultural and other activities which are mostly considered to be having limited or no financial returns, their employment does not contribute much to their status in the workplace. Thus, women in those countries are dependent on their partners in most aspects of their life. In spite of its importance in enabling women to get access to information about personal health behaviours and practices, household, and community, the percentage of women exposed to different types of media is limited in most developing countries.

Women’s limited access to education, employment opportunity, and media, attached with cultural factors, reduces their decision making power in the society in general and in a household in particular. Regarding their participation in decision making at national level, though the number of women in national parliaments has been increasing, no country in the world has yet achieved gender parity.

According to the millennium indicators data base of the United Nations, cited in the UNFPA (2005), the percentage of parliamentary seats held by women in 2005 was 16% at world level, 21% in developed countries, and 14% in developing countries. This low representation of women in national parliaments could be due, among others, to type of electoral systems in

different countries, women’s social, economic status and beliefs about women’s place in the family and society, and women’s double responsibilities for work and family (UNFPA, 2005).

Women are underrepresented in the formal sector of employment. The survey conducted by the Central Statistical Authority (CSA, 2004) showed that women account for less than half (43%) of the total employees in the country. Considering the percentage of female employees from the total number of employees by employment type, the highest was in domestic activities (78%) and followed by unpaid activities (59.3%). In other types of formal employment (e.g. government, NGOs, private organizations), the percentage of female workers is less than 35.

On the other hand, the survey showed overrepresentation of female workers in the informal sector. About 58% of working women work in the informal sector whereas the percentage of working men in the informal sector was 37.7 % (ibid).The breakdown of the federal government employees by occupational groups also indicated gender disparity. From federal government employees found in the clerical and fiscal type of jobs 71.3 % were female, while the percentage of females was slightly more than half (51%) in custodial and manual type of jobs.

Women make up 25% and 18% of the administrative and professional and scientific job categories, respectively, indicating that upper and middle level positions are overwhelmingly dominated by men (Federal Civil Service Commission, 2005). This concentration of women in the informal sector and low level positions has implication on their earnings. In this regard, the survey showed four out of ten women civil servants earn Birr 300 a month compared to two out of ten for men (Federal Civil Service Commission, 2005).Ethiopian women’s access to mass media is one of the lowest. In their DHS comparative report, Mukuria et al. (2005) show that, among 25 Sub-Saharan African countries.

Chapter 2
Component of gender inequality-horizontal and vertical segregation

Jonung (1984, p. 45) defines the presence of occupational gender segregation as when women and men are given different occupations that is reliable with their overall shares of employment, irrespective of the nature of job that they have. Gender segregation mean when the percentage of one gender is higher than that of males and females in an occupation. It reflects the gender differences in employment opportunity. The number of occupation with segregation against women is far greater than the number of occupations with segregation against men. Occupational gender segregation consists of two main component dimensions known as horizontal and vertical segregation (Blackburn et al, 2000).

Horizontal segregation is known as under or over representation of certain group in the workplace which is not ordered by any criterion (Bettio and Verashchagina, 2009). According to Anker (1998) horizontal segregation is an absolute and universal characteristic of contemporary socio-economic systems.

It focuses mainly when men and women possess different physical, emotional and mental capabilities. Such discrimination occurs when women are categorized as less intelligent, hormonal and sensitive (Acker 1990). Women are labeled as unreliable and dependent workers when they are pregnant. They are less competent as they will not work as long and hard as others. They become more stressful and sensible to tiny issues happen in the workplace. Martin (1994) declared that in masculine management style, most of the time women possess ‘soft skills’ and men possess ‘hard skills’. It is this concept which creates gender segregation in the workplace.

Vertical segregation referred to the under or over representation of a clearly identifiable group of workers in the workplace at the top of an ordering based on ‘desirable’ attributes such as income, prestige, authority and power.

Huffman (1995) finds that women do not possess enough supervisory authority at work, in education, occupational experience and prestige. One reason that women lack authority is because most women are more concentrated in female-dominated occupations which comprise fever position of authority than male-dominated occupations. Moreover, it is viewed that men’s have greater status value, that is men’s personality are more valuable than women’s and they are much more skilled. (Broverman et al. 1972; Deaux and Kite 1987; Eagly 1987).

Men possess more powerful position in the workplace (Bridges & Nelson 1989). Women’s wage rates are lower than men’s even if their qualifications are similar. As women enter in the workplace, this reduces the level of prestige related with the task and men leave these occupations.

Sex discrimination-discrimination, harassment and glass ceiling

In many parts of the world, women have experienced breakthroughs in their rights in employment. Despite these advances, women from every country and culture continue to face sex discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. The international community has recognized both discrimination based on sex in the terms and conditions of employment and sexual harassment as violations of the fundamental human rights of women (Gudrun and Danya, 1998).

Although sex discrimination is prohibited by law, it continues to be a widespread problem for working women. There are three forms of sex discrimination that have an effect on women in organizations: overt discrimination, sexual harassment and the glass ceiling. Each has negative effects on women’s status and ability to perform well at work.

Overt discrimination

Overt discrimination is defined to make gender as a decisive factor for employment-related decisions. This type of discrimination was targeted by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited making decisions based on sex in employment-related matters such as hiring, firing, and promotions. It consist such behaviours as to refuse to hire women, to pay them inequitably or even to steer them to “women’s jobs”. Overt discrimination also led to occupational sex segregation where jobs are classified by low pay, low status and short career ladders (Reskin, 1997).

Sexual Harassment

MacKinnon (1979:1) defined sexual harassment as “the unwanted imposition of sexual requirements in the context of a relationship of unequal power”. As in overt discrimination, sexual harassment is a persistent gendered problem for women in the workplace around the world. Sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimination, but one manifestation of the larger problem of employment-related discrimination against women. It now appears obvious that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination.

There are three psychological dimensions of sexual harassment that continued to persist worldwide: sexual coercion, gender harassment and useless sexual attention ((Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Gelfand et al., 1995). The case of sexual harassment in the workplace is mainly due to obtain more power and status than the opposite sex (e.g., Baugh, 1997; McKinney, 1992; Piotrkowski, 1998; Riger, 1991; Welsh, 1999)

Statistical discrimination is another form of sex discrimination in the workplace, it consists of sex-typed job assignment (i.e. “error discrimination”-Aigner & Cain 1977, England & McCreary 1987, Bielby & Baron 1986a). For example, employers put men into jobs which consist physical demands and women into jobs demanding social skills (Bielby & Baron 1984, Farkas et al 1991). However, employers introduce gender segregation in job assignments exceeds technical or economic justifications: within the “mixed-sex” occupations that either sex could presumably perform, small differences in job requirements were accompanied by large differences in sex composition (Bielby & Baron 1986a:782).

The Glass ceiling

The term ‘the glass ceiling’ was coined in a 1986 Wall Street Journal report on corporate women. The glass ceiling is a concept that most frequently refers to invisible or artificial barriers that do not allow women from advancing past a certain level in corporations, government, education and nonprofit organization (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission -FGCC, 1997; Morrison and von Glinow, 1990). These barriers reflect “discrimination … a deep line of demarcation between those who prosper and those left behind.” The glass ceiling is the “unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements” (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission 1995b:4; emphasis added). This official description suggests that the definition of glass ceiling must know that it reflects job inequality that is unexplained by a person’s past “qualifications or achievements”; it reflects labor market discrimination, not just labor market inequality. For the purpose of this study, the glass ceiling concept is discussed regarding women who suffer from discrimination in the workplace.

The usual method to know where there is discrimination is to look for inequalities that are unexplained by prior personality of the employees. Inequalities that originate from past discrimination in education or training or from choices that people make to pursue nonmarket goals such as family, volunteer work or leisure are not generally measured as part of a glass ceiling. Therefore, glass ceiling inequality represents a gender or racial difference that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee.

The glass ceiling is a third type of discrimination that affects women in the workplace and it is an important factor for women who do not get enough access to power and status in organizations. It also includes gender stereotypes, lack of opportunities for women to get promotion and prevent women to get higher income than men.

Nowadays many of the people immigrate to other countries. To some extent, there maybe exist five factors which cause people to leave their motherland and immigrate to other countries. The factors are living conditions, natural disasters, higher education chances, religious persecution, and escape of the punishment of law. These factors motivate them to leave their motherland to immigrate to other countries. Maybe some of them are forced to leave their motherland while others may voluntarily immigrate. Before beginning this thesis, two definitions must be made clearly. One is “migrants” and the other is “Permanently”. Migrant is someone who goes to live in another country or area, especially in order to find a good job (LONGMAN Dictionary of Contemporary English). “Permanently” means lasting or remaining without essential change or on expected to change in status, condition or place (The Free Dictionary).

The first factor is the living conditions. In many regions of the world today people live in tragic situations of instability and uncertainty. It does not come as a surprise that in such contexts the poor and the destitute make plans to escape, to seek a new land that can offer them bread, dignity and peace ( U.S. Catholic Bishops, Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity, Nov. 15, 2000). So if a person lives in a country which is poorer than their target countries or where unemployment rates are higher, he may immigrate to the latter. Take America and Mexico for example, a survey shows that at 4.25 an hour, the U.S. minimum wage is approximately six times the prevailing one in Mexico(why do people immigrate,2005). That is to say, Americans lead a wealthier life than Mexicans. Therefore, undoubtly a great many Mexicans move to America. When they move to America, they will receive a higher wage for the same job than they can get in their own country. At the same time, the developed countries with high-cost employees want to attract people to go to their countries.

The second factor is the natural disasters. On many occasions, the natural disasters can not be predicted, so human beings always suffer a lot from them. Although people can not predict them, they can evade them. People who come across a natural disaster in their own countries will move to other countries. Take Ireland for example, a majority of Irish people had moved to other countries because of their country’s starvation. Because of this disaster, more than one million of its people were died of starvation and more than two million people immigrated to other countries, so today Irish people can be found in many developed countries such as Australia, Canada, America, Great Britain and some other developed countries (The Society and Cultural of Major English-Speaking Countries, 2005). The above example shows that the natural disasters are also a very important reason for the people emigrating from their own countries.

The third factor is that many developing countries’ students want to have an overseas study, so they may move to another country. When they finish their studies, a number of them will choose to settle down at the foreign countries to find a job.

The forth factor is religious persecution. From some aspects this is the main reason which leads a huge number of people immigrating to other countries. In the Middle Ages Antisemitism in Europe was religious. Though not part of Roman Cathelic dogma, many Christians, including members of the clergy, have held the Jewish people collectively responsible for killing Jesus, a practice originated by Melito of Sardis. As stated in the bostom college Guide to Passion Plays, “Over the course of time, Christians began to accept that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for killing Jesus. According to this interpretation, both the Jews present at Jesus Christ’s death and the Jewish people collectively and for all time, have committed the sin of deicide, or God-killing. For 1900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide has led to hatred, violence against and murder of Jews in Europe and America. (A View’s Guide to Contemporary Passion Plays, 2003). The above example shows that religious persecution is also a factor which leads to the people move to other countries.

The last but not the least, the fifth factor is the escape of law punishment. Many people who violate the law of a country may escape to other countries. This kind of phenomenon is more and more ordinary in today’s world, because there is not a common law validating to every countries. And the law in this country may not have the same validity in other countries. So the people who violate his own country’s law can flee to other countries. Take the millionaire Lai Changxing for example; he is a businessman and entrepreneur from Jinjiang, Fujian, people’ Republic of china and he is also the master of the lucrative Yanhua Group. He violated Chinese law of anticorruption in 1999, and then he fled to Canada. So he can not be punishment by Chinese law. (Accused Chinese Smuggler Gets Canada Work Permit, 2009).

Conclusion

As the world changes all the time, there are maybe other more factors. But from the factors mentioned above which lead the people emigrate from their motherland to other countries can draw a conclusion that people will not immigrate to other countries without reasons. There do exist some reasons which motivate them to emigrate. Some immigrators are voluntary to immigrate to others while some immigrators are not voluntary to immigrate to other countries, and they have no choice. However, when most people get old; they may still want to go back to their own countries. Just as the proverb says, “east, west, home is best.”

Reference

Accused Chinese Smuggler Gets Canada Work Permit, (2009). Reuters

Stephen, (1887).Longman Dictionary of ContemporaryEnglish.Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Paper.

Smith, T., (2006). The Root Causes of Immigration. Available at: http://www.ccky.org/Pastoral%20Resources/Immigration%20Series/7%20-%20Root%20Causes%20of%20Immigration.pdf. Retrieved on 2010-04-01

Susan Paley M.A. and Adrian Gibbons Koesters, (2003). A View’s Guide to Contemporary Passion Plays. Available at: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/ViewersGuide.pdf. Retrieved on 2010-04-06

Thomas, (2005). Welcomingthe Stranger among Us: Unity in Diversity.Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Zhu Yongtao, (2005). The Society and Cultural of Major English-Speaking Countries. Beijing: Higher Education Press.