Author: Andre Coleman

Family can be defined as a group of people related by heredity, such as parents, children and siblings. It is sometimes broadened to include persons related by marriage or those living in the same household who are emotionally attached, interact regularly, and share concerns for the growth and development of the group and its individual members. There is legal definition of the family, but it varies depending on the jurisdiction and purpose for which it is defined. The family can have two basic types: nuclear and extended family. A nuclear family consist of adult husband, the wife, and their dependent children who are not of age, and the extended family is composed of the nuclear family and other relatives. Apart from the above mentioned types of family, there are other types such as the lone-parent families, which is one parent and his or her dependent children, the reconstituted family- when a new family is created after divorce through a second marriage and the empty nest family where the children of nuclear family has grown and left home.

Functionalism is a theory that sees society as a social system designed to meet the basic needs and to promote the survival of its members. According to them, the social system comprises of economic, political, kinship and culture and each of these has an established institution that plays a role in the running of society. Functionalists talk about society being like a human body. The organic analogy incorporates the ideas of a system to emphasise the inter-relatedness and mutual dependency of the major institutions of society. To them, the family is at the heart of society. They therefore, see the family as changing and responding to the needs of society. The systems approach has been used by functionalists to explain how social change occurs in society.

Talcott Parsons is one of the most important functionalist sociologists who studied family life in the 1950s. He referred to families as ‘personality factories’ which meant that, families produce children who share the basic norms and values of their society and were moulded in the image of the society. He saw the family as the basic and most vital institution in society whose irreducible function is the stabilisation of adult personalities, where the family gives the emotional support necessary to cope with the stress of everyday life, especially at younger age in order to develop a strong emotional bond and to grow and function well in the society. Once the personality is produced, adults need emotional security and a source of release from the stresses and strains of modern life. The emotional support of partners helps to provide this security and prevent stress from overwhelming the individual and threatening the stability of society. This is the warm bath theory: the husband arrives home from a stressful day at work and sinks into the ‘warm bath’ that his family (wife) provides.

Peter Murdock, (1949) is another functionalist who studied 250 societies and identified the functions of the family as sexual, where the family provides environment for regulating sexual desires. Families make sure that, such activities happens or takes place at the right location. The next function is reproduction, essential for survival of human society. Families ensure the survival of babies becoming adults. Babies are born vulnerable and incapable of taking care of themselves. It is therefore the duty of the family to train and equip them until such time that, they become adult and matured enough to face the world on their own. Another function of the family, according to Murdock, is to instil the norms, cultures and values of society into children and to make sure they are satisfactorily socialised. The family also provide economic support for other family members. This can happen in all sorts of forms like provision of child care and financial support in difficult times.

Murdock’s ideas were that, the nuclear family is so useful to society, inevitable and universal because it fulfils the essential functions. This is because he had found evidence of nuclear families in the 250 different societies he studied. He saw the nuclear family as the most efficient arrangement for performing all of the above vital functions and defined it as a universal human social grouping, either as the sole prevailing form of the family or as the basic unit from which more complex forms compounded. It exists as a distinct and strong functional group in every society.

However, they have been criticised by the way they see the family. Parsons picture is of a typical middle class USA family which may not be representative for most families. They have also been accused of idealising the family. Functionalist fails to consider the validity of other family structures and do not consider the diversity of family types. They ignore conflict, abuse, gender inequalities, and rising divorce rates within the family. Interpretative sociologists tend to argue that, functionalists concentrate too much on the importance of the family to society and ignore the importance and meanings of family that individuals perceive.

Feminists argue that the functionalist view of the expressive and instrumental roles as natural are in fact socially constructed. They also disagree with Murdoch’s idea that the nuclear family is natural, believing that there is no preferable family structure and encourage family diversity. They are of the opinion that, the functionalist view of the family encourages oppression of women.

Marxists argue that the functionalist view of the family views those family structures which support and benefit capitalism, and that, the nuclear family is part of the superstructure with the sole purpose of perpetuating a capitalist system.

They also believe that, the family socialises its members to accept the false consciousness that capitalism is good for all and that the government helps the people through healthcare. Marxism also rejects the functionalist idea that society is based on consensus; they would say that current society is based upon a conflict between the small powerful ruling class and the working majority.

Both Marxists and feminists disagree with the functionalist idea that each organ of society exists for the benefit of society itself and for its individual members, they believe that they exist for the benefit of the ruling class of either capitalists or men.

The next theoretical approach is the feminist. It is worth mentioning that, there are several types of feminism, included are, liberal, radical, socialist, and humanist but they all share in common the following about the family according to Barrie Thorne (1982). They see the society as male dominated, the family as an institution involving power relationships, men having different ideas of being in the family from women, the family being a source for the control of women, that there is no biological need for the family which is just a product of culture rather of nature, the ideologies of socialisation is based on gender, men gaining more from family life than women, and has also challenged the view of the family as being based on cooperation, shared interests and love.

Feminist see society as being patriarchal where things are made up of unequal structures of power between men and women. It practically means ‘rule of the father’ which is more to do with culture and makes us believe and think the family is one of the biological things we need naturally. Beechey (1986) is of the view that, people has taken the family for granted and the family requiring different things from men and women, and are also made to believe that, it is ideal to bring up children in a family setting where most of the work is done by women. Feminist think that, all this has contributed and continue to the male dominance in the family and society as a whole.

Benton regards the structure of the family life as the main cause of women’s oppression (housewife role), where the wife provides a relaxing environment for the male worker.

Things have changed in recent years in the family. Decision making in the home as pointed by Stephen Edgell (2000) shows that, in middle class homes, women have sole responsibility for financial decisions in areas as home decorating. Some things still need to be changed when we look at the following which has been pointed by the feminist as the dark side of the modern day family. The family contains a large amount of psychological harm for women, and still perform the majority of the housework. Evidence suggests that many women today have a dual burden of labour-home responsibilities as well as work. Majority of emotional work still remains a job for women and there are lots of instances of sexual and domestic abuse of women in the family.

The Marxist theory of the family was developed by the work of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and believed that, society was made up of two important parts, the economic base and the superstructure which includes the family. He describes the economic base as the most important because it influences the superstructure. The family will therefore reflect the values and concerns of the economic base.

The Marxist idea of the family was that, society was the family and believed early society was based on a primitive form of communism where there was no such thing as private property, no rules limiting sexual behaviour and promiscuity was normal. Their idea supports capitalism where the family forms part of the superstructure and passes on ideologies that justify inequality and enables the bourgeoisie to maintain control of the economic base. The family evolved in order to establish paternity to protect private property and its oppressive inhibited creativity. The family is therefore an ‘ideological conditioning device’. In short, the family was seen as an institution ‘when wives play their traditional roles as takers of shit, and often absorb their husband’s legitimate anger and frustration in a way which poses no challenge to the system’ (Ashley). Also, ‘the child is in fact primarily taught how to submit to the society but not how to survive’ (Cooper).

This theory has got the strength of exploring the role of oppressive ideologies and offers explanation for the development of the family. It also acknowledges the dark side of the family, links it to inequality in capitalist society, and offers critical approach.

It has however been criticised of ignoring family diversity, seeing the nuclear family as simply determined by the economy. It ignores how changes may come about due to legal and attitudinal changes and also ignores the patriarchal nature of society.

Considering the above discussion, it is true that men, the state, society and its institution have exercised enormous power over women by deciding how parenting and household responsibilities should be distributed? Who should have a right to household earnings and property? Who has the right to form a family? What defines a parent? How many parents can a child have? How many children can a parent have? Answering these already complex questions is additionally complicated by the existence of new technologies that make possible multiple ways of becoming a parent.

Below, is the examination of two main values that feminists have argued should guide the families we make, individual choice and equality. The traditional family has seen many changes in the last fifty years. In the decades following WW II increasing numbers of women entered the labour force. Divorce rates increased dramatically: the divorce rate in the 1980s was almost two and a half times what it had been in 1940. The development of the birth control pill has made it easier for women to avoid unwanted pregnancies and to plan when to have children. There are a growing number of single parent families, gay families, and extended families. By 1989, 25% of children were living in single parent households. Economic, technological and social factors have together made the full time-stay at home housewife and mother with a working husband a statistical minority. Laws governing families have also changed. Modern laws are more likely to view men and women as equals, who can be subjected to the authority of each other only with their own consent.

How far should the idea of women’s right in marriage, the institutions and society be taken? Some feminists have proposed contract model of marriage to allow any and all consenting adults to marry and to freely choose the terms of their association. These feminists would abolish state-defined marriage altogether and replace it with individual contracts drawn up by each couple wanting to marry (Fine man 1995, Weitzman 1985). Indeed, contracts would allow not only gay couples to marry but would also allow multiple marriages, as in the case of polygamy and determine the domestic division of labour. They argue that by moving marriage from an implicit status based, patriarchal arrangement to an explicit contract, women’s freedom and equality would be enhanced (Weitzman 1985).

Divorce has become more commonplace due to the fact that, feminism has altered the perception of what a wife might expect from a marriage, women have become more financially independent of their husbands, religious values have become less important and the process of getting a divorce has been made easier. The question therefore to ask, is this right and freedom we are fighting for good for the society? I will say too much of everything is bad and we need to be aware of the consequences of such changes upon family members and the structure of families. One example would be the growing number of reconstituted family. Another issue to consider is the decline of the nuclear family due to a greater acceptance within society of other types of family. For example cohabitation is no longer described as “living in sin.” Women are now more wiling to consider alternatives to raising children within the nuclear family, which is partly due to the impact of feminism; divorce is more socially acceptable than in previous generations and there is a greater willingness amongst many people to accept alternatives to the family.

Once a taboo entity, only found in seedy movie theaters and sold behind closed doors, pornography has now become increasingly more visible and accessible to the public. Today, the access of pornography is as simple as a few clicks of a computer mouse, and those clicks afford the viewer a vast collection of sites and images that would otherwise be unavailable without technology or the media. With this accessibility comes a new issue: is pornography at all to blame for sexually deviant behavior? It seems as though sexually deviant crime is taking place at unheard of rates, and the link to pornography has been cited before. However, the question of whether these crimes are on the rise or just hyped by the media remains to be seen. One factor that has played a part in the debate is the issue of pornography, and the link between the two seems to hold valid evidence to prove some sort of connection.

How Does Pornography Affect Us?

Pornography undeniable affects each person who views it in some way. Whether these individuals find the content stimulating, exciting, or disturbing is subjective, but research has shown that men, women and children have the tendency to act in a certain manner when studied in groups rather than on an individual level.

Children may be the most affected group when it comes to viewing pornography, and have the tendency to shape their future actions on what they have seen. According to Dr. Catharina Welin (2006), “because of the widespread availability of pornography in the media, youths are exposed to violent or bizarre sexual activities long before they have had any personal sexual experience” (p. 293). In this case, children with little to no knowledge of sexual activity, having viewed such material, begin to associate sex in their own personal lives as relatable to sex in these videos or images. This can play a significant part in how this child will grow to view sex as an act, their own sexuality, and the stigmas they associate with different genders. A child who has viewed pornography, maturing into an adult who engages in his or her own sexual experience will no doubt have a different view of the act than an individual who did not view such material in childhood.

Women who view pornography as adults tend to have a distaste for what they are seeing and for the porn industry in general. For most women, sexuality is considered a private matter, especially in terms of their own sexual encounters. Women prove to be more emotional about sex rather than men who are geared to view it in a more physical sense. Women tend to believe that pornography is degrading to themselves and to their gender as a whole, showing the objectification of women as mere objects for men’s sexual gratification. Ann Gary (1978) notes that “pornography leads to behavior and attitudes showing disrespect for women, and pornography itself shows disrespect for women” (p. 232). Although some women may find pornography sexually stimulating in the bedroom, the overall stigma associated with pornography by the female gender seems to be vastly negative.

Lastly, one must view how men tend to view pornography. As males tend to commit sexually deviant crimes in a far more frequent manner than women, it can be said that viewing pornography may be a factor in looking at this statistic. Men tend to see sex as an enjoyable physical release before viewing it as an emotional connection, which may attest for the way women are portrayed in most pornography as merely the attractive tool to be used in order for the man to achieve sexual gratification.

Pornography and the Sexual Deviant

Having looked at the ways that pornography tends to affect different groups on individuals, one can look further into the research that has been done to prove a link between pornography and the sexual deviant.

Researched Michael Goldstein (1975) notes several cases of sexual deviant criminals

citing the desire to commit such acts after viewing them in a pornographic film. He writes,

“Motorcycle films containing violence and ‘gang bangs’ frequently nourished erotic dominant fantasy. As one rapist put it, ‘I’d think of some of the girls I had raped, and some of the girls that got raped in the movies during my sexual encounters. I’d place myself in the villain’s place instead of the hero’s, so I’d have a rough, hardened image” (p. 102).

The tendency of these types of men to engage in sexually deviant or criminal behavior after watching these types of films shows some relationship between the two, and the prominence of research on this correlation does much to back up the claim of relationship. Researchers Addison, Koss, and Malamuth (2000), found that “exposure to nonviolent and violent pornography results in increases in both attitudes supporting sexual aggression and in actual sexual aggression” (p. 44). Further, found that men who watch porn were more likely to view women as promiscuous and therefore available to them regardless of their own will. Dolf Zillman (1989) notes, “Men behave as if they were entitles to sexual access with women who readily granted it to other men, and those who feel entitled can view their actions as a misdeed rather than a criminal offense against a woman” (p. 100).

Sociological Theories and Deviance

Pornography and sexual deviance in a sociological context can be considered related as the actions and behaviors that may ensue after viewing pornography violate the culturally accepted norms of sexuality and can lead to going against formally enacted-rules of the government in terms of sexually deviant criminal activity. Of all the three major theoretical perspectives in sociology, that which seems to most closely relate to the issue of pornography as a factor in sexual deviance is that of symbolic interactionism.

Symbolic interactionism places emphasis on smaller scale social interaction, which in this case can be compared to the porn industry and its customers and viewers. Herbert Blumer (1969), who coined the term “symbolic interactionism” noted that “humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things” (p. 45 ). In this case, this can be attributed to viewers of pornographic materials seeing the violent and deviant actions performed upon women in porn, taking these actions from the media they witness, and enacting this type of behavior in their own lives.

Sociologist Darryl Hall (2009) notes that the symbolic interactionism view of sexual deviance (which can relate to the issue of porn and sexual deviance) is as follows: “Symbolic interactionists suggest that the need of men to validate their sexual prowess or reaffirm their masculinity is an important factor in their seeking out pornography or prostitutes” (p. 2). Such a notion can explain the rising level of sexually deviant crime in society, and can in turn associate this with the viewing of pornography as a man’s need for sexual validation and masculinity.

Conclusion

As seen, the rise of pornography to a near norm in society has heightened the search to link the viewing of this material to sexual deviant behavior in society. Although a direct link is not conclusive, it is clear that the research in terms of this question is growing too slowly but surely supports some link between the two.

“Most theories of grieving derive from the work’s of Sigmund Freud and Eric Lindemann’s understanding of mourning and include two assumptions: A / Grieving is time limited. The process should be completed or resolved after a year or two. B / The main task of grieving is to achieve ‘decathexis’ (one should detach oneself from emotional ties to the deceased so as to be able to form new relationships.).”

Horacek, (1991).

There are two complex processes taking place within this topic that we call Grief. Firstly there is the emotional side (grief) and can take on many obvious and subtle forms. Secondly there is the process or grieving stage as it is more commonly indentified. It is within this second stage that the bereaved is called upon and to allow them selves’ to make a raft of choices and decisions such as the funeral arrangements or when at some point do they allow themselves to decide what to keep as mementos and what not to. Often these sides can become entwined into one and the bereaved may end up in a state of confusion and stagnant response. This may lead to a third state in which the bereaved becomes dysfunctional within their grief processing and literally becomes stuck in whatever position or state they are in and cannot allow themselves release from that state and to move forward.

Grief does not exist within the world of death only. Grief may come from many physical and psychological changes that are totally unrelated to death. Loss of a limb; incapacitation of body use as a result of an accident; loss of a boyfriend or girlfriend; loss of a marriage; bankruptcy; loss of a personal business. I could list more but the point is to say that grief covers an extremely wide and complex area of understanding and acceptance.

For the purposes of this essay, I will concentrate upon the subject of death and how does one handle the situations of that death. I will cover various models as they relate to a child (0 – 11) and to that of an adolescent. Then, we will look at those of an older person and also take into account the elderly. How do the various models of grief and the process of grieving change with age? Are there stages of recovery or is the recovery a process that may never be finally finished? Either way, grief and grieving is a personal experience and will vary among ages, culture and background. It would become too involved for the purpose of this topic to introduce culture and background, so I will therefore keep this essay to the more general form of models of grief and their relationship to those of age.

Does a child have the capacity to experience grief and to mourn as do adults? Bowlby (1963), and Fusman (1964), see’s a child as capable of suffering major bereavement particularly with a close family member and probably with other close significant losses as well. In that reference, there were no given age ranges so I will take the point of a child being of 0 – 11 yrs of age. Lindemann’s seminal study in 1944 on the Symptomatology and Management of acute grief is similar to Freud’s understanding. But how does that apply to a child?

Whilst Bowlby recognised a similarity to Freud’s point of view, he also recognised that a young child is capable of suffering major bereavement as mentioned. But these responses can come from many influences. Obviously, they are different to those of an adult but none the less they (adults) do have an influence upon the child’s perception and response to their ability to handle grief and grieving. It is suggested that a child will copy to the best of their ability, the grieving patterns of their remaining significant parent or even that of an older sibling (Bowlby, 1980; Kubler-Ross, 1983; Schumacher, 1984).

Other factors can also have an influence on the child’s response such as the nature and intensity of their attachment to the deceased; their developmental level; the capacity to understand what has happened (the conceptualisation of death and what explanations are given to them); and the nature and circumstances of the death. It is reasonable to

assume that a child can experience a bereavement response, probably in an attenuated form – death of a grandparent, parent, uncle, teacher, playmate, family pet or even the loss

of a favourite toy. Ambivalence and dependence are core themes of a child’s relationship with family members and a child’s grief may be influenced by this aspect of their attachment to the deceased.

Children’s conception of death closely parallel Piaget’s (1952) successive levels of cognitive development (Berlinsky & Biller, 1982). For example, during the sensorimotor period (birth – 2yrs), the child’s concept of death is non-existent or incomplete (Kane, 1979). Most workers agree that the younger child’s response, particularly to the death of a parent, is likely to be indistinguishable from that of separation response. For a child of 2 or younger, they do not have the concepts of time, finality or of death itself but they may show, if for instance their mother dies, typical phases of denial, protest, despair, and eventually detachment (Kastenbaum, 1967; Berlinsky & Biller, 1982).

During Piaget’s pre – occupational period (2 – 6yrs), a child’s cognitive development is dominated by magical thinking and egocentrism. Consequentially at this stage, they believe that death can be either avoided or reversed (Melear, 1973; Anthony, 1971; Stillion & Wass, 1979). Furman (1963) believes that from 2 – 2 ? years onwards a child is able to conceptualise death to some degree and to mourn. Melear found that children within this age group viewed the dead as having feelings existing in a life – like state. Because of their

thinking, the child may feel responsible for causing the death and consequently feel shame and guilt.

Progressively, through the period of concrete operations (6 – 7yrs through to 11 or 12 years), children begin to understand the reality of death but do not realise that death is universal and that those around them, including their loved ones, will die some day (Berlinskey & Biller, 1982). Anthony, (1971) suggested that children conceptualise death in concrete terms and view death as distant from themselves.

Gradually, from ages 9 or 10, children acquire a more mature understanding of death; that death is irreversible in nature and that they themselves will eventually experience it (Anthony, 1971; Melear, 1973; Stillion & Wass, 1979). A child will experience the developmental nature of death associations which progress from no understanding toward an abstract and realistic understanding of the concept of death (McCown, 1988).

Within the years of adolescence, the persons’ understanding of death and what has happened; closely approximates that of an adult and their grief may take on similar forms. But because they are in that realm halfway between childhood and adulthood, their responses may fit neither mould. If they cry, they may be accused of being ‘babyish’. Equally, if they don’t, they may seem cold and uninvolved. With so many conflicting areas and so many stressful situations of this age group, they may neither express their emotions directly nor verbalise them. They may instead, act out within their personal environment, indicating their need for care, their anger, their guilt and their longing.

Although privy to increased knowledge about death through instant communication and increasing exposure to death, adolescents do not have the social or emotional maturity

to fully incorporate and process those experiences into a coherent world view (Rowling, 2002). Adolescents tend to be more extreme in their risk – taking and it seems to be the closer to the edge that they go, the greater the thrill of cheating death. Living life to the fullest inherently has some risks. Consciously or otherwise, they may pursue this ambiguity more than others, due to their cognitive development and the need for excitement (Spear, 2000).

Emotional reactions to a loss can be devastating to the adolescent, whether the loss is the perceived detachment from parents, actual losses that are literal deaths such as the suicide of a friend; or metaphorical deaths such as the breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend. Meshot & Leitner (1993), have observed that the extent of grief is often much stronger in teenagers than in adults. There is evidence that adolescents are constantly grappling with life and death contrasts as a normal part of their development (Noppe & Noppe, 1991). These years help to construct a personal stamp with their understanding of death as they are engaging in both life affirmation and death acknowledgement. They are questioning and assuming different belief systems regarding death and the “after – life” prior to settling onto a more permanent value system as well as incorporating the very reality of personal mortality into their evolving sense of identity.

Adolescent grief experience is profoundly personal in nature. Although they grieve more intensely than adults (Christ et al. 2002; Oltjenbruns, 1996), their grief may be expressed in short outbursts, or there may be concentrated efforts to control emotions.

They can often believe that their experiences are completely unique unto themselves (Elkind, 1967). The adolescent grief pattern may follow a life – long developmental trajectory. That is, the loss may be continued to be felt throughout their life span as they graduate from college, their work, marriage and so on. This can be accentuated as they grow older than the parent, sibling or friend who has died (Silverman, 2000).

Adolescents are more sophisticated than children in their understanding and response to death, but neither is their mourning adult like. The overall nature of the adolescent’s response is intimately tied to their developmental issues. The consideration of one’s own death, as part of the treads of the totality of the life cycle, cannot be a comfortable notion for an adolescent to accept. Creating a unified sense of identity must be reconciled with this consideration. Adolescents encounter this dilemma in the context of a system of values, philosophy of life and particular spiritual or religious beliefs. Sterling and Van Horn (1989) found that adolescent’s who were at the peak of their struggle with identity formation, had the highest levels of death anxiety. With regard to personal characteristics or the adolescent, self – esteem was found to be important in adolescents’ response to loss. Balk (1990) and Hogan and Greenfield (1991) found that adolescents with lowered self – concept scores showed more problems with their grief.

More adolescent males than females die suddenly and violently, via accidents, homicides and suicides (Corr et al., 2003). However, no one knows if, as a consequence, teenage males grieve more than females over the loss of their same sex best friend.

Parallels between the socialization of males into hiding emotions, being independent and displaying aggressive behaviour when upset are reflected in adolescent males’ grief reactions (Adams, 2001). Bereaved adolescent girls may express more adjustment difficulties (Servaty & Hayslip, 2001), but this may be consistent with the latitude afforded women to talk of their feelings. Reaching out to others seems to be easier for females than males (Noppe et al., 2003).

As mentioned earlier and in closing of this section, the myriad of adolescent tasks serve as a framework for how the adolescent is affected by grief and their response to loss is intimately tied to their developmental issues. Adolescents do not grieve in the same way as do adults and their grief processes may be more intermittent, intense and overwhelming.

We began this essay with the generally accepted theory of mourning from the work done by Freud and Lindemann as cited by Horacek (1991). Whilst Freud did not officially modify his theory, he did modify it in a letter written to Swiss psychiatrist Ludwig Binswanger in 1929. In this letter he reflected on the death of his daughter in 1920 from influenza and the death of his grandson in 1923. He stated that “although we know that after such a loss the acute stage of mourning will subside, we also know we shall remain inconsolable and will never find a substitute”. Freud realised that some losses can never be fully resolved and that grieving can continue indefinitely for such potentially high – grief deaths such as the loss of a child or a grandchild.

Gorer (1965), described eight styles of grieving that fall into three categories based on the length of the grieving process. The first category includes grieving styles that demonstrating little or no mourning, such as the denial of mourning, the absence of mourning, anticipatory grieving and hiding grief. The second category is time limited mourning, which includes a period of intense grief followed by a return to the pre grief status. His third category is unlimited mourning, a continuing grief that does not radically interfere radically with everyday living; mummification, in which the mourner makes a room or a whole house as a shrine for the deceased; and despair, a never ending, deeply painful process.

Adults view death through the lens of wisdom gained through the myriad of life experiences associated with expanded interactions with different people, work settings and family relationships. Whilst studies on parental and sibling grieving challenge the assumption that grieving is time bounded and that decathexis can and should be accomplished. In his interviews of some 155 families, Knapp (1986, 1987), found six significant similarities in the way in which families responded to the deaths of their children. The sixth was what he called shadow grief, a lingering, emotional dullness of affect that continues indefinitely, indicating that grief such as this is never totally resolved. He called shadow grief a form of chronic grief that moderately inhibits normal activity, yet it is an abnormal form of mourning that it was quite normal, perhaps even routine. In support of this finding, Lund (1989) stated that there is considerable evidence that some aspects of bereavement and subsequent readjustments may continue throughout a person’s life and it

might be appropriate to question the use of conceptualizing grief as a process which culminates in resolution, because there may never be a full resolution. Though death separates the mourner from the deceased, a relationship with the deceased continues. It is largely agreed that particularly with adults and the more elderly, the bereaved should regain everyday functioning within a two to three year period, but, also, that grief may never come to an end and can still be considered normal.

Fulton (1978), produced a model that began to reflect the complicated reality of the grieving process. He put forward that in a high grief situation, three sets of reactions can be delineated:

1. Initial reactions. These can include numbness, shock and disbelief. These reactions

could last for days, weeks or even months.

2. Grief tasks. These reactions may include such tasks as dealing with anger, guilt, emptiness, depression, ambivalent relationships and life reviewing. Working through these tasks can take months or years and in some cases can continue indefinitely.

3. Adjusting to the loss and continuing grieving.

In addition, this model recognises that the three sets of reactions overlap and can recur and that the mourner could deal with one specific grief task such as resolving excess

guilt and then face another grief task months later. Most important, this model recognises that the basic loss does not disappear like a wound that heals in time, but rather that the

loss continues like an amputation or dismemberment. Likening grieving to amputation denotes the mourner must continually adapt and adjust to the loss. Although the griever can reach a new everyday functioning status, the loss and its concomitant reactions, for example shadow grief, continue indefinitely.

In final conclusion, both the grief and grieving process is complicated and has many variable aspects to how one deals with the bereavement. Probably the most obvious is that the ability to handle bereavement lies in the cognitive developmental stage of the bereaved. This is probably more pronounced within the child and adolescent stages of life due to the aspects already discussed earlier. It is also of note that the elderly are more likely to experience multiple losses, such as the deaths of a spouse, friends, or relatives or the loss of roles, health, or income, over relatively short periods of time. At the same time, many older grievers are quite resilient and exhibit strong and effective coping abilities (Lund, 1989). An aspect of grief that was only briefly touched upon, was that of anticipatory grief. Such would occur during the period of extended terminal illness. Whether this type of grief assists the survivor or not, has not been really established. In some cases it can lead also to confusion and subsequently, to a dysfunctional grief. In dealing with and assisting the bereaved caregivers need to be aware of the need to adjust their understanding of the grieving process relative to the age, gender and the situation with which the bereaved is finding them – selves. Grieving is a complex emotional and active process and there are no simple answers nor are there simple repairs.

Does the gender of the interviewer effect the response rate, interview and the results obtained?

Many researchers have investigated the effect that interviewers’ gender has on research, this paper seeks to examine if there is an effect and how relevant that effect is. It will draw on academic papers, business examples and a case study.

Hyman et al (1954) were one of the first to examine the effect gender-of-the interviewer has on the interview process; they found respondents replied differently to male and female researchers. Since then there has been an abundance of research in the field, much of the research is based on and argues that gender-of-interviewer effects are evident on, topics related specifically to feminism, politics and other sensitive issues. This paper will analyse the research and apply it to a case study. With the main aim to determine if the gender-of-interview affects all interview areas or whether it is topic specific.

It is important to understand what is meant by interviewer effects; interviewer errors are expected to occur differently in every interview whereas interviewer effects refers to a specific interviewer characteristic i.e. gender (Dijkstra 1983). Interviewer effects look at how interviewer variance can bias the results of research.

The case study being looked at took place in Oldham, it was a consultancy project investigating participation rates of food waste recycling, with the main objective to increase participation rates. The methodology used was semi-structured interviews and drop off questionnaires. The interviewers were made up of two women and three men. Researchers went out in pairs, for safety reasons, the researchers went out in four pairings, three pairs made up by a women and male interviewer and the final pairing was comprised of two male researchers. Due to time constraints and the nature of the work this case study was unable to talk to residents about their impression of interviewer-gender-effects. However all interviewers were interviewed extensively by the author of this paper, to grasp their view of the effect gender had. The main topics covered were response rates, lengths of interviews and results obtained.

Does the gender-of-interviewer affect response rate?

Gender can affect the response rate; Smith (1972) suggests that women are less likely to invite men interviewers into their home explaining that it is due to the perceived ‘danger’, this argues Smith can be an issue for male interviewers conducting research. When looking at the Oldham Case study this was evident, the response rate for the mixed paring had a higher response rate to the male only pairing. The mixed pairings had a response rate average of ? and the male only pairing had a response rate average of ?. This is backed up by Dommeyer (2008) whose study examined how using a photo in the cover letter of a drop off questionnaire effects responses. Female interviewers prove to obtain a higher response rate. His research found that rivalling the gender was only productive if they were female. Bean and Medewitz (1988) had similar results when sending out cover letters with a female signature; a higher response rate was produced than when a male signature was used 35% and 26% response rate respectively. Moreover, Catonia et al (1996) experiments found that on a phone interview when respondents were given the opportunity to request a gender 82%, of women and 72% of male respondents did request with the majority selecting a female, suggesting that respondents prefer female interviewers. When interviewed, ‘Keith’ from the Oldham case study expressed: “Sandra seemed to get a higher response rate then I did, we quickly realised this and Sandra became the interviewer and I the scriber”. Johnson and Delamater (1976) discuss, whilst looking at response rates in sex surveys, the effect gender has on respondents agreeing to be interviewed. They argue that the gender of the interviewer can have a substantial effect on response levels; attributing it to the type of survey suggesting that if they are embarrassed about the topic being discussed they may be less likely to opt to participate, especially with someone from the opposite gender. In the Oldham case study this can be compared to respondents who do not participate in recycling and are therefore are less likely to agree to be interviewed, however the gender of the interviewer is unlikely to make a difference there. Benny et al (1956) notes that male interviewers gain fewer responses to female interviewers and most of these are from female respondents.

Rourke and Lakner (1989) discuss the gender bias that exists within the data collection…..

How does gender affect the results obtained?

Huddy et al (1997) looked at the effect that the gender-of-interviewer had in two surveys, where male and female interviewers were randomly assigned to interview male and female respondents. With the first survey; gender of interviewer had more of an effect on less educated and younger respondents. However these results were not replicated in the second survey. Yang and Yu (2008) argues that well educated people are not affected by gender as much because they are more use to inter-gender relations. Huddy et al (1997) also attribute it to the fact that people that are more educated are more confident in the company of the other gender. WHAT IS EDUCATION IN OLDHAM?

Many researchers have suggested that the gender of the interviewer only has an effect on certain topics. Huddy et al (1997) suggests that the gender-of-interviewer is more predominant when; politics and views on feminism are discussed. Bellou and Del Boca (1980) found stronger gender-of-interviewer effects among women respondents on questions about the existence of gender inequality whereas men tend to be more affected when questions about women movements arose. Flores-Macias and Lawson (2006) claim that in the past research has shown effect on social and political issues when interviewed by different gender. Using a survey on households in Mexico the research tries to add to the field, they found gender effects were confined to ‘sensitive’ questions, they concluded gender-interviewer effects are limited to gender topics. TOPIC OF RECYCLING

In contrast Kane and Macauley (1983) note the opposite; Women were most effected by questions on women’s movements for example collective action and women shared interest, while men were more effected by the interviewers gender when answering work-related gender equalities. Gender bias was highest with questions related to controversial politics and women’s movements. Kane and Macaulay (1993) research looks at the effects of interviewer gender on responses in particular on gender-related survey questions. They look at if gender effects are present and how it differs from male and female. Huddy et al (1997) argue respondents are susceptible to gender-of-interviewer effects across a broad spectrum of gender-linked items.

Groves and Fultz (1983) found that economic indicators receive more optimistic responses when interviewed by a male interviewer rather than a female interviewer. Landis et al (1973) reported that when women were interviewed by male interviewers they gave more feminist responses on women’s roles.

Kane and Macaulay (1993) summarise stating after analysing gender-attitude it is clear that interviewer-gender bias is present, it tends to include respondents giving a critical response to female interviewers than to male. On standard debate topics men are more likely to be effected by the gender of the interviewer and are less likely on less familiar topics. Women’s responses vary dramatically in their responses to male and female interviewers on various issues. They did not see a vast difference in interviewer gender effects for example respondents to male respondents. It is therefore questionable on it social power effects conversational power in the interview process. Both male and female respondents are at times affected by interviewer gender.

In contrast Herod (1993), who is a geographer, believes that the gender-of-interviewer can effect responses on any topic discussed. He argues that gender relations are an important aspect that can shape the interview process, gender can shape the type of data collected especially when carrying out interviews. Backing this up is McDowell (1992) who explains how interviews raise the issue of gender, Schaenberger (1992) agrees “gender makes a difference” (p.217). In the Oldham case study gender….. look at results!

Herod (1993) “gender can shape the use of interviews as a research tool” (p.306). Even when all respondents are of the same gender, gender bias still shapes the interactions between interviewer and interviewee. Feminists’ support this statement gender is significant in society it is always going to effect gender relations in the research process (Keller 1985). Herod’s paper looks at work conducted across different disciplines on gender and its effect on interviewing.

Turner and Martin (1984) in the classic work discuss how the gender-of-interviewer and the respondent has significant effect, the different options (male interviewer, female respondent/ male interviewer male respondent etc) have different effects in influencing opinions and feelings.

Eagly and Carli (1981) showed a statistical relationship between the gender of the interviewer and outcome of the interviews showing both; respondents giving different answers to male and female researchers, but also researchers interpreting it differently. Thus this demonstrates that an interviewer’s gender can affect respondents’ answers. Looking at the Oldham case this can be demonstrated through interpretation of answers, when looking at how the answers were interpreted it is completely a subjective task, when a male was interrupting it, the results appeard whereas when a female was interrupting it is seemed………….

Even when it is the same gender there is an effect, Aries (1976) suggested that men tend to be more aggressive and ‘macho’ to a male interviewer. Herod (1993) explains whereas a male interviewer may display one type of behaviour with female researcher he may show a different one to a male therefore obtaining different results. Oldham case study…..

Piliavan and Martin (1978) found that in a group setting men and women acted differently, in the Oldham council case study, researchers went out in pairs often a man and women researcher, Aries (1976) explains that she observed women were less likely to interact than men in a mixed group. This could have affected female respondents’ answers when being interviewed by a male and female researcher in the Oldham case study.

Moreover Herod (1993) notes the difference in the way male and female genders interpret information, on an interview he refers to the type of language used. Carli (1991) claims that women and men use language differently. Lakoff (1975) argues that women have to be socialised to use language that is less assertive then men and women’s expressions are tentative. Herod (1993) puts forward that these stereotypes have implications when men and women interpret language. Sociolinguist, Deborah Tanen (1990) claims that men and women have different beliefs of how conversations are meant to work, as well as different views on the role of conversational interaction and building relationships (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998).

Herod (1993) explains that there is a danger in trying to generalise about gender relations in such broad categories. Arguing that they themselves did not look at race or class and how these shape gender. There is a need to look at how gender can mean different things in different context. Interviewing is about how interviewers generate meanings and understandings.

Are men or women more affected by gender-of-interviewer?

Whelcher (1987) and Ballou and Del Boca (1980) both argue that male respondents show more effect from gender-of-interviewer. Whelcher (1987) documents that men give more democratic responses to male interviewers as they try to give the response that they feel the male interviewer wants to hear. Ballou and Del Boca (1980) states how men give more democratic responses to female interviewers.

Landis et al (1973) explain that it is expected that during an interview relationships are formed between respondent and interviewer and thus the behaviour of the respondent is influenced by their perception of the circumstances. Warren (1988) argues that women are better at building a rapport when interviewing. Landis et al (1973) found from their results that the women interviewed gave a more “feminist” response to the male interviewer, noting that the statistics were significant. They summarise that the gender of the interviewer does have a marked effect on response to women.

Hyman et al (1954) found that gender of interviewer effected female respondents’ results when a male asked the question; 61% agreed with the statement, but when they were interviewed by women only 49% agreed. Hyman concluded women felt more obliged to give conventional opinions to a male interviewer. Benny et al (1956) note that both men and women act differently in the company of the other gender; acting more formally and expressing less. Benny et al (1956) and Hyman (1954) both argue that women in the presence of men talk more traditionally are more formal and tend to give the expected answer. Oldham Case study then this >It could be argued that as both these papers are dated, the findings may be less relevant.

Macaulay (1993) claim the more egalitarian answers are more persuasive among male respondents when interviewed by a women. Flores-Macias and Lawson (2006) found that men are more likely to be effected rather than women. Furthermore that the social context has an effect, culture for example in Mexico City men were more susceptible to gender bias backing this up. Approximately 30% of men interviewed by men felt women rights were urgent however 40% interviewed by women felt it an issue. They also found women were more progressive when interviewed by men.

Holbrook et al (2003) argue that effect from respondents believe they try to answer what interviewers want. Oldham Case study

Davis et al (2010) argue that interviewer effects can impact the data obtained. They looked at measuring and controlling interviewer effects. Effects can occur from interviewer related issues such as the way questions are read, probes are used, instructions to survey etc (OLDHAM CASE study difference between male and female). Davis et al (2010) discuss how gender is the most noticeable characteristic of an interview and therefore is most susceptible to having an effect.

In the past women were considered better interviewers because they are seen as less threatening and therefore there has not been as much research on this topic. But since telephone interviews gender has become more of an issue as no longer can the respondent see “socioeconomic status, physical attractiveness, personal demeanour” (Huddy et al 1997, p.197). Huddy et al (1997) note that there is growing evidence that respondents are more likely to give a feminist view to a female interviewer as the respondent seeks to give the answer they think the interviewer wants to hear. OLDHAM CASE

Huddy et al (1997) had two goals from their study to test for the existence of gender-of-interviewer effects across a range of gender related questions. And to explore the characteristics of respondents most liable to gender-of-interviewer.

Huddy et al (1997) wanted to test to see if the existence of gender-of-interviewer effected a range of topics or just gender related questions to achieve this they used two surveys both containing questions that dealt with women’s issues and women’s movements. Their results showed respondents were more likely to give a feminist view to a female interviewer on 11/13 gender related topics. However the difference obtained by male and female interviewers was small and consistent and was only significant for a minority of questions. The topics that showed gender-of-interviewer effects differed from the two surveys in the first, carried out in 1991 the largest gender-of-interview effects occurred on questions relating to feminist identity whereas in the second, obtained in 1993 they were on topics on abortion and anti-sexual harassment legislation. In both surveys a female interviewer collected more feminist views then a man. They did find, however that gender bias occurred most on both surveys when topics on controversial politics were broached.

With Huddy et al (1997) second goal they discovered significant interaction between interviewer gender and education – less-well educated respondents were more influenced then well educated by the interviewers gender. Despite this the same results were not emulated in the second survey but they argue this could be because the gender bias was not as affluent either. To reinforce this Huddy et al (1997) assessed the statics of education and effect of gender on respondents with 12 and 17 years of education. They found that gender-of-interviewer effects were more prevalent with less educated respondents. Overall respondents with less formal education were more likely to be effected by the gender-of-interviewer and on gender related questions.

Huddy et al (1997) note that gender bias decreases with age and income was the only demographic characteristic that did not increase.

But how important is it, does it have a large enough effect to matter? Huddy et al (1997) found that small differences in their study. They conclude that it depends on the survey being administered. If it will effect then it is crucial that an equal number of men and women are randomly assigned to respondents.

Finally Huddy et al (1997) believe that from their results it can be seen that gender could effect any type of survey and use the beginning of their first survey to demonstrate this point; where gender bias is present and the topic of the survey has not been disclosed.

Huddy et al (1997) argue the view gender-of-interview effects questions is premature because; rarely have researcher controlled the individualism of interviews when examining gender-of-interviewer effects, few studies have measured the size of effects across a broad spectrum of questions to see if the effect is on feminist questions or all topics. Bellou and Del Boca (1980) did look into this in their 1980 study. Huddy et al (1997) continue explaining that effects are not standard even for questions on the same topic and few studies have tested the statistical significance across several variables with the same respondent.

Huddy et al (1997) suggest that not enough research on which gender is most prone to gender-interviewer-bias as there is a contrast in theories. Lueptow, Moser and Pendleton (1990) argue women are more likely to give feminist views to a female interviewer, which they proved through telephone interviews. In contrast Ballou and Del Boca (1980) contrasted stating male respondents are more vulnerable to female interviews and appear more feminine.

McDowell (1988) disagrees arguing that there is no gender split in research methods but rather a stereotyping in gender characteristics.

Little work has been done on the effect of the interviewers’ gender; as traditionally interviewing was a female occupation

Williams (1964) in his classic paper hypothesised that the greater the amount of social difference between interviewer and respondent the more likely of gender bias.

Demonstrates the importance of the gender of interviewer and that the subject can have an effect.

The study of gender and ethnicity has long been a controversial topic in the field of sociology. Sociologists believe that gender and ethnicity are both the outcome under socialization, rather than biologically constructed. This essay will examine gender and ethnicity as a social construction, rather than a biological ‘given’. The concepts of gender and ethnicity will firstly be defined, and then the distinction in explaining ethnicity and gender between biological and sociological perspective will follow. Finally, a judgment on why social construction is the best in explaining the appearance of gender and ethnicity will be given.

“aˆ¦biological term that defines an individual as male or female. It is determined by the possession of a vagina and ovaries (female) or testes and a penis (male). In addition, males possess and XY and females and XX chromosome.” (Holmes et. al. 2007)

It is divided based on one’s genitalia. In the overwhelming majority of cases, this is an easy distinction to make, and it can be found out through ultrasound scan before birth. Gender, however, is “a social term referring to the characteristics thought approximate for each sex at any given point in time in a particular culture” (Holmes et. al. 2007). It is what the society expects one as a man or a woman, of course, the degrees of expectation varies in different societies. In other words, gender is what individuals identify themselves as masculinity or femininity. Another concept that need to be clarifies is ethnicity and race. Ethnicity, or ethnic group, refers to “a large number of people who, as a result of their shared cultural traits and high level of mutual interaction, come to regard themselves, and to be regarded, as a cultural unity” (Robertson 282), whereas race is defined as “the categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics.” The former is changeable but the latter one cannot.

We always presume that out gender is biologically given, but actually it is not. In any society, our gender identity is produced through a series of social practice, which is so called gender socialisation. When a baby is born, people will firstly identify it as a boy or girl. From that moment onwards, the baby lives in an already existed social environment with lots of labeling, categorizations, expectations and cultural preferences. Since parents have an internalized ideological framework that tells them what kind of behaviour is expected from males and females within the culture, their goal is to raise their children that meet the normative expectations associated with gender appropriate behaviour. George Herbert Mead, in his “Mind, Self and Society” (1934), has explained the socialisation process. He claimed that children start to develop as social beings through a process of imitation. The children imitate those generalised other, which represents a set of behavioural rules and guide-lines. Through the process of imitation, the embodiment of general cultural values and morals will be internalised in children’s mind. For example, a boy may decide not to wear female clothing in public because his internalised conception from generalised others tell him that other would be offended by his action.

Another theory that explains gender socialisation, namely social learning theory, place lots of importance on observation, reward as well as punishment (Westen et al. 2006). This theory emphasizes four main aspects of the socialisation process, they are imitation, identification, role learning and conditioning (Westen et al. 2006). Imitation here is the same as the idea of Mead mentioned above. Children start to become socialised through the observation and imitation of people around them. Boys and girls are able to identify with their father and mother respectively as parents are a ready source of imitation (Livesey & Lawson 2005). Girls tend to imitate their mother’s life such as cooking and cleaning without understanding the content. For boys, since in most cases the father is absent from home at work, they tend to adopt images of masculinity from other sources, such as television, comics or online games. Identification is another process that appears to evolve in a more natural way. Girls identify with their mother and boys with the father because they are of the same biological sex. This process is, however, the result of the process of gender identification encouraged by children’s parents, both consciously and unconsciously (Livesey & Lawson 2005). Parents, as role model, encourage gender identification through their words and actions. For example, mother may encourage girls to give a hand in the kitchen. Girls may be punished for behaving in ways that are not ladylike such as shouting and fighting. The third process of social learning is role learning. It is obvious that all roles in our society represent socially-created ideas about what is normal for men or women to behave. Parents, of course, have been affected by socialisation and, because of this, parents develop clear ideas about the right and wrong ways for their children to behave in relation to their gender (Livesey & Lawson 2005). They use their socialisation experiences as a guide to socialise their children. Conditioning is the fourth process within socialisation. It involves systems of rewards and punishments, and children quickly learn through experience which behavioural characteristics bring rewards and which attract punishments.

Ethnicity, similarly, is constructed through socialising process. It is something we all have but always overlook. It is a basis for the formation of status groups, that is, groups that re distinguished from each other by specific lifestyles. Some sociologists view ethnicity as a basis of resource competition, which in turns differing the life chances of different ethnic groups. It is claimed to be a phenomena under social construction because of the existence of social class inequality. Those in higher social status are often dominant groups whereas the others may become subordinate groups. The latter one is also called ethnic minorities which “have been assigned a subordinated position in society by dominant groups on the basis of socially-constructed markers of phenotype, origins or culture” (Holmes et. al. 2007 p.148). Usually, ethnicity is notably recognised when individuals are marked as minorities. Those dominant groups use their superior status to get most of the power and resources, and at the same time, suppress the ethnic minorities so that they can maintain their superior position. It is generally resulted in racism and discrimination. The Nazi Germany and Jews is a good example. Clearly ethnicity played a vital role in definition of nationhood as the Nazi Germany saw it. They regarded themselves as the ultimate superior race, whereas Jews was people at the bottom. Jews at that time is a typical ethnic minority which was subdued by Nazi Germany. Another example is the Cronulla Riots happened in Sydney in 2005. The riot is rooted in the violence between several Lebanese (ethnic minority) and Australian (dominant group), which, as a result, led to an approximately 5000 people demonstration against Lebanese in Cronulla Beach, expressing their resent towards Lebanese (Poynting 2006). We can see, from the Cronulla riots, that the Australian was organising a protest in order to maintaining hegemony in their nation. It is, therefore, concluded that the class inequality and resources competition has stressed the socially constructed nature of ethnicity.

To conclude, the essay has demonstrated the fact that ethnicity and gender are actually social construction in stead of biologically produced. The first part of this essay gives clear definitions of ethnicity and gender. It then followed by explaining the process of gender socialisation through imitation, gender identification, role learning and conditioning, which involves both the conscious teaching and unconscious learning of social values and norms. The last part illustrates the power, economic resources and status interests are factors attributing to the production of ethnicity. It is a matter of class inequality that forms the nature of ethnicity and therefore, results in racism and discrimination.

Functionalists put forward a structuralist view of the family and within that context, how they understand conjugal roles. Parson believed the gender division of labour was natural and desirable. He also suggested that men and women had biologically determined personality types. Parson suggested that the roles carried out by women were not inferior, just different. They complimented the role carried out by men. He believed that women were more expressive then men and children were best socialised when they live in a warm, caring environment. The expressive female was also essential to stabilise the adult male personality by meeting his emotional and sexual needs. As a result, the family benefits when women stay at home. Also, men are better at providing for their family because they have instrumental personalities. He also stated that in the industrial society, isolated nuclear families have become more dominant. These families have become isolated from their extended families because of commitments such as work demands. The conjugal pair therefore looked to each other to provide for their needs.

In recent years, Parsons’ view has been supported by a number of groups, including New Right Conservation. They believed traditional, segregated conjugal roles were best for the family and wider society. However, to their concern, they believe they have been threatened by family diversity and the changing roles and expectations of women, resulting in a number of social problems such as underachievement and delinquency. Therefore, suggesting that they see the family as a structure that influences the development and attitudes of its members.

Looking at Young and Willmott’s analysis of the symmetrical family, they suggest that families today are more equal than before and have moved from segregated conjugal roles. This movement was through the result of a ‘march of progress’. There are several reasons for this. The first is that women are in paid employment, giving them financial independence and leading to greater sharing of power and status within the family. Unlike before, there are also changing expectations of husbands and family life. Also, there is a change in the size of families today, which are smaller. This may be due to changes in lifestyle, contraception and abortion. With the loss of the extended family this meant that the conjugal couple depended on each other practically and emotionally, both contributing to the duties within the home and sharing decisions. As a result, marriage today is becoming an equal partnership.

Gershuny supports the view of Young and Willmott, that there is a greater equality. The foundation of his work over the past three decades is through the use of time use diaries. Gershuny sustains that ‘the division of labour remains unfair, not because of the work itself, but because of its relationship to longer-term power structures within a society’. (The Guardian, 2008). Although there is some progress towards greater sharing, it is very slow. He suggested that it may take a generation for men to make an equal contribution, describing this as ‘lagged adaptation’.

Post Modernists argue that the world is no longer predictable. Society has entered a postmodern phase where there is no dominant family type and where individuals have the opportunity to create family relationships that are more suitable for them. Families are much more diverse today. In today’s society, home life is much better than it used to be. There are also an increased number of appliances in the home, making home life more desirable and more men are willing to stay at home and help with household duties and childcare. This is similar to Young and Willmott’s view on changing gender identities, describing men as ‘New Men’, helping to emphasis a change in attitudes. Also, some women are content with staying at home, taking on parenting and housework duties.

In short, Young and Willmott’s and others have argued that while conjugal roles are not completely equal they have become more equal. However, Feminists have criticised Parsons’ image of society that too much emphasis is laid upon how social control within families can reduce the potential for underachievement and delinquency. Also, there is no evidence of the biologically expressive female. Critics of Young and Willmott suggest there is insufficient sociological evidence to clearly support their argument. Most evidence suggests considerable inequality, especially where women are in paid employment.

Feminists argue that the gender division of labour is culturally created and that there is insufficient evidence that conjugal roles have become more shared. They portray that the division of labour works to the advantage of men, leaving women in a position of inferiority in both power and work. Feminists believe the family is patriarchal because women must do housework without pay, which exploits and oppresses women because they are socialised to be dependent on men. According to Ann Oakley’s (1974) research, women still felt that housework and childcare was their responsibility, even when they are in paid employment they still take on the responsibility of childcare and housework, this is known as the ‘triple shift’. This also contradicts the argument of Young and Willmott that as more women take paid employment outside of the home men increasingly share the housework and childcare. They also disagree with the new rights view of separate roles and they disagree with the ‘march of progress’ view, stating that society has not changed and it is still unequal.

Feminists also reject the theory that there is ‘one best’ family type, they embrace freedom and diversity. They also see the traditional nuclear family as the main reason for women’s oppression, suggesting that family ideology makes problems such as domestic violence worse, as women believe they should ‘stand by their man’ no matter what the outcome is. These women may blame themselves for being bad wives and see themselves as deserving to be punished.

Feminists reject Parsons’ view that women were biologically determined and believe they are socially constructed. They blame the media for this construction of women, often portraying them as housewives, cleaners, domestic servants offering comfort and support for men and presenting them as a man’s sex object to tend to his sexual needs, suggesting that these roles are natural and normal. This is therefore seen as an example of patriarchal ideology. Marxist feminists believe that female workers are taken advantage of at a higher level than males as they are seen as a source of unpaid domestic labour, benefiting capitalism.

Interactionism criticise both functionalists and feminists because both assume that social structure determines gender roles. Functionalists believe that family meets the needs of the individual and the family and Feminists believe that family maintains patriarchy. Interactionism has a more micro theory focusing on relationships between individuals and outcomes rather than roles, including things like social class, ethnic, lesbian and gay differences.

In short, there is little evidence of sharing of power and the cultural dominance of men over women persists. Critics say that women have ‘hidden powers’ controlling the home and have sexual power. They also say that feminism has led to greater opportunities for women in education and the workplace and cultural change in female ambitions.

Based on the above arguments and evidence, there remains considerable disagreement within Sociology over the dispute of conjugal roles. While Functionalists believe that roles are progressively equal in modern society, Feminists maintain that there is very little empirical evidence to support this. For them, there remains considerable inequality. However, Interactionists and Post Modernists are critical of both approaches for a presumptuous view of conjugal roles and for ignoring the diversity of family and household structures and outcomes.

Gay rights movement helped a lot of people feel free to be them-selves. Even though gay people are often frowned upon, gay people are just like everyone else. They are human beings wanting to be loved and cared for by another.

According to Stacy, “It is also important to define the gay rights movement as a whole. Research shows that “The gay rights movement comprises a collection of loosely aligned civil rights groups, human rights groups, support groups and political activists seeking acceptance, tolerance and equality for (homosexual, bisexual), and transgender people, and related causes” (Shaneyfelt, 2009). Although it is typically referred to as the gay rights movement, members also promote the rights of groups of individuals who do not necessarily identify as being gay” (http://www.aboutsociology.com/sociology/Gay_rights_movement).

First of all, as you trace the history of this pivotal movement and devise a timeline, you might credit that the modern gay rights movement is considered by many critics to have originated with the “Stonewall riots in New York City in 1969” (http://www.pbs.org/niot/get_involved/Guide2/study_guide_II_final_23.html). Please note how the Stonewall riots marked the most dramatic event in the history of American homosexuality The riots made a major statement in terms of law enforcement. Because police raids on gay bars were routine, the riots protested these selective actions, “made it into national headlines and inspired resistance to such police raids in other cities” This resistance caused more activism to stir (Shaneyfelt, 2009).

According to Stacy, “As you also look at why Stonewall was so vital for gay rights, please note how it also marked “the first inter-generational gap in the homosexual community and the beginning of the break between gay society and lesbian society. Previous generations of homosexual men were more sexually conservative and preferred to keep their sexuality to themselves, the new generation was promiscuous and vocal. Lesbian society, like older gay male society, preferred to be more sexually conservative and private, so a gap began to emerge between the two groups” (Shaneyfelt, 2009).

As you then examine the other implications on life currently in the 21st century, you might claim how changes involve activist groups that are advocates for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans-gendered people, etc. Research shows that agencies and task forces such as the “National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), founded in 1973, which has worked to combat anti-gay violence and to improve the legal status of gay men and lesbians in the United States” (The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force).

Besides advocacy groups, the gay rights movement of the 60s also impacts currently life in the legal realm. For example, important advances in gay rights have been made since the 1960s in term of legislation. Research shows how “Several states have repealed laws that made homosexual acts illegal, despite the fact that in 1986 the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such laws. Several states have also passed laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, and other areas” (The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force).

As you further correlate how the sexual revolution in the 1960s in America played a role in empowering gay rights, you might look at how a change in the psychology of gay society had become gay militancy by 1969, much as the feminist and black movements had transformed” (Shaneyfelt, 2009).

Again, as you look historically and move beyond this event, you might suggest how “In 1970, the gay power movement had reached such proportions that parades were held to commemorate the first anniversary of the Stonewall riots. In the meantime, the Mattachine Society had sponsored homosexual liberation meetings and the Gay Liberation Front had been formed. The aim of the new organization was not to meekly show that homosexuals were acceptable” As a result, homosexuals became increasingly organized and concentrated in cities such as New York and San Francisco (Shaneyfelt, 2009).

Similarly, research in sociology also asserts that “A Gay Liberation Front was active in New York in the early 1970s. In the liberal political mainstream, gays and lesbians organized the Alice B. Toklas Memorial Democratic Club in San Francisco in 1971” (Walls, 2008).

Just as there are many effects today from the historical movement such as pride days and parades, the 1970s also saw these types of events. Research reveals that “San Francisco’s Gay Freedom Day parades drew large numbers in the late 1970s, and the first “National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights” was held in October 1979 (Research in sociology also asserts that “A Gay Liberation Front was active in New York in the early 1970s. In the liberal political mainstream, gays and lesbians organized the Alice B. Toklas Memorial Democratic Club in San Francisco in 1971” (Walls, 2008).

Other sociological effects are still felt in lobbying efforts today. Please note how the 1970s also was a time when “a set of national lobbying and legal defense groups as well as a political action committee” (http://www.sonoma.edu/users/w/wallsd/glbt-movement.shtml) occurred. A major goal was getting sodomy laws repealed in about half the states (Walls, 2008).

A major development in the movement also occurred in the 1980s. By 1980, most large cities had “at least one predominantly gay neighborhood” (Shaneyfelt, 2009).

“These details above could justify your sociological approach. However, since you need a psychological standpoint, you might also interject how “The second most dramatic event in gay American history is the AIDS epidemic which began officially in 1981” (Shaneyfelt, 2009). “Although physical in nature, psychological ramifications also intertwine because many gays had to modify their philately upon sexuality. They initially “vehemently protested suggestions that they should curb their sexuality or use condoms until well into 1988. By that time, their lives and political position were in extreme danger” (Shaneyfelt, 2009).

“When looking at other historical and psychological effects, research shows how AIDS became a symbol of oppression to gays, just as sodomy laws had been. To them, society had to put huge amounts of money into the disease or it was not adequately recognizing the needs of the gay community” (Shaneyfelt, 2009).

“By 1990, the question of what caused homosexuality surfaced once again. The first theory is that it is cause either by a twist of genetics, a birth defect, or some sort of hormonal abnormality; in other words, it is biological. The second theory is that t something about a person’s socialization leads them to “choose” a homosexual lifestyle” (Shaneyfelt, 2009).

Other implications of this event for life in the 21st century also include other aspects. Legally, the movement has been successful to repeal many sodomy laws were repealed in most American states, “and those that still remained were ruled unconstitutional in the June 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Many companies and local governments have clauses in their nondiscrimination policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In some jurisdictions in the U.S., gay bashing is considered a hate crime and given a harsher penalty” (About Sociology, 2010).

Other sociological developments might also include same-sex marriages. Please note how “The U.S. state of Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage, and the states of Connecticut, Hawaii and Vermont provide the civil union as an alternative to marriage. However, in many states, laws and constitutional amendments have been passed forbidding any recognition of same-sex marriage. Virginia law, the most far-reaching, forbids recognition of any benefits similar to those of marriage between people of the same sex” (About Sociology, 2010).

Gay adoption increases marks another area where you can apply psychological and sociological implications on modern life. The movement of the 1960s made these rights possible. Research shows that “Recognizing that lesbians and gay men can be good parents, the vast majority of states no longer deny custody or visitation to a person based on sexual orientation. State agencies and courts now apply a “best interest of the child” standard to decide these cases. Under this approach, a person’s sexual orientation cannot be the basis for ending or limiting parent-child relationships unless it is demonstrated that it causes harm to a child — a claim that has been routinely disproved by social science research. Using this standard, more than 22 states to date have allowed lesbians and gay men to adopt children either through state-run or private adoption agencies” (Overview of Lesbian and Gay Parenting, Adoption and Foster Care , 1999).

As Franklin Roosevelt understood, Americans will postpone immediate gratification and endure hard sacrifices–if they must–so long as they are convinced the future can be better than the past. But we face a far more difficult problem at our moment in history. What do you promise people who have been told they can have anything they want, who are repeatedly congratulated for living in the best of all possible circumstances? How do you tell them “the good times,” as we have known them, are not coming back? Americans need a new vision that helps them deal with reality, a promising story of the future that helps them let go of the past.

Here is the grand vision I suggest Americans can pursue: the right of all citizens to larger lives. Not to get richer than the next guy or necessarily to accumulate more and more stuff but the right to live life more fully and engage more expansively the elemental possibilities of human existence. That is the essence of what so many now seem to yearn for in their lives. People–even successful and affluent people–are frustrated because the intangible dimensions of life have been held back or displaced in large and small ways, pushed aside by the economic system’s relentless demands to maximize yields of profit and wealth. Our common moral verities have been trashed in the name of greater returns. The softer aspects of mortal experience are diminished because life itself is not tabulated in the economic system’s accounting.

The political order mistakenly accepts these life-limiting trade-offs as normal, as necessary to achieve “good times.” At earlier periods of our history, the sacrifices demanded by the engine of American capitalism were widely tolerated because the nation was young and underdeveloped. The engine promised to generate higher levels of abundance, and it did. But what is the justification now, when the nation is already quite rich and the engine keeps demanding larger chunks of our lives?

What families, even those who are prosperous, typically lose in the exchange are the small grace notes of everyday life, like the ritual of having a daily dinner with everyone present. The more substantial thing we sacrifice is time to experience the joys and mysteries of nurturing the children, the small pleasures of idle curiosity, of learning to craft things by one’s own hand, and the satisfactions of friendships and social cooperation.

These are made to seem trivial alongside wealth accumulation, but many people know they have given up something more important and mourn the loss. Some decide they will make up for it later in life, after they are financially stable. Still others dream of dropping out of the system. If we could somehow add up all the private pain and loss caused by the pursuit of unbounded material prosperity, the result might look like a major political grievance of our time.

More important than all the other losses is that people are also denied another great intangible–the dignity of self-directed lives. At work, at home and in the public sphere, most people lack the right to exercise much of a voice in the decisions governing their daily lives. Most people (not all) are subject to a system of command and control over their destinies. They know the risks of ignoring the orders from above. Not surprisingly, many citizens are resigned to this condition and accept subservience as “the way things are,” and their lives are smaller as a result. Many find it hard to imagine that these confinements could be lessened, even substantially removed, if economic organizations were informed by democratic principles.

What’s needed in American life is a redefinition of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Given the nation’s great wealth, the ancient threats of scarcity and deprivation have been eliminated. Yet people remain yoked to economic demands despite wanting something more from life–freedom to explore the mysteries and bring forth all that is within them. Collectively, Americans need to take a deep breath and reconsider what it means to be rich.

Greider, William. “The Future of the American Dream.” The Nation [The Nation] 6 May 2009, May 25,

2009 edition ed.: n. pag. Web. 28 Mar. 2010.

greider>.

What Happens to the American Dream in a Recession?

Pollsters for The New York Times and CBS News set out last month to try to answer that question. And the results seemed somewhat contradictory.

Although the nation has plunged into its deepest recession since the Great Depression, 72 percent of Americans in this nationwide survey said they believed it is possible to start out poor in the United States, work hard and become rich – a classic definition of the American dream.

And yet only 44 percent said they had actually achieved the American dream, although 31 percent said they expect to attain it within their lifetime. Only 20 percent have given up on ever reaching it. Those 44 percent might not sound like much, but it is an increase over the 32 percent who said they had achieved the American dream four years ago, when the economy was in much better shape.

Compared with four years ago, fewer people now say they are better off than their parents were at their age or that their children will be better off than they are.

So even though their economic outlook is worse, more people are saying they have either achieved the dream or expect to do so.

What gives?

We asked Barry Glassner, who is a professor of sociology at the University of Southern California and studies contemporary culture and beliefs.

“You want to hold on to your dream even more when times are hard,” he said. “And if you want to hold on to it, then you better define it differently.”

In other words, people are shifting their definition of the American dream. And the poll – conducted on April 1 to 5 with 998 adults, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points- indicated just that.

The Times and CBS News asked this same open-ended question four years ago and again last month: “What does the phrase ‘The American dream’ mean to you?”

Four years ago, 19 percent of those surveyed supplied answers that related to financial security and a steady job, and 20 percent gave answers that related to freedom and opportunity.

Now, fewer people are pegging their dream to material success and more are pegging it to abstract values. Those citing financial security dropped to 11 percent, and those citing freedom and opportunity expanded to 27 percent.

Here’s some respondents’ answers that were put in the category of freedom and opportunity:

“Freedom to live our own life.”

“Created equal.”

“Someone could start from nothing.”

“That everybody has a fair chance to succeed.”

“To become whatever I want to be.”

“To be healthy and have nice family and friends.”

“More like Huck Finn; escape to the unknown; follow your dreams.”

Those who responded in material terms were hardly lavish. Here’s a sampling:

“Basically, have a roof over your head and put food on the table.”

“Working at a secure job, being able to have a home and live as happily as you can not spending too much money.”

“Just financial stability.”

“Owning own home, having civil liberties.”

Mr. Glassner said, “For the vast majority of Americans at every point in history, the prospect of achieving the American dream has been slim but the promise has been huge.”

“At its core, this notion that anyone can be president or anyone can be a billionaire is absurd,” he said. “A lot of Americans work hard, but they don’t become president and they don’t become billionaires.”

Still, he said, Americans have always believed in possibilities. And they have consistently said over time that they can start poor in this country and become rich, regardless of the economy or their circumstances. The 72 percent who feel that way today is down from the 81 percent who felt that way in 2007, but 72 percent is still a very high percentage, especially given the downward economy.

“It would be hard to find another country where it’s as high,” Mr. Glassner said.

The percentage of people who say the American dream does not exist or is only an illusion has remained low – 3 percent today and 2 percent four years ago. As one such person put it to our pollsters last month: “A bunch of hooey.”

By the way, the phrase “the American dream” is generally agreed to have been coined first in 1931, in the midst of the Depression. In his book, “The Epic of America,” the historian James Truslow Adams wrote, “It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain the fullest stature of which they are innately capable.”

Seelye, Katharine Q. “What Happens to the American Dream in a Recession.” The New York Times [e.g.

New York Times] 7 May 2009: n. pag. New York Times. Web. 28 Mar. 2010.

.

The American Dream Goes On

By Mortimer B. Zuckerman

Posted June 13, 2008

Is the American middle class an endangered species? The majority of Americans have long shared one state of mind: that they are in some central way members of the middle class and hold a passport to the good life.

Click here to find out more!

It’s true that there’s been a contraction of the number of middle-tier households earning between $45,000 and $90,000. And it’s true they are having a tough time. Six in 10 testify to incomes falling behind the cost of living; six in 10 find it hard to pay for gasoline; and five in 10 say they can’t afford healthcare. More than a quarter say they have trouble even affording food. To maintain their lifestyle-including those fancy cable TV packages, broadband Internet connections, and travel-they’ve sent more family members to work, taken on more debt, and borrowed through home equity loans, though the housing slump has undermined that asset.

At the other end of the income spectrum, the well heeled keep doing better. The number of millionaires has shot up, and the wealthiest 1 percent of U.S. families have pushed their share of total national income to levels-21 percent-unseen since the Gilded Age. Yet growing inequality has had little traction thus far as a political issue.

Why is this?

Partly because some have moved up, as economist Stephen Rose points out. There are 12 percent more households earning in excess of $100,000 than 20 or so years ago. And those making less than $30,000 have not increased. So virtually the entire “decline” of the middle-class group has come from people moving up the income ladder, not down.

Higher standards. Those in the middle, and below, are also living better. As William Robert Fogel, the Nobel Prize-winning economic historian, put it, “In every measure that we have bearing on the standard of living…the gains of the lower classes have been far greater than those experienced by the population as a whole.” Among the inequalities that have narrowed: The quality of goods at the more moderate price levels has improved faster than at higher price tags; rich and poor are less apart in life expectancy, height, and leisure. It’s the attitude of Americans that explains the low combustibility (at the moment!) of income inequality. Most Americans tend to believe that people bear primary responsibility for supporting themselves and that market forces are immune to public policy. There’s a reflection here of the optimism and confidence characteristic of American life. In one study by Roland Benabou, more than half of Americans think they will be above the median income in the future (even though that is mathematically impossible). Americans, quite simply, believe that plenty of opportunities exist to get ahead, and, indeed, 82 percent of those born into poverty are much better off than their parents and more than a third of them have made it into the middle class or higher.

Education is another great American success story. There has been a dramatic increase in the percentage of adults completing high school and college. Nearly 90 percent of all adults get high school diplomas today compared with 33 percent in 1947; college graduates have soared from 5.4 percent in 1947 to almost 30 percent today. More than two thirds of Americans concur with the statement that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill-the largest percentage across 27 countries taking part in an international survey of social attitudes. This reflects the widespread belief in the ability to get ahead and helps explain why Americans are more accepting of economic inequality than peoples in other countries and why Americans are less likely to believe their government should take responsibility for reducing income disparity.

For all that, reaction is gathering force in at least two areas. One is an increasing distrust of free trade. There is a widespread conviction that globalization-seen by economists as a boon-holds down earnings for millions of Americans who compete with workers overseas. Free trade has become a political albatross.

Secondly, the level of wealth in the stratosphere of incomes has gotten so extreme that it is provoking a considerable majority to support the notion that wealth should be more evenly distributed through higher taxes.

Zuckerman, Mortimer B. “The American Dream Goes On.” www.usnews.com. US News and World Report, 2010.

Web. 28 Mar. 2010.

the-american-dream-goes-on.html>.

Is the American Dream Still Possible?
By David Wallechinsky

published: 04/23/2006

To be “middle class” in America once meant living well and having financial security. But today that comfortable and contented lifestyle is harder to achieve and maintain. PARADE commissioned Mark Clements Research Inc. to survey Americans nationwide about their finances and outlook for the future. Contributing Editor David Wallechinsky-author of recent articles on where your tax dollars go and on pork-barrel spending-interprets the results.

The traditional American Dream is based on the belief that hardworking citizens can better their lives, pay their monthly bills without worry, give their children a start to an even better life and still save enough to live comfortably after they retire. But many average Americans are struggling-squeezed by rising costs, declining wages, credit-card debt and diminished benefits, with little left over to save for retirement. (See statistics below.)

Does the dream survive? Do most Americans still believe they can forge better lives for themselves?

PARADE surveyed more than 2,200 Americans, of whom fully 84% described themselves as belonging to the middle class, regardless of where they live (living costs are higher in some regions) or the size of their household.

For this report, we focused on U.S. households earning between $30,000 and $99,000 a year. Most of those surveyed describe themselves as married and having a family. More than 64% say they are employed full-time or part-time. Most say they are in reasonably good health and have a satisfying religious or spiritual life. They own a home and at least two cars, and they are able to take vacations. By international standards, they live a life of prosperity.

Yet behind this prosperity is a growing unease. Half of the employed respondents say that they’ve experienced either increased health-care costs or a cut in health benefits over the last three years, and 39% have had cuts in their overtime, raises or bonuses. Almost two-thirds say they live from paycheck to paycheck, and 47% say that no matter how hard they work, they cannot get ahead. More than a third worry about job loss.

Richard Oden of Conyers, Ga.-married, with five children-worked in the beer industry for 23 years. Last year, he developed pneumonia and required major surgery. When he was unable to return to work by a given date, he says, his company terminated him at age 54-even though he had a perfect attendance record and no performance problems.

To help support his family, Oden had to dip into his 401(k) fund, paying a penalty for premature withdrawal. “This was very stressful,” he says. “Everything had gone up-except wages.”

Oden has since started his own business, a “leadership and personal development” consulting firm. His wife, Josett, works as a representative in the health-care field. “I do believe I will recover financially,” Oden says, “and that I will realize a decent retirement. But the traditional American Dream? For most Americans, it’s still a dream-a pipe dream.”

Having drawn on his own retirement fund, Oden knows that saving can be a big problem. In the survey, nearly 83% say that there is not much left to save after they’ve paid their bills. Statistics from the Commerce Department bear this out: The savings rate for Americans is the lowest it has been in 73 years.

Self-reliance and sacrifice. Most of those interviewed display qualities common to American success stories: determination, flexibility, pragmatism, willingness to work hard and especially self-reliance. Almost three-quarters of the middle-class respondents surveyed say they take responsibility for their own financial destiny and believe that they will succeed or fail based on their own efforts. Still, many are downsizing their dreams.

Shelly Comer, 43, of Dos Palos, Calif., is a divorced mother of three who also takes care of a friend of her oldest child, Michelle. She is going into debt so that Michelle can go to college. Shelly has worked her whole life-as a receptionist, janitor, preschool teacher and activities director at a hospital. Recently, she became a registered nurse and now works the night shift in obstetrics at another hospital. Her annual income is $70,377.

Michelle, 19, is a freshman at the University of California at Merced. She says she is concerned about the financial burden her education is placing on her family: “In order to meet our expected family contribution, my mother had to borrow the entire amount of her share.” For her part, Michelle earned six small scholarships, two of which are renewable for next year, and took out a federal loan. She also works 16 hours a week in the financial-aid office at the university.

Shelly has a retirement plan through the hospital. “But I have nothing saved for me,” she says. “I’m putting it all into the kids, so that they can succeed in school. Our parents did everything for us, and I hope to do the same for my kids. I don’t count on anyone else to help us get to where we want to go. It’s all up to me and my family. And I trust in God to help us.”

Who is responsible? One of the most intriguing results of the Parade survey is that 89% of the middle class believes that businesses have a social responsibility to their employees and to the community. Yet 81% believe that, in fact, American businesses make decisions based on what is best for their shareholders and investors, not what’s best for their employees.

Randy Omark, 55, and Cherie Morris, 58, of Stroudsburg, Pa., husband and wife, are former flight attendants for TWA. Cherie took a buyout in the late 1990s-before American Airlines bought TWA in 2001. After the acquisition, Randy was put on “furlough” (as were about 4,000 other former TWA flight attendants) and never rehired. After 26 years with the two airlines, his pension was frozen and then taken over by the government. Now he gets $324 a month in payments.

Today, despite having a college education, Randy works for $9 an hour finding community jobs for mentally challenged adults. Cherie works for a greeting-card company for $7.25 an hour.

“It used to be that if you stayed with your job, you would be rewarded,” says Cherie. “Now there is no guarantee.” As for retirement, Randy says, “Eventually, we will just downsize everything, sell our house and move into a smaller one.”

Is the dream changing? Simone Luevano, 46, and Miguel Gutierrez, 44, run a garage-door installation and repair business in Albuquerque, N.M. While the business grossed $453,000 last year, they took home just $50,000 net to live on. They have a daughter-Marilyn, age 7-who is deaf in one ear and goes to a private school that costs $3600 a year.

Simone says that financial stress is part of their lives: “It comes from the ‘maybe, could be, should be’ nature of our business.” When the economy is down, people don’t buy a new garage-door system. The cost of gas at the pump is a major factor, she adds: “When the price of gasoline goes down, business goes up.”

Have they prepared for retirement? Simone laughs, then replies, “The words ‘retirement’ and ‘vacation’ are not in our vocabulary. You know that old Tennessee Ernie Ford song: ‘I owe my soul to the company store’? We don’t think about retirement. They’ll have to take me out of here with my high-top tennies on.

“The American Dream is a bygone thing,” she adds. “It’s not the way life is anymore. I used to believe I was responsible for my own destiny. But it’s not that simple. Now it’s faith and fortitude.”

The Stressed Middle Class

National statistics show the increasing pressures on middle-income Americans:

The real median household income declined 3% from 2000 to 2004.

The percentage of households earning $25,000 to $99,999 (roughly middle-income range) shrank 1.5% from 2000 to 2004.

Last year, real average weekly earnings actually fell 0.4%.

The savings rate for Americans is the lowest it has been in 73 years.

Credit-card debt is at an all-time high, averaging $9,312 per household.

The average cost per year of a public college (in state) is $12,127, a 25% increase since 2001.

A private university costs $29,026.

Here’s What Americans Say

Our survey of middle-income Americans about their financial outlooks showed both skepticism and hope.

More than 52% of middle-class Americans think that they’re better off than their parents were, but…

56% think things will be worse for their own children or for future generations.

Nearly 57% say they believe that the middle class in America is decreasing.

51% of employed members of the middle class have experienced either increased health-care costs or a cut in health benefits, and 39% have experienced cuts in overtime, raises or bonuses.

66% say they tend to live from paycheck to paycheck.

47% say that no matter how hard they work, they cannot get ahead.

Nearly 83% say that there is not much money left to save after they have paid their bills.

89% of the respondents believe that businesses have a social responsibility to their employees and to the community, but…

81% believe that American businesses make decisions based on what is best for their shareholders and investors-not what is best for their employees.

74% of the middle class say they take responsibility for their own financial success or failure.

80% say they believe it is still possible to achieve the American Dream.

Wallechinsky, David. “Is the American Dream Still Possible?” Parade [Parade] 23 Apr. 2006, Final

ed.: n. pag. Web. 28 Mar. 2010.

edition_04-23-2006/Middle_Class_feature>.

‘Sociology is a social science that studies society and the individual in perspective of Society. The origins of Sociology lie in the 19th century but during the 1960-70s, it became a major social science subject, taught in universities and colleges, and schools. The scope of sociology has only become more scientific with time’. (Sociology Guide, no date)

‘Sociology is the study of human social life, groups and societies. It is a dazzling and compelling enterprise, having as its subject matter our own behavior as social beings. The scope of sociology is extremely wide, ranging from the analysis of passing encounters between individuals in the street up to the investigation of world-wide social processes’. (Giddens cited on Sociology guide, 1989).

Sociology enables to gain a better understanding on how the interaction among the society members works. Through the knowledge on sociology, we are able to improve our networking which is very useful and important for businesspeople.

The study of sociology today focuses on three primary theoretical perspectives: the symbolic interactionist perspective, the functionalist perspective, and the conflict perspective.

1.2 Functionalism

Functionalism views ‘society as a system that is a set of interconnected parts which together form a whole’ (India, 2009). It emphasizes on the macro level of society and its various parts are understood mainly in term of their relationship to the whole. The founder, Emile Durkheim suggested that social consensus takes one of two forms: namely mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity is a situation where people with similar vision and beliefs together achieve goal in the society. In contrast, organic solidarity said that although people in the society are interdependent they hold different values and beliefs.

1.3 Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

The symbolic interactionist perspective, directs sociologists to consider the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols mean, and how people interact with each other (Cliffsnotes, no date). According to this theory, ‘people attach meanings to symbols, and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols’ (Cliffsnotes, no date).

Early Conflict Theory

Conflict theory was introduced by a great German theorist and political activist, Karl Marx (1818-1883). The founder of this conflict mentioned that history of social life began from providing the basic necessities of life such as- food, clothing and shelter (McClelland, 2000).In order to survive in the danger, humans realize the need to work together to improve the social structure (Hatch and Cunfille,2006, p.28). Karl Marx insisted that all things with values in society are the contribution of labor through their engagement in creating the society for their own existence (McClelland, 2000).

According to Marx, the society is divided into two classes, the bourgeoisie which is the owners of capital and the proletariat- the labors. Division of labor refers to ‘breaking down of large jobs into many tiny components’ (Dhamee, 1995). Division of labors, therefore, leads to alienation that is ‘the disenfranchising of workers from the product of their work efforts’ (Hatch and Cunfille, 2006, p.29). Labor, in fact, is defined as the cost of production rather than merely the means to achieve a collective benefit for the society (Hatch and Cunfille, 2006, p.29). It gives humans a purely instrumental relationship based on their economic value of potential to do work (Hatch and Cunfille, 2006, p.29). Therefore, when the capitalists accepted this alienation, exploitation will take place. As The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (2000) cited in The Free Dictionary (no date), exploitation refers to the ‘utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes’.

The central institution of a capitalist society is private property, the system where the capital owned by the dominant groups is controlled by the small minority of the population (McClelland, 2000). The major conflict is on whether which group should get the biggest share of profit. The owner of the land argued that they are entitled as they are the providers of the factors of production whereas the labor stressed that they are the involving in all production.

Recent Conflict Theory

3.1 Max Weber

Due to the weakness of Karl Marx’s conflict theory which is too ideal, Max Weber reformulated the conflict theory and thus he is also known as ‘bourgeois Marx’ (http://www.change.freeuk.com/learning/socthink/weber.html, no date). In the process of formulation, Weber concerned so much with testing, reassessing or developing Marx’s ideas and thus, also known as the bourgeois Marx (Marxism: Structural Conflict Theory, no date) . From his study of the society, Weber went beyond ideas of Marx, for example, Weber focuses on the action in the social institution which is not the same as Marx and Durkheim who viewed the society as an object in itself (http://www.change.freeuk.com/learning/socthink/weber.html (no date). Although Weber agreed with Marx’s view that class is economic in its origin, stratification in the opinion of Weber, includes also the consideration of status, power and political parties (Marxism: Structural Conflict Theory, no date). Weber (1924) cited in http://www.change.freeuk.com/learning/socthink/weber.html (no date) states that status is ‘social estimation of labours and the development of seen lifestyles. According to Weber, conflict is occurring in any social relationship when an ‘action within it is oriented intentionally to carrying out the actor’s own will against the resistance of the other party or parties’ (Henderson and Parsons, 1947).

In the society today, communication has becoming an important cause of conflict. As defined in Webster’s dictionary, communication involves ‘sending giving, or exchanging information and ideas’, which is often expressed nonverbally and verbally (Relationship- with -self.com, no date). For non verbal communication, messages are expressed through facial gestures, body languages and the impression through dressing, body imaging and so on. Verbal communication, on the other hand, means expressing what is on one’s mind through voicing out.

3.2 Communication: Government and Media

The communication between government and media today has become an important focus and struggle in our society. Governments as the standing pillars of a country, plays a vital role in ruling and maintaining a country in a prosperous state. In order to maintain the harmony, fairness and truthfully are the keys to the stability. In other words, government should treat all the society in a same way and fair. Besides that, government may manage the economy in a good way, so the society can live in a wealthy environment. However, the written communication in Malaysia is implying that the status quo and special treatment of the dominant groups, the Malays cannot be questioned. For instance, Malays are better treated by government than other races.

On the other view, the media plays an important role in delivering the government’s message to the public. Therefore, nowadays, everyone gains current situation on politic, economy and so on through mess media such as television, radio and newspaper. People can know the actual situations or what is currently happen in the society through the news spread by media. However, media is highly dependent on government. The media is in deep dilemma as they want to spread the truth on the other side, while being controlled by government. Intentionally, government possesses power on the media in order to secure the public trust and to build a positive image of themselves for the public. To further elaborate, government restricts and control media not to spread out government scandal and only spread good or something that is benefit for government, The information needed by the media is so scarce. Therefore, media with limited resources to spread for society is required to obey government’s laws and orders and since government is the minority that owns the information. Since media is depending on government to provide them information, government has the power to control and restrict what media can spread out to society.

From the explanation above, we can see the interplay of conflict between government and media. The government whom possesses the resources is possesses the power as well.

The Overlapping Between Early and Recent Conflict Theories

The first overlapping is that both of the conflict theories emphasizes on economic factors. In the olden days, labor and capital are competing over resources. In the world today, labor and capital still exist. The terms just are slightly different. Labor in those days is today’s employee. For example employees are competing for job advancement and position in an organization or company.

The second overlapping between the early conflict and recent conflict theory is on the reason of occurring is due to scarcity. B’s relationship to A when A possesses something that B requires. For example, government got the power over media because government contains the information that media needs to be included in their newspaper, program and so on. Another example in US, many of the candidates are participating in filling the position of a president. But, it is rare. Only one person is entitled, in other words, it is scarce and thus leads to competition. Dependency increases when resources are important, scarce and non-substitutable.

The third overlapping between early and recent conflict theory is inequality. For example in US, there is obviously inequality, the discrimination of the Black by the White. The white always been perceived as the dominant party. As defined in Dictionary.com (2010), discrimination is an act of ‘treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit’. The common discriminations are racial, gender and religious intolerance. Until today where the Black has becoming the president, the Black is still being treated as the lower class despite of the fact the situation is slightly improving.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, conflict theory is a theory that sees the society as a place with inequality which then leads to evolution and social change. In the early conflict theory, an investigation on social class in the free market economy was conducted. It emphasizes merely on the capitalist and the labor as the cause of inequality, which is too ideal. Therefore it leads to the reassessment of the conflict theory by Max Weber. Max Weber, being the supporter of bureaucracy, highlighted more detailed by stating that there are different types of capitalists and skills of labors are vary as well. From our discussion above, semi-struggle between government and media is unavoidable. In my view, conflicts resulted in positivity because it stresses on competition. In order to survive, people will strive to gain the limited resources which then consequence in the improvement of the society.

Ethnography is a form of research focusing on the sociology of meaning through close field observation of sociocultural phenomena. Typically, the ethnographer focuses on a community (not necessarily geographic, considering also work, leisure, and other communities), selecting informants who are known to have an overview of the activities of the community. Such informants are asked to identify other informants representative of the community, using chain sampling to obtain a saturation of informants in all empirical areas of investigation. Informants are interviewed multiple times, using information from previous informants to elicit clarification and deeper responses upon re-interview. This process is intended to reveal common cultural understandings related to the phenomena under study. These subjective but collective understandings on a subject (ex., stratification) are often interpreted to be more significant than objective data (ex., income differentials).

It should be noted that ethnography may be approached from the point of view of art and cultural preservation, and as a descriptive rather than analytic endeavor. The comments here, however, focus on social science analytic aspects. In this focus, ethnography is a branch of cultural anthropology.

Related information is contained in the sections on content analysis and on case study research.

Key Concepts and Terms

The ethnographic method starts with selection of a culture, review of the literature pertaining to the culture, and identification of variables of interest — typically variables perceived as significant by members of the culture. The ethnographer then goes about gaining entrance, which in turn sets the stage for cultural immersion of the ethnographer in the culture. It is not unusual for ethnographers to live in the culture for months or even years. The middle stages of the ethnographic method involve gaining informants, using them to gain yet more informants in a chaining process, and gathering of data in the form of observational transcripts and interview recordings. Data analysis and theory development come at the end, though theories may emerge from cultural immersion and theory-articulation by members of the culture. However, the ethnographic researcher strives to avoid theoretical preconceptions and instead to induce theory from the perspectives of the members of the culture and from observation. The researcher may seek validation of induced theories by going back to members of the culture for their reaction.

Definition. A popular definition of ethnography is found in Hammersley and Atkinson (1995: 1), who write of ethnography, “We see the term as referring primarily to a particular method or sets of methods. In its most characteristic form it involves the ethnographer participating, overtly or covertly, in people’s lives for an extended period of time, watching what happens, listening to what is said, asking questionsaa‚¬”in fact, collecting whatever data are available to throw light on the issues that are the focus of the research. More recently, Johnson (2000: 111) defines ethnography as “a descriptive account of social life and culture in a particular social system based on detailed observations of what people actually do.”

Ethnographic methodologies vary and some ethnographers advocate use of structured observation schedules by which one may code observed behaviors or cultural artifacts for purposes of later statistical analysis. Coding and subsequent statistical analysis is treated in Hodson (1999). See also Denzin and Lincoln (1994).

Macro-ethnography is the study of broadly-defined cultural groupings, such as “the English” or “New Yorkers.”

Micro-ethnography is the study of narrowly-defined cultural groupings, such as “local government GIS specialists” or “members of Congress.”

Emic perspective is the ethnographic research approach to the way the members of the given culture perceive their world. The emic perspective is usually the main focus of ethnography.

Etic perspective, is the ethnographic research approach to the way non-members (outsiders) perceive and interpret behaviors and phenomena associated with a given culture.

Situational reduction refers to the view of ethnographers that social structures and social dynamics emerge from and may be reduced analytically to the accumulated effects of microsituational interactions (Collins 1981, 1988). Put another way, the cosmos is best understood in microcosm. Situational reduction, Collins (1981b: 93) wrote, “. . . produces an empirically stronger theory, on any level of analysis, by displaying the real-life situations and behaviors that make up its phenomena. In particular, it introduces empirically real causal forces in the shape of human beings expending energy. It enables us to discover which macro-concepts and explanations are empirically groundable, and which are not…”

Symbols, always a focus of ethnographic research, are any material artifact of a culture, such as art, clothing, or even technology. The ethnographer strives to understand the cultural connotations associated with symbols. Technology, for instance, may be interpreted in terms of how it relates to an implied plan to bring about a different desired state for the culture.

Cultural patterning is the observation of cultural patterns forming relationships involving two or more symbols. Ethnographic research is holistic, believing that symbols cannot be understood in isolation but instead are elements of a whole. One method of patterning is conceptual mapping, using the terms of members of the culture themselves to relate symbols across varied forms of behavior and in varied contexts. Another method is to focus on learning processes, in order to understand how a culture transmits what it perceives to be important across generations. A third method is to focus on sanctioning processes, in order to understand which cultural elements are formally (ex., legally) prescribed or proscribed and which are informally prescribed or proscribed, and of these which are enforced through sanction and which are unenforced.

Tacit knowledge is deeply-embedded cultural beliefs which are assumed in a culture’s way of perceiving the world, so much so that such knowledge is rarely or never discussed explicitly by members of the culture, but rather must be inferred by the ethnographer.

Assumptions

Ethnography assumes the principal research interest is primarily affected by community cultural understandings. The methodology virtually assures that common cultural understandings will be identified for the research interest at hand. Interpretation is apt to place great weight on the causal importance of such cultural understandings. There is a possibility that an ethnographic focus will overestimate the role of cultural perceptions and underestimate the causal role of objective forces.

Ethnography assumes an ability to identify the relevant community of interest. In some settings, this can be difficult. Community, formal organization, informal group, and individual-level perceptions may all play a causal role in the subject under study, and the importance of these may vary by time, place, and issue. There is a possibility that an ethnographic focus may overestimate the role of community culture and underestimate the causal role of individual psychological or of sub-community (or for that matter, extra-community) forces.

Ethnography assumes the researcher is capable of understanding the cultural mores of the population under study, has mastered the language or technical jargon of the culture, and has based findings on comprehensive knowledge of the culture. There is a danger that the researcher may introduce bias toward perspectives of his or her own culture.

While not inherent to the method, cross-cultural ethnographic research runs the risk of falsely assuming that given measures have the same meaning across cultures.

Frequently Asked Questions
Isn’t ethnography a subjective rather than scientific social science research method?

Selection of informants is not based on the researcher’s personal judgments but on identifications made by community members. Likewise, conclusions about cultural understandings of the phenomena of interests are not personal insights of the researcher, or even of particular community members, but are views cross-validated through repeated, in-depth interviews with a broad cross-section of representative informants. Ethnographers may also validate findings through conventional archival research, consultation with experts, use of surveys, and other techniques not unique to ethnography. At the same time, ethnographic interviews are far more in-depth than survey research. Ethnographers respond to charges of subjectivity by emphasizing that their approach eschews preconceived frameworks and derives meaning from the community informants themselves, whereas survey instruments often reflect the conceptual categories preconceived by the researcher prior to actual encounter with respondents.

What are the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF)?

The Human Relations Area Files (HRAF), based at Yale University, are a large collection of pre-coded ethnographic field studies of some 350 cultures. Originally available only on microfiche, collection subsets are now available on CD-ROM. Examples of coded subjects include marriage, family, crime, education, religion, and warfare. The researcher must code variables of interest to go beyond the precoding done by HRAF. Hundreds of articles have been based on the HRAF cultural database, and collections of coding schemes are documented in Barry and Schlegel, eds. (1980). The HRAF database is suitable for ethnographic coding methods as described in Hodson (1999)