Author: Andre Coleman

Social movements are loosely formed groupings of individuals which are usually formed with the aim of campaigning for or against the implementation of a certain issue in the society. Social movements do not have standard sizes because some may be made up of few individuals while others may cover even the whole part of the world. The size of the movement generally depends on the issues that are being debated at the time of its formation. Such movements are generally governed by the spontaneous coming together of people guided by no rules of regulations but rather by the common cause that brings the together (Saunders & Walter, 2005). Some of the hottest topics that mostly capture the agendas of most western social movements include freedom of expressions, economic independence, and gender equality among others. The purpose of this study is to identify social movements that address issues related to gender and how such movements have affected gender. This will be possible by analyzing the political environment that led to the existence of the social movements being discussed. The study will also seek to identify some of the impacts that the movements have head in the society at large (Love, 2006).

Women’s Suffrage, Ecofeminism and Women’s liberations movements are some of the social movements identified in this study that have some effect on gender issues and how the society addresses issues related to women. Women’s suffrage for instance is a social movements formed in the early 18th century to advocate for women to vote and run for public offices. This social movement has its basis on the era in which women were discriminated and considered to be too weak to hold any public office with diligence (Chapman, 2009). Such a movement called for the reformation of the economic and political spheres so that women could have equal competing field with men. Additionally, the movement also articulated for the honoring of women by being given equal rights as men in the ownership of property, payment of tax among other rights. Evidence point out that New Zealand became the first nation to vote for a woman to hold public office as a result of this social movement (Saunders & Walter, 2005).

The existence of the Women’s Suffrage as a social movement clearly points out the nature of the political environment at those times to have been discriminative against women. Women were generally not allowed not to hold any public office and they had no right to own property. Generally, women were treated as if they did not have any say regarding their rights. However, the emergence of this movement drastically changed the perspective of the society towards women (Saunders & Walter, 2005). The fact that women became part of leaders and held public offices is a clear indication that the social movement had a positive effect on the society because they ended up accepting the facts given by the social movement. The change also had the effect of changing the political structures of nations that accepted the calls made by the social movement.

Ecofeminism is another social movement that has been shown to have a significant impact on the society. This movement indicates that there exists a commonality between environmentalism and being a woman. According to the proponents of this movement, there is a relationship between the way women are oppressed in the society and the destruction of nature through the creation of concepts that may indicate how inferior women are inferior to men (Chapman, 2009). This social movement explores or existed in a society that believed that men are always superior over women. Such a political environment is seen to have perpetuated social inequalities like racism among others. The brainchild of this movement was driven by the fact that the same intellect that promotes the destruction of the environment.

The existence of ecofeminism describes the political environment in twofold. Women were being oppressed and discriminated in all manners possible. It also shows that there was environmental degradation that would ultimately threaten human existence. The coming of this social movement changed the society’s perspective by improving the interrelationships between human beings. Additionally, the movement is seen as one of the factors that led to the extinction of discrimination on the basis of gender. Consciousness about caring for the environment also developed due to the coming up of the social movement (Love, 2006).

Women’s liberation movement is another social movement distinct from the feminism or ecofeminism which began to develop in the early 1960s. The social movement was formed to fight for all the possible women rights that may have been violated at the time of its formation. The movement was strengthened through the formation of two bodies in the United States. The National Organization of Women and Equal Rights Amendment were formed with the aim championing for the honoring of the rights of women. The political environment during the formation of the social movement clearly indicates how the rights of women we not being respected (Chapman, 2009).

However, the existence of this social movement is seen to have changed the perspective of the society regarding the ways in which they could be able to treat women equally as men. This may have been the reason that led to the formation of the two bodies to oversee the fact that the rights of women were respected. Social movements are important bodies of the society because they address issues that dealt unfairly in the society. The ones related to gender are seen to champion for the respect of the rights of women in a society and a political environment that despises them (Love, 2006). The social movements identified in this study are seen to have facilitated the eradication of vices like racial and gender discrimination among others. The nature of the political environment is seen to facilitate the formation of a social movement in the sense that whenever the rights of a particular groups are infringed, the afflicted groups may be forced to from a movement that will champion for their rights (Saunders & Walter, 2005).

Introduction

Late modern society is a network society (Castells, 1997). Devices such as smart phones are portable connect individuals in a complex system of interaction via emails, Facebook, Linkedin, Mumsnet, BlackBerry Messenger which support the functionalist vision. Social media sites are social platforms such as Twitter and Facebook that function for the purpose of enabling the interaction between millions of individuals whenever, wherever and about whatever given subject they wish to communicate. By the end of 2013 Facebook had 1.23 billion subscribers (Sedghi, 2014). This growth amounted to 170 million new subscribers in 2013 alone (Sedghi, 2014). The main use of Facebook is to maintain socially cohesive contact with friends and family which supports the functionalist vision of society (Ofcom, 2011). It is argued by C. Wright Mills (1956) that society is manipulated into a social order by the one-directional rhetoric of the mass media. In contrast, social media sites are capable of bi-directional interaction with others which is socially cohesive and supports the functionalist vision of society. However, this is not always the case. This paper provides a critical evaluation of the function of social media sites firstly by providing an overview of functionalism and secondly by illustrating how social media both supports and contradicts the functionalist vision of society.

Functionalism

The positivist approach of structural functionalists involves analysing society from a macro-sociological perspective. They view society as a set of interrelated institutions which form a whole (Abercrombie et al., 2000:145). Such institutions include the family, education, politics, law, the media, organisations, economics and religion (Abercrombie et al., 2000:145). These form the agents of socialization which the shape behaviours that form a public consensus among which they do through constant institutional interaction (Durkheim, 1893:50). Durkheim focused on the consequences of social change between two eras; pre-modern [mechanical] society and industrial [organic] society (Durkheim, 1893). Pre-modern agrarian society was cohesive, tied by kinship with a collective consciousness of norms, which were constantly reinforced through socialisation and interaction (Durkheim, 1893). The shift from the simplicity of the mechanical society to the complexities of organic society impacted negatively on kinship and collective values as individuals undertook multiple forms of work in this new mode of production; capitalism (Durkheim, 1893).

Durkheim’s (1893) analysis of organic society extends an analogy originally devised by Spencer (1820–1903) whereby he likens society to the human body insofar as both have interdependent parts that must function for survival (Coser, 1893 [1997]: xvi). If any organ [institution] malfunctions, the body social [society] becomes unstable (Durkheim, 1893). As such, each organism [individual] has a specialist role within these institutions which it performs for the social good; not least because their own survival depends on it (Durkheim, 1893). Appropriating active social change is not advised because the institutions and the body social will be destabilised causing anomie (Durkheim, 1893). Anomie is a causal factor of social instability as a result of the inequalities in the division of labour as a result of some organisms outperforming others (Durkheim, 1893). This differentiation exacerbated the stratification that formed hierarchies in the new industrial workforce which polarised rich and poor (Durkheim, 1893).

Social Dysfunction

In a modern context, anomie also descended on the British inner cities for similar reasons in August 2011 when the dysfunction of the political, legal and educational institutions failed to meet the needs of the body social (Durkheim, 1893). Merton argues that institutional dysfunction which can be the ‘unintentional consequences’ of ‘latent functions’ (Merton, 1968:105). In contrast, adaptations to society by institutions are ‘manifest functions’ which are deliberately applied (Merton, 1968:105). The manifest functions involved (Merton, 1968: 105). As Merton asserts, such functions are targeted towards ‘individuals in diverse statuses, subgroups the larger social system and culture systems’ such as limiting opportunities to education through welfare reforms for British working class youths (Merton, 1968:106).

The response by disaffected youths was the riots that ensued across the UK in 2011 which was orchestrated using the free service BlackBerry Messenger [BBM] (Lewis et al., 2012). BBM is a free service in which one message can be disseminated to hundreds of recipients instantly who then forward the message to the hundreds more (Lewis et al., 2012). The social cohesion resulting from BBM extended to a temporary truce between otherwise rival gangs which is a positive function of interaction (Lewis et al., 2012). The riots came to an abrupt end when BlackBerry disconnected the service thus illustrating how solidarity depends on interaction (Lewis et al., 2012). Twitter was also accused of inciting the riots but it was later proven that the 2.5 million riot-related tweets showed solidarity against the rioters whilst also recruiting individuals to help with the clean-up process which serve the functionalist vision of society (BBC News 2011: [Online]). Similarly, the anomie in Egypt and Tunisia was corrected by implementing the overthrow of their relative dictators which was mobilised via Facebook (Bouteflika, 2011).

The Social System

It is also argued that crime is necessary, inevitable and functional because it elicits the solidarity of the law-abiding public whose anger culminates in the public shaming and punishment of the offender (Durkheim, 1893). Crime therefore serves to redefine the moral boundaries which supports the functionalist vision of society (Durkheim, 1893). Unlike the riots, social stability occurs when all of the component parts are fully functioning producing a system of ‘equilibrium’ (Parsons, 1951which is contingent upon the strength or weaknesses of the interactive relationships between the institutions (Parsons, 1951: [1999: 84). In this context, Parsons (1951) claims that actors are ‘goal-achieving’ and have alternate ways of achieving goals such as through education which is universal and equal (1951:130). In contrast, Merton argues that society sets the cultural goals but fails to provide the institutional means to achieve them (1938:100).

While Durkheim’s functionalist vision is positivist in its assumptions that organisms are homogenous, Talcott Parson’s theory of The Social System recognised that society comprised of a plurality of individual actors interacting with each other (1951 [1991]: 3). Parsons (1951) argued that the social system is contingent upon a set of four prerequisites which include: adaptation in times of social change due to one of the institutions malfunctioning; goals involves achieving certain goals in society; integration is the reliance that actors will identify with their social group; and latency involves maintaining the foundations of the social system such as through solid family socialisation.

Mumsnet

This would never be tolerated by the UKs top parenting site Mumsnet which is an interactive forum run by ‘parents for parents’ (Mumsnet, 2015: [Online]). Mumsnet offers advice to parents on ‘pregnancy, education, money, and work (Mumsnet, 2015: [Online]). Within these discourses advice ranging from breastfeeding to university education is all designed to educate and optimise how parents raise their utmost for their children (Mumsnet, 2015 [Online]). In this context, Mumsnet clearly supports the functional vision of society as it interacts with most of the institutional organs of the body social most all of the institutions (Mumsnet, 2015).

According to Maxwell and Aggleton, (2013:139) Mumsnet contains symbolic and ritualistic undercurrents that allow the class disparities to surface. For example, Mumsnet has a strict netiquette whereby husbands and children are identified within the posts by individuals as DH [dear husband] DS [dear son] and DD [dear daughter] which denotes ritual whilst imposing middle class values on working class families.

Parsons argues that ‘the primary problems and strains centre on the role of the wife and mother … The “easy” solution is for her to be completely excluded from the occupational system by confining herself to the role of housewife (1951:128). However, Mumsnet mothers consider themselves professional mothers who can juggle their work-life balance with ease (2013:139). For example, class disparities are evident in an exchange on Mumsnet between several mothers on children watching TV. For example,

We can’t all be Mother Earth
I wouldn’t listen to some of the militant mums on here
Being pregnant is no reason to be lazy parent to your toddler
How judgey some people can be about a little TV
At least the child isn’t strapped in a buggy with a packet of crisps and a bottle of coke
Nowt wrong with crisps and a bottle of coke
Exactly, as long as they’re organic

(Maxwell and Aggleton, 2013:138)

Such class differentiations are glaringly evident on Mumsnet who sell themselves as professional mothers who are well versed in child rearing (Maxwell and Agglegate, 2013). While functionalists overlook class in their macrosociological analysis, Mumsnet is class led and intimidating it is a site for those mothers who do not fear ‘militant’ mothers or those labelled as ‘Mother Earth’ (Maxwell and Agglegate, 2013:139). While in principle the mother and homemaker serves the functionalist vision of society, through rituals and cultural practices, the fact that many Mumsnet mothers are working or unmarried will contradict this vision as being negative to children (Maxwell and Aggleton, 2013).

The collective consciousness that perform rituals and totemic symbolisation provides a ‘cauldron of collective effervescence’ for the religious (Durkheim, 1915: 469). Religion which is the most socially cohesive element of the institutions ‘collective life awakens religious thought’ (Durkheim, 1915: 469). (Coser, 1915: xx). Evidence of such ‘effervescence’ surrounds Christmas, weddings Bar Mitzvahs and funerals is displayed on social media sites because religion is ‘an eminently collective thing’ (Durkheim, 1954: 47). Death is also a ritual and a commodity as people flock to mourn the departed; this collective mourning is replicated via social media (Durkheim, 1954; Bell, 1992). Durkheim argued that all societies were divided by the ‘sacred’ and the profane; the sacred are the totemic objects that are reserved for religious rituals which are emblematic of the clan or tribe, community or society; this is the case across the globe as all primitive religions adopt the sacred/profane dichotomy (Durkheim 1915: xx). Sacred totems evoke emotional attachment whereas the ‘profane’ represents everyday objects that are used routinely (such as social media devices) (Durkheim, 1915: xx). However, such totems are only sacred because individuals deemed them as such (Durkheim, 1915). To this end, Durkheim dismisses the centrality of a God in religion; it is the society itself that is God (19).

It could be argued that the online community also worships itself as social media sites are central to society (Preston, 2011: [Online]). For example, in the previous week to the time of writing, the Facebook page ‘Jesus Daily’ received 26.6m ‘Likes’ and 3.2m interactions (Facebook, 2015: [Online]). Similarly, In a Facebook post by a Jesuit priest supporting the Supreme Court decision to legalise gay marriage Rev. James Martin asserted that:

“No issue brings out so much hatred from so many Catholics as homosexuality. Even after over 25 years as a Jesuit, the level of hatred around homosexuality is … unbelievable to me, especially when I think of all of the wonderful LGBT friends I have” (cited in Gibson, 2015: [Online]).

The Reverend’s message went viral receiving 18,000 posts,140,000 ‘shares’ and 400,000 ‘likes’ on Facebook (Gibson, 2015:[Online]).However, Pope Benedict warned Catholics that human interaction in physical terms was crucial (Preston, 2011: [Online]). Similarly, a Presbyterian reverend urged individuals to ‘experience the physical sensation of water in Baptism [and] hold hands in a service of worship’ (Preston, 2011: [Online]). This illustrates how religion is mediated in terms of ‘a system of culturally structured and shared symbols’ (Parsons, 1979:6). Durkheim argues that ‘forbidden, beliefs and practises’ assists the solidarity to ‘one moral community called a church’ (Durkheim, 1995:44). A Church is not simply a priestly brotherhood; it is a moral community (Durkheim, 1995: xxii-xxxii). The anomaly lies in the founder of Jesus Daily, Aaron Tabor who is actually doctor and finds time to update Jesus Daily with Biblical texts (Preston, 2011: [Online]; Drescher, 2011 ). Similarly, the retweeting of Pope Francis’ tweets comes second only to Barak Obama (1954: 47).

This is evidence of a shift towards maintaining a less secular online identity which supports the functionalist vision of society for its cohesive qualities. In contrast however, radical religiosity contradicts the functionalist vision. ISIS uses YouTube to showcase its killing; Twitter to increase its presence and Facebook to radicalise and recruit young British Muslims from a distance because criminals ‘are often the result of instinctive, irresistible feelings that they often spread to the innocent object’ (Durkheim, 1893:47; Engel, 2015). While Twitter is constantly deleting ISIS accounts, ISIS is more intelligent than terrorists of the past which most definitely contradicts the functionalist vision (Engel, 2015).

Conclusion

In conclusion it is evident following a critical evaluation of the debates above that social media on the whole supports the functionalist view of society in maintaining to high degree the social stability of the body social. It is evident that rituals are performed constantly and values are reinforced where needed. However, other sites are more philanthropic and patronising of their working class subscribers which contradicts the functionalist vision. Social media has been beneficial to parts of the Arab world by overthrowing oppressive dictators while the social action of British youths served to redraw the moral boundaries. ISIS contradicts the functionalist vision in its aim to eradicated Christians from Iraq and Syria. Nevertheless, the social cohesion of interacting with family and friends while the rituals that religious beliefs behold do support the functionalist vision of society.

Word Count: 2,190

Bibliography

BBC News (2012) ‘Social media talks about rioting “constructive”‘, BBC News [Online] Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-14657456 (Accessed 16th September 2015)

Bell, C. M. (1992). Ritual theory, ritual practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bouteflika, A. (2011) Twitter, Facebook and YouTube’s role in Arab Spring’, Social Capital [Online] Available: https://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/twitter-facebook-and-youtubes-role-in-tunisia-uprising/ (Accessed 16th September 2015)

Castells, M. (1999) ‘An introduction to the information age’ in Mackay, H. & O’Sullivan, T. (eds) The Media Reader: Continuity and Transformation (pp. 398-410). London: Sage

Coser, L. (1984) ‘Introduction’ in Durkheim, E. (1893) Division of Labour in Society (pp. ix-xxv), New York: Free Press

Drescher, E. (2011) ‘Five Social Media Trends That Are Reshaping Religion’, Religion Dispatches [Online] Available http://religiondispatches.org/five-social-media-trends-that-are-reshaping-religion/ (Accessed 16th September 2015)

Durkheim, E. (1893) Division of Labour in Society, New York: Free Press

Durkheim, E. (1995 [1912]) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. [Translated and with an Introduction by Karen E. Fields.] New York: Free Press

Engel, K. (2015) ‘ISIS has mastered a crucial recruiting tactic no terrorist group has ever conquered’ Business Insider

Gibson, D. (2015) ‘A Catholic priest’s viral Facebook post on gay marriage, and what it means’, Religion News Service [Online] Available: http://davidgibson.religionnews.com/2015/06/29/a-catholic-priests-viral-facebook-post-on-gay-marriage-and-what-it-means/#sthash.G2wzRgMO.dpuf (Accessed 16th September 2015)

Maxwell & Aggleton (2013) Privilege, Agency and Affect: Understanding the Production and Effects of Action, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan

Lewis, P. (2012) Reading the Riots, London: Guardian & LSE

Merton, R.K. (1938) ‘Social Structure and Anomie’, American Sociological Review, 3(5): 672-682.

Merton R.K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: Free Press

Mumsnet (2015) ‘Home Page’ Mumsnet [Online] Available: http://www.mumsnet.com/ (Accessed 17th September 2015)

Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System, New York: Free Press

Parsons, T. (1961) Theories of Society: Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory. New York: Free Press

Parsons, T. (2001[1979]) The Structure of Social Action And Contemporary Debates

Preston, J. (2011) ‘Facebook Page for Jesus, With Highly Active Fans’, New York Times [Online] Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/technology/jesus-daily-on-facebook-nurtures-highly-active-fans.html?_r=0 (Accessed 15th September 2015)

Sedghi, A. (2014) ‘Facebook: 10 years of social networking, in numbers’, The Guardian [Online] Available: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/feb/04/facebook-in-numbers-statistics (Accessed 27th September 2015)

Weber, M. (1930 [1904–5]) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Oxford, Blackwell.

Wright Mills, C. (1956). The Power Elite. Oxford Press

Social Man ProblemsIntroduction

Sociology seeks to discover, describe and explain the order which characterises the social life of man (Inkeles, 1964 cited in McNeil and Townley, p.21). Various attempts have been made to define social problems; however there is no adequate definition of social problems. Birenbaum and Sagarin defined social problems as, ” A social problems exists when the collective society is rent by, at the very least a public recognition that there is a sector of society, represented by its practices, which threatens or prevents others or themselves from establishing or maintaining their claims to membership” (Birenbaum and Sagarin, p.16). Rubington and Weinberg, offers their own definition of social problem as, ”an alleged situation that is incompatible with the values of a significant number of people who agree that action is needed to alter the situation” (Rubington and Weinberg, 1989 p.4).

The definition of any problem as a social problem, means that it is a problem that requires that affects society as a whole and needs society to come together to deal with the problem (May, et al eds 2001 p.17) Social problems are approached from a constructive perspective and a realist perspective. Saragu develops a social constructive approach to the intersection of social divisions and policy, Bucchi on the other hand develops an introduction to the post structuralist critique of problem and policy centred approach (May, et al eds (2001 p.13). Constructive perspective of social problems looks at social problems three main aspects; namely the society constructs as a problem, the contested character of social construction and the changing character of social construction (May, et al eds 2001 p.8)

A realist perspective looks at social problems as real problems that exist and which everyone agrees to their existence and requires explanation. The constructive perspective on the other hand, looks at social problems as a construction of society. The question they ask is who says there is a social problem what sort of social problem, do they say it is (May, et al eds (2001). The main issue between the different perspectives of social problem is whether social problems are factual and objective for sociologists to investigate and explain.

This essay will look at social problems and the difficulty of solving them. I will start by looking at common factors relating to social problems.

Common factors relating to social problems

All social problems are prone to a number of different definitions and interpretations. The journalist looks at a social problem from a perspective different from that of a sociologist or a philosopher. The journalist may report a problem in a certain manner, there by actually exaggerating the real problem and causing further alarm in the society. Sociologist will interpret a social problem from a different perspective.

Different explanations of social problems are another common factor relating to all social problems. People usually do have different explanation why social problems occur. Society is always looking for whom to blame for a social problem. They always attribute the cause of a problem to the individual, family or the government.

How a problem is presented, is another common factor relating to social problems. The press do play a role in this regard. Journalists are interested in sensational news which they feel will interest the public. Issues are termed social problems, when they are brought to the knowledge of the public and they become part of the public discourse

Professional intervention is another fact common to social policies. Professionals in our society are quick to label people, that they believe do not conform to ‘standard normal behaviour’, they more often than not marginalise such people and segregate them, (e.g.) special schools, special needs.

The victims view point is another factor that is common in all social problems. There is a world of difference between the way a victim sees himself and the way society views him. Society stereotypes certain people. We all have our prejudices, knowingly or unknowingly. The way the society views homeless people is different from the way homeless people view themselves.

Finally, how to find the solution to social problems is an element that is common to all social problems. There is no generally accepted way, social problems can be solved. Some solutions can be very complex, while others appear straight forward. Anti Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) was introduced as a straight forward solution to deal with anti social behaviour. However, many young people now regard ASBO as a badge of honour (The Guardian, Monday November 6 2006). To tackle the issue of juvenile crimes and ethnic groups will require complex situations.

Causes of Social Problems

Generally speaking a perspective means a way of looking at things. I will now briefly look at the causes of social problems from different perspectives. I will first look at the individual perspective. Some commentators argue that criminals were abnormally conditioned by biological and environmental factors (Rubington and Weinberg, 1989 p.33).

Others however argue that causes of social problems are due mainly to the society/ environment and not due to the physiological make up of individuals. However, certain actions of individuals or groups are so glaring that they causes of social problems are directly attributed to them.

Another reason why social problems occur is due to peer group or family pressure. Disagreement between individuals or groups in a society can also lead to social problems. This is called the interaction perspective.

Fall out between different cultures and religion in a society is a reason why social problems occur. People are usually influenced by their culture and religion. Some people are very fanatic in their views and believe and see some one of a different faith or race as different from them. This can to a lot of social problems.

Social structures are the very basic foundation of any society, and it is a major reason why social problems occur. Some individuals or group might feel excluded from the social, economic or political structures of society. The social structures of society might be designed in such a way that they shut off or marginalise certain segments of their society, usually minority groups. Added to this is that government interferences and policies, might cause social problems, as they may favour certain segments of the society while excluding others.

Examples of Social Problems
Poverty

Poverty has so many definitions. Poverty is powerlessness. It has so many faces and it is changing from place to place and across time (World health Organization, 2001). Absolute poverty is disenabling. It means that one can not afford the basic human requirement. By this, I mean that it robs one of many things in life, including his dignity and pride. Relative deprivation means that one is not keeping up with the standards in a given city.

Poverty is one of the major reasons why people are excluded from the political, social and economic structures of society (Maxwell and Kenway, 2001). Poverty is usually constructed by a distinction between normal people, and those that are poor. The constructive perspective of poverty does not deny the existence of poverty, but that only some people at some time and in some place will be labelled as being in poverty May, et al eds 2001 p.7) A realist perspective will look at poverty as objectively describable and will attempt to offer an explanation.

Juvenile delinquency

Juvenile delinquency is a complex, serious problem. The cause of this problem includes peer pressure and the failure of our social structures, among others. However it is not a new phenomenon. In 1880, the penologist Enoch Wines, wrote, ” Delinquent children, the criminals of the next generation, must be prevented from pursuing their criminal carers; they are born to it, brought up to it. They must be saved” (Wines, 1880, p.132 cited in McNeil and Townley, p.21-27). We can not overstate, the fact that Juvenile delinquency is a huge social problem today.

The government have tried to deal with it, with legislation, cumulating in the crime and disorder Act 1998, Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) and parenting orders. However, the media seem to be giving a lot of attention to delinquent youths and portraying them as monsters and race and gender issues have not adequately been looked in to. There is also a difference of opinions on how the problem can be solved. The realist perspective will acknowledge the existence of the problem, while a constructive perspective, will view it as a construction of society.

Ethnicity and Social problems

Ethnicity generally refers to a group’s attachment to a particular area and sharing a peculiar way of life. Racism is when a group of people are treated differently because of their colour. There have been ethnic and racial problems in our society. The media have played a part in upping ethnic tension in the UK. Race riots have flared in some parts of the UK. There have also been reported increases in race attacks.

Our institutions, particularly the police and the media have been branded institutionally racist. People from ethnic minority are more likely to be stopped and searched by the police and they are more likely to be socially, economically and politically excluded, more than white people. They are also more likely to be projected as social problems. The cause of ethnic tension is usually an unfounded fear that diversity is a threat to the dominant group in society. The realist perspective will acknowledge the existence of this problem and will seek an explanation for it. The constructive perspective will view the issue as a construction by society.

Single parents

Single parents are a social phenomenon now regarded as a social problem because they are believed to have an impact on our values. They tend to impact directly on society, socially, economically, and ideologically. Single parents become a problem, when they cost the state a lot. A good number of single parents depend on state benefits. Fathers are usually absent, and do not contribute towards the upkeep of the children. The social cost of absent fathers can not be overlooked (Dennis and Erdos, 1993). The government have put in place legislation namely the 1989 Children’s Act and the 1991 Child Support Act to deal with the problem.

Conclusion

Social problems are hard to solve. They seem to be ingrained in the complex web of unwanted state intervention, reckless forms of individual behaviour and economic factors. Social problems have no commonly accepted forms of definition, but they all have common factors that relate to them. In the problems that I listed above, they are all seen from different perspectives and given different explanations.

It depends on who is viewing the problem. The media and the government also contribute to making social problems hard to solve. Some social problems might be downplayed and others blown out of proportion. Some times the intervention of the government and experts may worsen a problem as they tend to look at the problem form their own point of view, without taking the point of view of individual or groups suffering the problems directly in to consideration.

Individuals can also make social problems difficult to solve. They may mislead the government by providing incorrect data. Economic factors do play a part. The government might not see some social problems as a top priority for them to solve and thus will not earmark enough funds to tackle the problem. Sometimes, the government may not have the political will to solve certain social problems. Some social problems are interwoven in to our social, political and economic structure, that to solve them, we will need to dismantle our entire structure. Finally, there is no generally accepted way to solve social problems. Some solutions appear easy, while others appear complex, but you can not be certain, that the proffered solution will solve the problem.

Bibliography

Bilton et al eds (2002) Introduction to Sociology, Fourth Edition, Macmillan, London

Dennis, N and Erdos, N (1993) Families without fatherhood, Institute for the study of civil society, London

Downes, D & Rock, P (1995) Understanding Deviance, Oxford University Press, New-York

Fulcher, J & Scot, J (2006) Sociology, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Levin, J, Innis, K, Carroll, W & Bourne, R (2000) Social Problems, causes, consequences, Interventions, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, new-York

Maxwell, S and Kenway, P (2001) The Challenge of Ending rural poverty, Oxford University Press, Oxford

May, et al eds (2001) Understanding Social problems, Blackwell Publishers,

McNeill, P & Townley, C (1986) Fundamentals of Sociology, Second Edition, Hutchinson, London

Raab, E & Selznick (1964), Major Social Problems, Paterson and Company, Evanston, Illinois

Rubington, E & Weinberg, (1989) The Study of Social Problems, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Rubington, E and Weinberg, M (1989) The Study of Social Problems, Oxford University Press, New-York

Spector, M & Kitsuse, J (2000) Constructing Social Problems, Transaction, New-Jersey

This paper presents a critical evaluation on the issues which link the current educational system with social justice. The paper will provide a critical evaluation based on the development of an appropriate framework for finding how education is supposed to be constructed to reflect social justice around the world today. By examining the various research, that centers social justice and education, one finds evidence that educational social justice in the education context is based on the aspect of democracy; this may be seen as an example of the extreme individualism. This hyper-individualism has dominated the educational debate as it relates to social justice. In this situation, the whole society, and social cohesion are marginalized. This marginalization led to the development of a school curriculum which is based on providing education for specific individuals within the economic imperatives. The paper concludes with the recommendation that in the creation of a socially just society, it is important for hyper-individualism to not overlook the importance of the whole social group. This means that there is a need for a shift of culture which would respect individual responsibilities and rights as part of the whole social setting. Development of a curriculum which addresses the needs of all in the educational setting is a product from addressing the middle of a society rather than all of a society.

Introduction

Social justice means ensuring equality in all aspects which affect people in the community, society, nation and the around the globe. Social justice is a concept which fights s for the right of every individual for the opportunities available in the society, no matter the class, age, gender, race or ethnic origin. Social justice in modern day education is aligned to the dominate ideology of democratic liberalism. This is about the examination of the hyper individualism emergence which results into the dominance of the educational system and social justice. American students comprise of those from rich and poor families, those from the urban and rural areas and those who are straight and gay. Each day they are taught on the importance of equality and in every pledging they make, they promise to be indivisible, ensuring there is justice and liberty to all. Students are also taught of the value of democratic equality which suggests on the need of all American to be treated and regarded as equal citizens with no biasness on the basis of one’s background ,economic status, belief , background, religion, race, or sex. The students are also taught on the fundamental on the main democratic value of justice which is a core belief that America provides the same opportunities and benefits to all the citizens. Despite the teachings given to students on social justice the education system of America is characterized by inequalities which from year to year are being perpetuated.

The education system of American the 21st century is characterized by increasing wide gap between those with and those without. This situation has been fostered by the trickle-down economic policies and deregulation. These policies are traced back to the administration of President Reagan and Clinton’s administration which enacted the anti-worker legislation. President Bush administration further supported the major businesses and offering tax free breaks for the rich as compared to the lower and middle class people these polices have hindered the ability of America to move towards being an enlightened society because these policies have introduced a few Feudalism where as other already developed countries have had positive development in their education system.

The implementation of policies which support social justice in the American education system will mean providing equal opportunities to students in their rights to education. The reality about the American system of education is that schools have distinct economic disparities. There are those schools considered for the rich and those schools seen as poor schools. The socio-economic condition of the families the students comes from determines the schools they attend to. The choices of their extracurricular activities, access to money to pay for advanced placement, yearbooks field trips and many other academic and non academic aspects. In most cases, the students of low SES provide special education classes and remedial schools while their counterparts attend schools which have college preparatory curriculum. Therefore the reality is that students in America are not provided with the same educational opportunity as it is often assumed.

History of public education in the United States

The public education of America is very distinct and unique compared to other countries mainly because of the roles and responsibilities played by the individual school district and the states. The formal public education of the United States was created I during the 19th century. The public school system was initially suggested by Jefferson the American leader whose ideas were well incorporated in the development of the country’s education system. Other continents and regions which had been colonists by New England such as New Hampshire, Connecticut and Massachusetts had already established the primary form of education of public education which had already been implemented during the 1600s the main reason why the colonizers took to educate the children was solely based on religious aspects of the Congregationalists and the Puritans who were dominating on those regions. Alter when the regions began to be populated by other people of different faiths. The initial concept of these public schools became weakened through the opposition to learn both in the clergy imposition to the system and also in denial to learn in English. This led to the formation of private schooling which were already a norm by the mid of the 18th century.

The Declaration of Independence brought about unique standards and specifications of the public education system. Jefferson suggestion was that all the public schools be under the control of the government with no discrimination based on religious biasness and to be made available to all people irrespective of one’s social status. Other contributions on the issue of public education by then were made by George Washington, Robert Coram, Noah Webster and Benjamin Rush However the true concept of education system by then was not well defined due to the impact of economic transformation, political upheavals and wide scale immigration. Currently a lot of vast changes have taken place in both the education sector which comprises of public schools, religious, private and charitable institutions.

Public education system in America began in the 1840s and was attended with the wealthy people within a given locality. Reformers came up to fight for the need of ensuring education benefits are provided to even students from the poor families. One commonly known reformer is Horace Mann who was for education reforms in Massachusetts and Henry Bernard based in Connecticut. Common schooling was for the benefit of uniting the society, prevention of poverty and crime by ensuring every citizen is well. These reforms calls led to the development of public schools to students at the elementary level towards the fall of the19th century. The Catholic Church was however not in support of these reforms but instead created its own schools to be attended by students privately.

The first public school which came up in the United States came in 1635 called the Boston Latin School. And later Harvard University became the first university to enroll students from the various public schools who had done well. Students in these early colleges and schools got involved in the events of the time such as the World war 11, the Greater depressions and the Cold war. The passing of Morill Act in 1890 meant greater support to the universities of various states and land was also granted to construct these universities. Efforts were made to finance these public universities and even those at the lower level to ensure that each student in America gets high quality education.

However, the education system was not up to the level required by the members of public that education should be made available to all the children irrespective of their gender, race or economic standards. This was not the case in reality. Schools became highly discriminative despite them being founded by the tax paid by all the members of the public. Discrimination of these schools was on the basis of gender and race. In many schools, girls were not admitted and if admitted, they were not provided with the same courses as those done by the boys. They were only taught subjects like tailoring, cooking and secretarial courses. Discrimination in the United States public education has also been enhanced by the unfair public policies passed especially in school districts.

The cause of inequality in education system

According to various researches done to establish the cause of inequality in the education system, it has become evident that the socioeconomic factors play a significant role in the education of a child. Jerome Brunner, a cultural psychologist in his book the Culture of education (1996) explains that the mental growth of a child is determined by the effect of alienation, racism and poverty (p xii). He goes on to say that effective education is as a result b of the constituencies and culture which is powerful in the maintenance of the social status quo than in flexibility fostering (p, 15). The social status quo is promoted by political motivation which aims at developing a body of the underclass people who support the industry.

During the whole of the 20th century, the economy of America was depended on the manufacturing labor which was in need of workers who perform repetitive and simple jobs with no any required formal education. Therefore the aim of these manufacturing companies with the support of the government was not to cultivate a workforce which was educated. The 21st century saw a shift of the manufacturing company reliance into an economy based on information. This reliance required a workforce which is highly educated or literate; employees who are critical thinkers in solving problems have technological know-how. These are the goals which found not been achieved by every student because in the first place they are not been given the opportunity to attend to schools due to the inequality in funding, lack of school environment or the preparedness of teachers. That student who ahead attended the fully funded schools by the government had students who were attended to individually compare to the least successful schools which is a form of both geographical and economic segregation. In 2001 president Bush passed the policy of the No child Left behind Act as a law with the goal of meeting the high standards of education and as a solution to enabling schools around the United States to work and meet the standards provide by the Act. The Act has brought about heated debate on why it is not addressing the issue of racism and poverty which are the central problems that affect the education system in the United States. On the Contrary to the intentions of the Act as a way of maintaining high level of education in the United States the Act has instead fostered the racial segregation in the education system especially through its award system. It is only the schools which perform better that they are provided with funds but when critically examine these high performing schools are the schools attended by the whites students because they have been well equipped with the educational facilities and resources necessary for students success. Those schools which are attended by the Black students are mostly less equipped resulting to high rate of students with the least academic scores.

Public policies
Discrimination based on race

In 1619, many Blacks arrived in the United States as slaves and by mid 19th century there were as many as 5.5 million Black people in the country. The early form of education the blacks were provided with was religious education and to make them be Christians. In many regions with slaves many missionary schools were created but in some parts mainly at the southern states were against the provision of any form of education to the black people m because they were not ready to do way with slavery use. All in all, the education provided to the blacks was of low standards until 1863 when the Emancipation Proclamation was passed by Lincoln. The backs literacy rate was pushed up to 70% by 1910 compared to 5% in the 1860s.

Reaching 1950s, segregation was still a common phenomenon in America. For example in the southern states, there was a clear distinction of the black and white schools according to the Supreme Court rulings on the Plessey V. Ferguson case. Such laws were not in the North of America but still racial segregation in schools was still the common aspect and due to this unbalanced form education, the blacks were provided with inferior forms of education. The schools attended by the whites were also fully funded and had well equipped facilities and teachers were also well remunerated compared to the black schools.

The passing of the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 by the Supreme Court was meant to ban any form of racial segregation in the country’s schools. This law marked that racial segregation was unconstitutional and it went ahead in ensuring that schools to be diverse. This was especially in the South where federal courts had made great efforts of eliminating segregation in the schools which in fact had been legalized. Despite the efforts by the courts it was still not possible to totally eliminate the practice of discrimination in schools. The urban schools became a place where the Hispanic Americans who were on the rises and the poor blacks to attend the middle class blacks and majority of the white student were move to private schools. Poverty became a common aspect to many Native Americans who had already lost their lands to the whites making them not to even attend school all together.

Discrimination based on gender

Social inequality in the school system also involves discrimination along gender lines. What the reality was during the time is that girls were not encouraged to study but this was fought by the work of Mary Lyon, Jane Addams, Emma Willard , Mary McLeod . They came up with colleges of higher learning for women which enabled young girls to learn the courses also learned by boys which had been deemed as courses only for the boys. The first college for girls was the Oberlin College which was founded in 1833. Others which followed were Vassar College in 1861 and Bryn Mawr College.

By 1960s many schools for girls and women had come up because of the rise of gender movements which was against sexual discrimination. This lead to the passing of the federal Education Amendment prohibiting against the discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1972. The girl’s schools and school for women began to be funded by the federal government. Despite the equality of education to both boys and girls, women and men, discrimination on the basis of gender is further seen when in search of employment after graduation. Many employees would prefer to employ a man engineer than a lady engineer which also applies to the other professions which were only meant for men in the past.

The current nature of the education system of America

Education today is considered as a vital and lever in uplifting the modern society. But this perception according To Sacks is a myth he presents various insightful aspects which portrays the true nature of the education system in America in the current times. His books present factual statistics and information to show the segregation in schools especially in the higher education level of studies.

For example in 1988 students from the lowest economic background results showed that for him to attain a university degree, he had to 6.9 % chances of gaining this chances. By currently this does not apply. Low economic background means no bachelors degree or even a masters. The only probability is that they can afford to join colleges by 50%. Also as student from high social economic background has 51 % chances of earning a degree and for a masters degree with probability of 8%. 9% and only 4. 4 percent to join a college (U.S Department of education 2002).

In the early 1990s students selected to join the national universities were 3% who are from the lowest economic backgrounds while at the same time those from the highest economic families had 75% chances of joining the compass. These statistics indicate the widening gap of the education level among the rich and poor students. As years goes by those from low economic backgrounds have ended upon not having education and if so they attended poor schools which offer cheap schooling and low quality of education. Racial disparities are evident in the education system. Minorities like the Latinos and African Americans among others are suffering most because of this. These racial inequalities are an associate also of the class inequalities. The educationist also characterized by unequaled findings depending on the prosperity level of the school the quality of education and the social class of most parents in that School.

Recommendation

Addressing the issue of social justice in the education system portrays the negative consequences of injustices in the education sector. Failure of equipping all the students in a given country leads to a group of idol people who have the time to involve in various social crimes in the society as well as Bad habits like drug trafficking and alcohol abuse. For the general good of all the members of the public it is important for the government to look into ways which even students from extremely low economic background can manage to learn. Education to all also means empowering the nation economically because all people will be having the skills and knowledge of investing and earning a desirable living condition. Brunner points that, “”Education is risky, for it fuels the sense of possibility. But a failure to equip minds with the skills for understanding and feeling and acting in the cultural world aˆ¦ risks creating alienation, defiance, and practical incompetence” (pp. 42-43). Dewey also believes that the society can only be empowered through education because it brings forth a change in knowledge, behavior and intelligence (Fishman, 1998). This therefore is the crucial time when the nation has to critically think on ways of improving the society by ensuring there is justices and equality in the education system.

The advancement in learning methods and technology has significantly contributed to major changes in the public education in a positive way but the modern day social life in Americans characterized by smoking, alcoholisms, drugs violence and issues related to sex. The public education I of America has been looked as a system of education which inculcates the ideas of individual freedom and equality but its current low standards has made any educators to find the ways of improving the system. The No Child Left Behind Act is one of the ways of improving the education standards in America but it requires critical examination to prevent the act from further contributing to the issue of bringing forth social injustice based or race and economic backgrounds of the students.

What is socialization? Socialization is the process in which human beings interact with each other individually and in groups. It is the process by which one learns the traditions, customs and accepted behaviour in any given society. It is not a onetime process, but it is a lifelong process that provides individuals with skills, values and attitudes that are necessary for interacting with the society. Human beings need social experiences to learn their culture and survive in the society. They are not born with values and skills. They learn from what they see, hear and experience throughout their life. They have the capability to learn and absorb from what they see around them. Socialization is not a just a simple term that can be seen at face value. It has many layers, and each layer is different from the other and leads to different processes and situations. Socialization has three layers; primary, secondary and tertiary. Primary is what we learn from our family and when we are young, secondary is what we learn in school, and tertiary is what we learn throughout our lives.

We now know what socialization means, but what is identity? Identity is what makes an individual who he really is and what his purpose in life is. It is what makes an individual definable and recognizable. It is who you are and where you come from and what makes you unique from every other human being. It gives an individual a sense of being. Identity can be defined as individuality, personality, distinctiveness or uniqueness that makes an individual stand out. Like socialization, identity too cannot be seen at face value. Identity has many layers to itself, and as we walk through life, each new layer keeps unfolding in front of us.

Now, since we know what socialization and identity both mean, we can bring them together and relate them to answer our question – ‘does socialization lead to identity formation?’ Well, I think yes, socialization does lead to identity formation as we discover who we really are and where we fit in, only in the midst of people and in our interaction with them. Once we start interacting with the society, we learn so much about ourselves as well as about others (individuals or societies), their culture, customs, behaviour, etc. We learn that we are similar to some people, and different from others. Socialization makes an individual more confident. The more people we talk to, the more topics we talk about, and this in turn widens our scope. Also, we make ourselves more visible to society and hence people recognize us. Thus socialization helps in building ones identity. Today’s world is all about power and identity. If one has an identity as well as the right attitude, he can achieve whatever he wants. Socializing also leads to better networking. Better networking means more connections and more connections means higher opportunities at work or elsewhere as well. Hence socialization leads to a boost in ones career or talent and thus helps in identity formation.

The more we interact with people, the more we discover ourselves and form judgements about ourselves as well as others. One is only able to discover his true self when he interacts with others and reacts in certain ways that are different from others. Everyone has a different and unique reaction to a certain situation. This uniqueness is what gives an individual his identity. For example, if we see Phillip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971), that was undertaken to study the behavioural and psychological consequences of becoming a prisoner or prison guard, we observe that the prisoners started to lose their identity, and didn’t see it as an experiment, but as a real prison run by psychologist. They forgot that they were actually just college students and not actually prisoners. The prisoners actually gave up their freedom and forgot their rights and liberties. The situation was such that it made them feel that way. The environment was so realistic that they actually believed they were prisoners and thus behaved in rebellion. It is the prisoners who created in the guards a sadistic impulse. The guards were compelled to act in ways that were totally opposite from what they were feeling inside. But few of the guards were actually cruel, and felt no guilt or regret while doing their job. They had completely lost themselves and started behaving in the role that was assigned to them, i.e. the role of a prison guard. The prisoners as well as the guards lost their true identity and became what the situation required them to be. The fresh prison routine, the ‘privilege cell’ for the obedient ones and the ‘hole’ for those who were punished, the clothes they were made to wear, the food they were made to eat, the number given to them by which they were now addressed, made them lose their true identity and become someone else. Thus, from this experiment we learn that situations affect us more than we think. What the volunteers in this experiment experienced was the ‘power of the situation’ and not anything to do with their personality. Prisons are institutions which attempt to rid individuals of their previous identity, and this can be clearly seen in Zimbardo’s prison experiment.

Another example is The Clark Doll Experiment (Clark, 1939) that was carried out by Dr. Kenneth Clark and his wife, where they asked black children to choose between a black doll and a white doll. Most of the children said the white doll was nicer, prettier and the one they preferred playing with, whereas the black doll was the ‘bad doll’. All these children were aged from 6 to 9 only and were already so damaged by racism at such a young age. This racism was due to the school segregation between white and black kids. It was distorting their minds, causing them to have stereotypes and hate themselves. When asked the last question of the experiment-‘which doll looks like you?’ the children hesitated and answered. They wanted to choose the white doll, but reluctantly pick the black one. Thus, prejudice, discrimination and segregation caused black children to develop a sense of inferiority and self hatred. These children were embarrassed of who they truly were, and hated themselves for being black. They wanted to be white like the other kids. Thus, they lost their identity at such a young age and in fact were ashamed of who they actually were. They preferred being someone else.

Thus, socialization does lead to identity formation, and this identity formation starts at a young age itself. Even before children learn the basic do’s and don’ts. So, it is very important to keep children away from bad influences and situations that can make them form bad judgements and ideas about themselves.

Now, arguing against the motion, ‘socialization leads to identity formation’, I would completely disagree upon this statement. Identity is who we are and where we come from. We form our identity by how we behave, how our family has brought us up, what education we get, where our interests lie, etc. It is what we do and how we behave as individuals that form our identity and make us who we truly are. Socialization has nothing to do with identity formation. Socialization will not pour knowledge or talents into an individual; it will not build ones identity. It is important because we get to know more people, and get to widen our base. But it doesn’t form who we are. It is ‘we’ ourselves who from who we are, not the people around us.

Primary and Tertiary socialization may lead to identity formation, but I can confidently say that Secondary socialization does not lead to identity formation. This can be proved by Paul Willis’s ‘Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs’ (Willis, 1977). In this study, we see that it is the family that gives the children their identity and even schooling could not change this identity. This is because the school did not teach them what they actually required in life and what they need to live life the way their society lives it. It is the students who distance themselves from the school culture and requirements, and develop their own counterculture. They are resistant to the schooling, and reject what the school offers to them. Willis finds that they are not less talented, but they do develop an antagonism towards the “work hard move forward” mentality of modern education, and develop what Willis terms as “counter school culture” (Willis, 1977). Thus, these children do not form a different identity that their school wants them to become. They stick to what their family has taught them and what their family requires them to be. Their family requires them to be labourers, who earn their living by hard work and labour, not by sitting on a desk and signing papers. Thus, these children reject the education and school culture that schooling is supposed to embed in a student, and prefer living life the way their family has been doing so, not because they want to, but because it is their duty, it is who they are and where they belong.

Explain the relevance of socialization from both the structural conflict and the structural consensus perspectives. Discuss the efficiency and the pitfalls of each approach in relation to youth work.

Both structural conflict and structural consensus theories approach the study of social life from a macro perspective, that is, both are concerned with the study of large-scale social structures, such as ideas and belief systems, and institutions, such as the family and education, in their attempts to examine and explain social life (Bilton et al. 1994: p. 10). From this perspective, a better understanding of a given society, and the relationships within it, can be gained through examining the function of social institutions and organizations in terms of the part they play in maintaining social structures within society. An example of this is the study of institutions which are agencies of socialization – for example the family and the media – to explore the part they play in the production and reproduction of social roles and values (Bilton et al. 1994: p. 12).

Socialization, then, is the process through which individuals ‘learn the ways of thought and behaviour considered appropriate in [their] society’ (Bilton et al. 1994: p. 12), and agencies of socialization function in both formal and informal ways to pass on to the next generation such norms of thought and behaviour. Much early socialization within the family is informal; children learn through observation and interactive experiences with siblings and adults around them the behaviour expected of themselves and others (Ibid). While there is also a degree of formal education within the family, it is within institutions such as schools that children gain much of their formal instruction of the roles and types of behaviour expected of young people in society.

The concept of socialization is a useful one and relevant to those working in a range of professional fields, and in particular to those working with young people. This will become more apparent as we now look in more detail at the differences between the structural consensus and the structural conflict approaches.

The key difference between structural consensus and structural conflict theories is that, broadly speaking, for consensus theories the values and norms of society that people learn through the process of socialization are ‘shared’ by all members of society; that is, there is an agreement, or a consensus about, and commitment to, the ideas and beliefs prevalent in society among individuals (Fulcher and Scott 1999: p. 49). Conflict theories, however, argue that, rather than there being a consensus about ideas and beliefs in society, social life is fraught with conflict among different members and groups in society as they struggle with one another to attain or maintain power and control (Ibid: p. 61).

This is obviously a simplistic outline of the core tenets of both approaches; however, it may begin to be apparent from this that both perspectives’ theories of socialization have potential relevance to individuals working with young people. A comparative analysis of both perspectives even at this stage reveals some of the issues encountered by formal and informal educators in this area. In relation to youth work, for example, a key issue for workers, it could be argued, is that of purpose. Is the proper purpose of youth work, as Mark Smith (1988: p. 106) has questioned, to ‘promote the welfare of individuals, serve to secure the reproduction of the means of production and existing power relations, promote community or what?’ Conflict theorists would argue that socialization of young people in areas such as youth work serves to secure existing power relations; consensus theorists would argue that it serves to promote the welfare of individuals and society as a whole.

Smith later concludes that ‘informal educators should be committed [in their work practice] to that which is right rather than that which is ‘correct”. However, without a good understanding of conflict and consensus theories, it would be difficult to make judgements regarding the difference in practice between that which is ‘right’ or ‘correct’. It will be argued later that there are, of course, limitations to the extent to which such knowledge is useful in practice, however, this essay will argue that a good understanding of the theories of socialization from the consensus and conflict perspectives can not only give us insight into issues faced by workers in this area, but also help our understanding of our own and our clients’ feelings and motivations, as well as the agendas and motivations of official institutions and agencies.

The questions of purpose and motivation are, it can be argued, very important ones, and are questions into which a study of socialization from consensus and conflict perspectives can give us good insight. In the area of youth work, knowledge and understanding of the above perspectives can lead to healthy questioning of government purpose and motivation when, for example, reviewing official documents such as the DfEE 2001 consultative paper on English youth work. This paper details the government’s key priority to help ‘keep young people in good shape’ (DfEE: 2001: p. 13). Much of what is written in terms of this priority appears to make good sense; for example ensuring young people have access to ‘a rich variety of personal growth experiences’ and helping them to make ‘informed choices [and] expand their potential’ (Ibid: pp. 13-14). However, as we shall see, closer analysis of elements of this, and indeed other, official documents and government policies reveal, when studied with knowledge of conflict and consensus theories, underlying official issues and agendas.

According to consensus theories, socialization into the cultural values and social norms of society is essential to the stability and cohesion of social structures (Fulcher and Scott 1999: p. 48). From this perspective, all individuals in society share a commitment to society’s values, ideas and beliefs. In general we all want the same things and agree that they are the right things to want, for example to secure good employment, achieve our potential, and to contribute to the community. While we may be socialized into such norms and values through formal and informal means, we nevertheless agree that they are right and just. The priorities set out in the DfEE consultative document fit closely with such ‘generally agreed’ aspirations. The document’s authors assert the need to develop ‘preventative strategies and actions which enable [young people] to make informed choices about a range of issues’ which include ‘avoiding crime, protection from drug or alcohol related dangers, preventing teenage pregnancies’ and others (DfEE 2001: p. 14). In order to make informed choices about such issues, young people will be able to discuss them with youth workers who have a key role in ‘keeping young people in good shape’ (Ibid) From a consensus perspective, the socialization of young people regarding these issues is unproblematic; society as a whole can only function effectively if all individuals are properly socialized into the agreed norms and values of society. From a conflict perspective, however, such strategies are not as unproblematic as they may at first appear.

While consensus theory sees society as being ‘held together informally by norms, values and a common morality’ (Ritzer 1996: p. 266) conflict theories argue that order in society stems from ‘the coercion of some members by those at the top’ (Ibid). As stated earlier, analysis of perspectives such as conflict theories can lead us to question the motivations behind official agenda setting, as well as those behind our own actions and those of others, and here, examining documents such as the DfEE paper, we may begin to question the motivation behind such apparently worthy intervention strategies. The question we may begin to ask, when viewing the world from a conflict perspective, is, in whose interests are the implementation of such policies and strategies? Youth workers and others working with young people do of course want to help young people to live happy and fulfilling lives, and help them to stay safe and well, however, questions can be raised as to whose primary interests some intervention strategies serve.

While the majority may well agree that a state of disorder in society is in no one’s particular interest, it is clear that it is certainly in the interests of those in positions of power and advantage to maintain order through effective socialization of individuals into the values and norms of society, in particular the values and norms of society that best suit their own interests. It is, to take what may be considered a more extreme view from the conflict perspective, far better to have good, hard-working, honest citizens paying taxes and refraining from crime, in particular property crime from persons with abundant wealth, than to have gangs of disaffected young people stealing money for drugs and falling pregnant in order to secure valuable government housing.

It may now be apparent, then, that comparative analyses of theories of socialization from the conflict and consensus perspective help give us insight and understanding when approaching issues affecting work with young people. The examples above hopefully show the efficiency of this analysis in relation to official agenda setting and policy, however, as mentioned earlier, knowledge and understanding of theories of socialization can also help workers in this area better understand issues facing themselves and their clients. An awareness of whose interests are being served in relation to practice performed by workers with their clients can only work to ensure continued practice evaluation. An understanding of the conflicts in values and norms which many young people may encounter can help workers when making judgements within their own practice with regards to what is ‘right’ as opposed to ‘correct’.

One example of the above could be the possible conflict experienced by young people between the values and goals seen by individuals around them, and perhaps by the young people themselves, as fair and just, and the means available to them to embrace such values or achieve such goals. Sociologist R. K. Merton’s (1938) theory of anomie addresses this experience of conflict, and suggests that if a society places great emphasis on achieving goals, and less on the appropriate means to obtain them, then an individual’s ‘commitment to approved means – and thereforeconformity to social norms – may be eroded’ (Fulcher and Scott 1999: p.49). Merton argues that the rift between culturally approved ends, and the means of attaining them, which he refers to as a situation of anomie, can result in individuals resorting to inappropriate means to achieve goals which they, along with the rest of society, agree are worthy. Here individuals have been effectively socialised into the norms and values of appropriate goal attainment, but not so successfully into the appropriate means by which to obtain them. From a conflict perspective, however, it could be argued that the social values placed on goal attainment, and passed on through socialization, do not necessarily serve the best interests of all members of society in the first place. The goal, for example, of buying a large house in an expensive neighbourhood will simply put more revenue the government’s way in terms of council tax than will a smaller property, as well as more revenue to mortgage companies, power suppliers and so on.

This essay has hopefully shown the relevance, and in the areas discussed, the efficiency of structural conflict and structural consensus perspectives in relation to youth work, however, as stated earlier there are obvious limitations to the extent to which such theories are of use in practice, not least because theories, while helpful, are more usefully conceptualised as tools to stimulate thought and discussion relating to policy and good practice. Finally, all theory is limited because the number of variables present in any given situation means that no theory can simply be taken as a model and then applied.

Bibliography

Bilton, T. et al., 1994. Introductory Sociology. 2nd edn. London: Macmillan.

DfEE, 2001. Transforming Youth Work. London: Department for Education and Employment/Connexions. Also available from: Smith, M. K. (2001) Good Purpose [online] Introduction. Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/developing_youth_work/dyw6.htm

Sociology is the study of how society is structured and how people experience life through its processes, directly or indirectly. A basic understanding of social issues helps us to learn how these processes affect us in everyday life. Discussing social issues in sport can help us understand different sociological concepts and perspectives of sport in society. These sociological perspectives can help explain the underlying reality of sports organisations, participation barriers, influence on sport performance, and how to develop strategies to deal with social complexities. Such concepts include that of; functionalism, figuration, class and Bourdieu, conflict and Marxism. Functionalism is a perspective that examines society through a functional framework which stresses that everyone and everything, no matter how seemingly harmful or out of place, serves a purpose. Society is looked at on a macro scale so it generalises ideas toward the whole of society. For example they look at what education does for society as a whole not just certain people in society. Functionalists also believe that society is based on consensus or agreement that we are all brought up to agree on how to behave and what values are right and wrong. Functionalism could be described as the most generalized of the sociological perspectives. It does not distinguish between cultures and it cannot effectively explain change. It also assumes that all social groups benefit equally from sports. The functionalist viewpoint is a distinct contrast to that of figuration.

Figuration is a sociological concept that believes everyone is linked in groups of interdependence, such as schools, families and in the workplace. Sports games are seen as microcosms of social life. For example, a basketball match is in a constant state of flow, with ongoing tests of physical and mental balance between opponents. It suggests power exists only through interconnected relationships and that a stronger competitor still needs weaker opposition to be successful. Due to a more increasingly complex society, there is a greater need for social interdependency, therefore continuing the civilizing process. Unlike the Bourdieu theory, where there are distinct divisions between social classes.

The Bourdieu theory of class and classification evaluates the social world and expresses the division between classes, age groups and the sexes. It believes there is a highly complex system of social positions, structured and fighting for the ultimate goal of control over capital. The field is a competitive system of social relations in an area or place where there is a struggle for power between the dominant and subordinate classes. Capital may be categorized as social, cultural or economic. This sociological concept also explains the use of habitus, a conscious or unconscious train of thought stemming from social origins. It influences the way we act by our common preconceptions. Were it not for the influence of Pierre Bourdieu, the notion of class would be given surprisingly little individual attention in the sociology of sport. In contrast to this perspective, there is the theory of Conflict which resembles some of the conceptions of figuration.

Conflict theory and Marxism is a structural sociological hypothesis, structural meaning that our actions are determined by social forces and structures. Conflict theory explains society as a fight for authority, linking groups that are struggling for limited capital. Karl Marx was the socialist thinker behind conflict theory. He believed that capitalism would in due course be overtaken by communism. This Marxist based theory suggests that the social classes within society are in a constant fight to gain capital, and that the more powerful groups, usually higher class, use that power to exploit those with less power, usually the lower working class, in a bid to stay in control. This will now be discussed further, as a more detailed explanation into Marxism and Conflict theory will be given.

Karl Marx is best known as a philosopher, a revolutionary communist and a social scientist (Burke, 2000), whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century. He believed that capitalism would ultimately be replaced with communism, a classless, stateless society. He thought that society consisted of two interconnecting parts; infrastructure and superstructure, each playing there part in the process. Infrastructure includes and signifies all the power of production. This includes method of production, labour force, the logical and physical abilities of workers and the organization of social classes. Infrastructure interlocks with superstructure, which is the foundation, and which refers to the different forms of societal consciousness, such as; ideology, religion, philosophy and the political structure. As Coakley (2002) reiterates, Marxist theory focuses on economic activities and relations, the infrastructure, and their impact on social institutions, such as politics and culture, the superstructure. Marxist theorists assume that social development is initiated through economic processes, in particular, any change in the system of production. The economic conditions of capitalism involuntarily generate social economic conflict between the owners of production and the workers; this is known as the class struggle for power. Marx believed that this exploitation would become conscious to the working class and unite the people, resulting in the elimination of the class struggle. Marx saw the upward rise of the working class as the driving force of its own freedom. It would be this working class, created and organized into an industrial workforce that would overcome its domination and lead in a society liberated from exploitation and oppression. What the bourgeoisie consequently would produce would be its own downfall (Burke, 2000). In his disapproval of the wage structure and the acceptance of the working class to live with it, Marx explained the need for false consciousness, used by the Bourgeois class and how social life influences consciousness. What Marx meant by this is that the ruling capitalistic class within society reap the benefits because it is very one sided.

Antonio Gramsci was one of the first Marxist theorists to work on the problems of major change in twentieth century western society and to recognize the importance of the battle against bourgeois values, such as an ideological cultural struggle (Burke, 1999, 2005). Marx claimed that one way to help release the stranglehold of the bourgeois on the proletariat was to remove control over education. He assumed that education had been used to reinforce class consciousness and the capitalists system of production and with power wrested from the bourgeoisie, the proletariat’s position would then be reinforced by the promotion of proletarian ideology through education (Carr, 1972). Marx felt that education, as a social institution that imparts values, and by the introduction of free education, this would guarantee a distribution of cultural opportunity. Therefore, no longer would education support class distinctions and capitalist ideology, although in today’s society it does still happen, with private schooling available to those with greater economic capital.

One of the main topics within the study of Marxism is the thought that all social changes result from conflict between existing classes in society. Marxists believe that the main ideology of each society is the ideology of the ruling class. Marx believed that this concept could be applied throughout all of history and would continue to exist, ultimately resulting in a proletariat revolution and the abolishment of all classes. Burke (2000) suggests that what Marx brought was to recognize that the existence of classes was made due to the production or economic structure and that the proletariat, a new working class that capitalism had shaped, had a historical capability in helping toward the collapse of all classes and to the construction of a classless social order, resulting in the creation of communism. Berger (1982) also shows that “history is based on unending class conflict” just as Marx stated. In contrast to this view, Boyne (2002) suggests that class appears to be less noticeably determinant of social action now than was the case just a quarter of a century ago, and that it has even been overtaken in the ranks of social structural influences by ethnicity, economic geography and gender. Marx’s view was complete economic sight. The two classes have interests in common; therefore they are in conflict with those of a whole other class. This is turn leads to conflict between individual members of different classes (Berger, 1982). In addition, Marx did not recognise other systems of classification. The Marx’s perspective only views the classes between employer and employee as a substantial system of classification, and others like; religion, race, and nation, are not included. The reasons behind this being that, Marx believed these social influences were not natural or useful to humans.

It is in the relationship between work and sport that socialist sport theorists draw a strong association. A basic physical relationship is seen between work and sport, in so much that fundamental forms of work activity are repeated in the motor movements of sport. Although the technical development of society is now at a stage where elite sport as a preparation for productive work is no longer necessary in the manner that Marx envisaged it, the approach supporting the relationship between production and sport still exists even though a certain degree of independence is now granted to sporting activity. Through these similarities, sport was used as a capitalist control tool. As shown by Delany T and Madigan T (2009), Karl Marx said that “religion is the opiate of the masses”, this is means that Marx saw religion as a way of dulling the pain of reality by encouraging a feeling that no matter how oppressed of unfulfilled the working class may be, there will be a joyous afterlife for those who endure such inequalities on earth. Since then, a Marxist perspective from Hoch (1972) said that, “Five generations ago, Karl Marx called religion the opiate of the masses. Today that role has been taken over by sports”. He suggested that people were more concerned by baseball and football scores than the Vietnam War at the time. Both views relate, as both are social institutions within society, and the realisation that sports is in the age of the spectator and consumer, giving an escape from reality that some people crave during everyday life.

The bourgeois as a social class, is defined by Marx as those with ownership of capital and power. Therefore, they do not agree with the Marxism concept, simply because a communist society would not be beneficial to them in anyway, showing that those with power and influence do not wish to share or lose it.

Sport, just like society, is an ever changing institution that has grew and moved on with the times. Sport is not the same kind of activity in the advanced capitalist societies of the late twentieth century as it was in the pre-capitalist societies of the seventeenth century. As Jones (1988) states, in the early stages of industrialisation sports was a diversion, but more than that, it was linked to rules and hierarchies of an established social order, as well as often a release from them. The society reinforcing sport was very different to today’s democratic interests and commercialised lifestyle. By the twentieth century football has become structured and pacified, despite the hooligan element. It has become a spectator sport, controlled on a national basis and is a fundamental aspect of today’s consumer culture. It is a necessary distraction in their lives. For millions of people, participation in sport offers an escape from the hard work of everyday life, and something that they benefit from. For many others, watching sport live or more so these days, on television, gives both a release from workday stresses and allows a straightforward and easy identification with sports athletes or sports clubs which offer them satisfaction in their lives.

Football related disorder, or what it is more commonly known as, football hooliganism, is a kind of behaviour ranging from verbal abuse and aggressive posturing through to rioting and even murder. Such things have been a regular topic of many books, DVD’s, web sites, digital games, features films and documentaries in the UK over the last two decades. Although this subject has been portrayed in many ways in recent history, it is a very real concept, and can be explained by many theorists relating to sociological issues. As shown by (Dunning, E. Murphy, P. Williams, J. 1986) the early works of Ian Taylor, from a Marxist point of view, states that the rise of the football hooligan stems from the boursification and internationalisation of the game, and that clubs used to be the working man’s voice or resistance movement against the middle class groups seeking to gain control and to implement their middle class values on society. It was believed that spectacularisation of the game through pre match shows, better seating and increased commercialisation alienated the working class fans. A largely similar approach was developed by Clarke (1978), he argued that hooliganism originated in the way in which the traditional forms of football watching encounter the professionalization and spectacularization of the game, saying it was a consequence of the changing relationship of its audience and the game. He also believed that due to some sub cultural differences, young working class males needed to resolve essential conflict in their lives, so in turn choose hooliganism.

Over recent years, professionalism has been increasingly associated with sporting organisations. Clubs and sporting organisations must perform well financially, or at the very least remain viable, if they want to survive in the highly competitive world of commercialised sport. Elite sport has developed into a business that demands nothing less than specific, professional preparation. As Shilbury and Deane (2001) suggests, institutions must now conform to commercial process of professionalism, which give emphasis to minimalist inputs, business decision making and a keen awareness of the financial interests of the shareholders.

Wilson. B (2007) argues that sport has become increasing globalised and transnationalised to a point where it is possible to analyse a team or individual athlete from any country in the world and be constantly updated of their activities, even from the side of the planet. He also points out the effects that it has on the sport related cultures around the world, not to mention the increasingly realized potential and means of promotion of a capitalist agenda. This shows the capability of the media and the internet to internationalise or globalise almost any brand, allowing a capitalist ideology to be explored globally.

In sport today there is an unhealthy and unequal distribution of resources, this can easily be seen when comparing economic growth between sports in Britain. For instance, football in Britain far exceeds any other sport in economic growth and in media coverage. You only have to look at the sports section in almost any newspaper in the UK, to see that is dominated by football. This is especially true when you consider the number of games broadcasted across television and the increasing need for internet streaming, all of which results in a huge financial difference between football and other sports in the UK.

Burke (1999, 2005) suggests that Gramsci identified two rather distinct forms of political control, domination and hegemony. The domination refers to direct physical force by authorities, and hegemony, which referred to both ideological control and more importantly, consent. He assumed that no rule, regardless of how authoritarian it might be, could sustain itself continuously through state power and force. In the long run, it had to have popular support and legality in order to maintain stability. Even in real life today, the capitalist governing body are desperately seeking a revival to the current economic crisis, and are looking to economic business for recovery. As Woods (2009) proposed, the governing class are concerned about the social and political effects of the economic situation. That’s why they invest huge sums of money into the economy, which creates exceptionally large levels of debt. As people know, sooner or later these debts must be repaid, and that in itself is a recipe for an enormous crisis in the future.

The theory of class conflict explains the human social history between two classes, the exploiting and the exploited. As Marx explained, in the interests of the bourgeois, ownership of the means of production enables them to employ a system of exploitation to a large mass of wage workers, the proletariat, and usually out of necessity the workers go along with this system as they have no means of livelihood other than to sell their labour to the property owners. Marxists argue that new wealth is created through work, therefore if someone gains wealth that they did not work for, and then someone else has to work for it and they do not receive the full wealth created by their work. In other words, that someone else is exploited. This is how the capitalist bourgeois might turn a large profit by exploiting workers. An example of this is shown in work by Hickman (2010) where it is suggested that many of today’s top brands such as; Nike, Puma and Adidas, were found to be exploiting low wage labour workers from developing countries to a means of economic production. This can also be shown in sport through the form of child labour, which gained a lot of attention recently when extensive media coverage reported that sporting goods manufacturers were using underage child labour in a range of developing countries, the children were paid much less than the minimum wage and were used to manufacture footballs and football merchandise. The news was extremely damaging to the sporting goods industry, especially because the children would never have the chance to use any of the equipment manufactured in the factories. This evidence shows that children are being openly exploited in the sports industry and that large divisions of the industry remain unregulated. As shown by Keys (2010), child exploitation has been ongoing since the late eighteenth century, just to sustain the capitalist class and produce their economic surplus value.

The theory of Marxism does contain strengths and weaknesses in relation to today’s society. As is derived from Marxist principles, the increase in production in all areas of socialist life is extremely important to the success of socialism. Physical education contributes effectively towards increasing the total work output of the socialist community. The progressive development of socialism depends upon the socialist consciousness of each individual. Sport provides a good means for the development of political assurance because of the possibilities it provides for social training. Marxism can be also be viewed in a good light simply because some people, like to know there place in society as it gives them a sense of the order of things, it also gives good opportunity for personal growth. Although, the Marxist concept does show a number of weaknesses, especially as some of their views may be outdated in today’s society. The industrial proletariat described by Marx is undeniably a threatened species, particularly in western societies, in which heavy manual labour is increasingly a thing of the past. To the extent that most adults can be described as workers in terms of their relationship to the means of production, Marx’s original understanding of the idea of a working class becomes less tenable. Students relate how their parents have worked all their lives. That they also earn large amounts of money and acquire considerable social status from their occupations, so this does not necessarily invalidate the claim that they are, workers. The Marxist perspective also ignores the possibility that spectatorship or participation in sport can empower individuals within capitalist societies. Furthermore Marxism only gives an exclusive focus on economic factors and underplays the significance of non economic types of conflict, for example; gender, race, age, sexual orientation and ethnicity.

Socialisation is a fundamental sociological concept as it is the way we learn to be a functioning part of the society we are in, how to become a member of the group. Socialisation starts from the moment we are born and there are many arguments that help to show how such socialisation is a continuous process. It continues throughout our lives to help us fit into and be accepted into the many groups within society that we encounter during our lifetime or to just adjust to the changes in our existing community. Although an Important social topic that affects all members of society at one time, widespread mainstream literature concerning gender socialisation is difficult to come by.

As mentioned, socialisation starts from the day we are born, the very start, so to help understand socialisation as a whole, developing an understanding of some of its parts is helpful. For this piece of work I shall be focusing on gender socialisation and the impact it has on an individual’s socialisation into society. The concept of gender socialisation helps us to understand how the notion of gender, what is expected of individuals as males and females in society and how much it matters. Throughout examining literature for this topic I hope to gain a better understanding of what academic sociologist have to say on this topic. The aim is to try to Identify important factors that impact gender socialisation and what literature is current on a similar topic. Has there been a change in attitude to such gendered socialisation and the idea or construction of gender? What are these and how are these developing; I.e. gendered parenting/modern schooling? I also would like to explore nature vs. nurture/boy vs. girl/male vs. female. What are these titles and how are they explained in a sociological way. I hope to gain a greater concept of gender theories and what is already known about my chosen topic.

To help to develop my understanding of sociological explanations for gender socialisation I have approached several academic texts to help guide and aid my understanding. The first book that I revised is The Paradoxes of Gender (1999) by Judith Lorber. Written by Feminist and sociologist Lorber I found that this book challenges the basic idea we may hold of gender and its construction. Lorber argues that gender is a social fact constructed wholly by socialisation. Lorber also notes that gender is also a social institution, comparable to religion, the economy and the family as with it follows consequences and social significance. As a feminist Lorber’s work focuses on the need for gender and how it is an inevitable fact that is important not only for the identity of an individual but also for society’s construction. While I initially focused on Lorber’s Text for a main point of reference I also followed up with works such as Women, Men and Society (1999) Renzetti and Curran, The Gender Trap (2012) Emily W Kane. These texts form the primary reading for this lit review. I supplemented these with more classical theory books such as Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Classical Sociological theory (2006)

What is gender socialisation?

There are many different theories of how gender socialisation happens and how/when it occurs. To help understand gender socialisation, an attempt at a definition is helpful. In its simplest form gender socialisation is how an individual learns and accepts the expected gender norms and values of the culture and society they are born into. Through this education they begin to develop a sense of identity and their ideas of gender become internalised and guide their behaviour. The Paradoxes of Gender (1994) attempts to explore all areas of Gender and the influences they have on gender identity and wider gender influences.

To help with gender socialisation there are ideas within the wider concept that help to make up a person’s gender socialisation. Lorber sees Gender norms as a set of ‘rules’ appropriate for males and females; they are a set of expectations these expectations help to dictate how men and women are labelled, and therefore how they should behave. The ‘rules’ and expectations follow on to become internalised and help to forma gender identity, which leads us to the second point highlighted to help gain an understanding of gender socialisation; Gender identity. Sociologists make a clear distinction between gender and sex. A persons ‘sex’ is biological determined and gender is culturally learnt. Gender identity goes beyond just recognising the physical biological gender characteristics belonging to male and female and identifying them from each other. Gender identity is in fact an internal personal conception of how an individual view themselves as male or female. ‘Gender cannot be equated with biological and physiological differences between human males and females. The building blocks of gender are socially constructed’. (Lorber 1994:17)

How gender socialisation impacts Individuals life choices.

Gender socialisation impacts all areas of social life and therefore does in fact make it an important topic of study. The way an individual is socialised in terms of their gender has an overall impact on daily life including that of social self, self-concept and the way we conduct personal relationships with others and the perceptions we make. Family, friends, social peers and outside uncontrollable sources are all agents through which socialisation occurs. Religion, mass media education and pop culture are becoming ever increasingly influential over socialisation and how an individual views themselves in respect to their gender. Boys and girls are treated different right from birth, this treatment is often primarily from members of their own environment, such as their parents, siblings and extended families, and the way they are treated helps them to learn the distinction between being male or female. ‘Most parents create a gendered world for their new-born by naming, birth announcements and dress. Children’s relationships with same-gendered and different-gendered caretakers structure their self-identifications and personalities’ (Lorber 1994:25).Similar to The Paradoxes of Gender (2004), Men, Women and Society (2002) also addresses the many aspects of what we see as gender. One of the most interesting research topics explored in this book is the concept of how outside choices influence a child’s gender socialisation. This is quite often transmitted through simple gestures such as the selection of gender based toys or giving a child a gender based task ‘Research does show that children express gender based toy preferences as early as one year of age, but their toy ‘choices’ may have been inspired even earlier by parental encouragement’ (Renzetti and Curran1999;74). These seemingly insignificant acts do in fact play a large part in the socialisation of children, and as a result how they develop their gender identity, and therefore their ender socialisation. A common theme throughout all the literature based around gender, explore varying influences on what is gender and how it constructed.

Nature vs Nurture vs gender identity.

An influential and on-going debate amongst sociologists is the argument of the importance of nature vs. nurture in terms of gender socialisation. This ever evolving debate attempts to discover how a biological identity differs over individuals social surroundings to develop a gender identity. A biological and genetic gender identity fuels the ‘nature’ area of debate whereas society and external influences help to form the idea of ‘nurture’. Many argue that to efficiently form an active gender identity, there must be a significant influence from either nature or nurture, but the question continues as to which is more influential, if either. In the Journal article The Nature of Gender Udry attempts to distinguish between what is sex; and what is gender. ‘Gender is the relationship between biological sex and behaviour; a theory of gender explains the relationship. A gendered behaviour is the one that defines sex’ (Udry 1994;561). This idea and the theme of this article help to highlight my initial argument about discussing how gender is a social construction. Sex is a given but a person’s gender can be perceived differently dependant on how they behaviour. My project will attempt to further this idea by looking into how this behaviour is shaped and learnt.

Children start to come into contact with such norms that define what it is to be masculine or feminine. What is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour is placed upon them in both conscious and unconscious ways. Young boys are taught not to show high emotion, to be strong and powerful whereas girls are showed how to be forgiving, docile and ‘ladylike’. If a child shows to be going against such expected ‘norms’ then there is the chance that they can expected to be ostracised from their community or culture, or treated badly. In exceptional circumstances some cultures limit access to basic human rights such as nutrition health care. The treatment of genders in some cultures can also help to reinforce a separate gender identity, for examples in many third world cultures, girls have both different legal and ethical access to education so therefore go on to expect to be treated differently from boys, all based on their gender identity. Toy selection and clothing although seemingly innocent can in fact play a crucial part in gender socialisation. ‘Clothing plays a significant part in gender socialisation. As children become mobile, certain types of clothing encourage certain or discourage particular behaviours or activities’ (Renzetti and Curran 2002; 70) by this Renzetti and Curran refer to the idea that the way a child is dressed can influence their expected gender identity. For example a female child dressed in a soft, flowing or lace detailed dress would be expected to behave more soft and gentle compared to a male child in Denim jeans who would be accepted for rough and tumble behaviour.

The Psychological and Biological explanations for gender.

To develop a greater understanding of sociological explanations for gender socialisation it is also important to compare and contrast the arguments raised to those of another discipline. As Urdy notes it is important to consider new schools of thinking as social science stems from such thoughts. It is also impossible to study ‘gender’ without noting the biological differences of human beings. ‘Gender has biological foundations’ (Udry 1994 ; 571)

One of the most prominent theories about gender acknowledgement comes from the school of psychology. Sigmund Freud’s work focused on the importance of childhood and the experience that children experience that children gain throughout it, especially in relation to their gender. Freud noted that gender development is an unconscious experience that occurs through forming a bond with a parental figure. Although this project will focus on primarily the sociological explanations for gender socialisation many texts touch upon further academic disciplines who discuss the construction of gender. It is therefore important to include such references into my project, due to the reference through the literature I have reviewed.

Society’s expectations.

Society’s expectations of male and female positions within society have also changed over time. Throughout this project I hope to investigate the suggestion that societies tolerant of the changing gender of identity of females has become more positive. A rise in females in the workplace, taking on stereotypical male occupations (fire fighter, police force, and, engineer) and asserting dominance in regards to their position throughout society. Family socialisation can be seen to encourage female children to display characteristically ‘male’ but male children are often scorned from displaying any stereotypical female behaviour. Girls are accepted even if they prefer to play with male orientated toys, if they were trousers or show an interest in ‘rough and tumble’ but if a male child played with baby dolls or wore a dress may experience more negative reaction from society. ‘Parents, through primary socialisation, can be seen to be more likely to encourage their daughters to these masculine qualities then allow their sons to display feminine qualities’ (Van Volkon 2003) Here Van Volkon gives weight to the importance primary socialisation, through their family can have on a child. The role of women is seen to be changing in contemporary society, but does this mean that the main social gender identity is getting left behind?

Conclusion.

Looking at gender sociologically helps to reveal societal and cultural proportions of something that is generally thought of as biologically fixed. It helps us to understand how individuals are in a new viewpoint and to help raise and in the end answer new issues and debates surrounding gender. Throughout this project I hope to uncover answers to sociologically questions such as is gender culturally learnt? I am also interested in uncovering how important, or how much influence the family have on gender socialisation, especially in relation to children and childhood. To help with this the work of Emily Kane in The Gender Trap (2012) has proved useful. By conducting Interviews and observations of families, parents and children this literature helps to give empirical backing to the texts I have read throughout this review.

Gender socialisation and how it is understood is an ongoing sociological question. Above is a brief overview of what literature I have found useful to attempt to study the subject of gender socialisation. As society can be seen as every changing I am interested in what such change, if any has on the construction and notion of gender. As understood throughout the literature reviewed modern institutions, such as education and the family, have great influence on society and how its individuals are taught how to ‘fit in’. Ideas and the construction of gender are constant with more radical forms of socialisation occurring i.e. gender neutral parenting and its societal impact. Not all the literature I have come across has proved useful to my project research, but this has allowed me to learn mistakes that previous research uncovered and helped to give my research direction and fresh thinking for future research. Throughout wider reading, I have concluded that using more contemporary sources and academic texts helped to give my research weight and productive reference.

Introduction.

The aim of this paper is to examine the influence that family has on gender development and the socialisation process. It will focus on how family influence can affect the construction of gender identity in children from birth through to the first year in primary schooling, around 5-6 years of age and also how the process of socialisation impacts parents. I shall attempt to examine both primary and secondary influences that can shape the gender identity of a family.

The first part of this paper shall look at how becoming a parent can force an individual to have an influence on the gender identity of another and how this process may change their existing gender identity. Secondly this paper shall attempt to examine how the primary socialisation process impacts female children compared with male children.

Society and its actors view the world through a series of lenses: those lenses can include class, race, age and gender. Society is full of stereotypes and the expectations that come with them. Social actors have little choice but to be subjected to learning these expectations and to submit to the influence they have on their personal identity. From childhood to adulthood our identity is constantly being reinforced as to what our culture and society wants and sees as acceptable. These stereotypes are expected of everyone but in fact may not be fair to all members of society. As they move through childhood, children are influenced by those that they interact with and are taught right from birth what it is to be a ‘successful’ member of society.

To understand the sociological concept concerned with the construction of gender, it is important to comprehend first of all the factors that influence one’s gender construction. The continuing aim of this paper is to show that it is possible to identify different areas of gender socialization, which vary in their impact on children and those around them, which are essential to build up a gender identity. The best way to understand the concept of gender is to gain a basic knowledge of the concept it. From a structural perspective, gender is seen as the division of individuals within a society into contrasting and complementary social categories; ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ into ‘men’ and ‘women’. In this conceptualisation, gendering in the process and a gendered social order can be seen to be the product of some kind of social construction (Lorber, 1994).

Gender based norms can be defined as what we expect from males and females within society whereas gender stereotypes can be seen as how a society generalizes these expectations. Gender based stereotypes are generally first thought of being taught in the home, which are later reinforced by peer interactions, education and schooling, as well as widespread media contact. It can be seen that the family unit does in fact have the largest influence on a child’s gender development. Their family members, parents in particular, overtly and covertly teach their child gender roles and reinforce the ideas of gender that they hold about themselves. Both socialisation, primary and secondary, cultural expectations and given biological attributes are all seen to influence an individual’s gender identity and as a result has a significant effect on their personal identity.

Vuorinen & Tuunala, (1997) noted that ‘Socialisation is the process, through which the child becomes an individual respecting his or hers environment’s laws, norms and customs.’ (pg45) From this, socialisation can be seen as a fundamental sociological concept and therefore is an important area of analysis. It is the way that individuals learn to be a functioning part of society and how to become an accepted member of the social group in which they are living amongst. Socialisation starts from the moment we are born and it is seen as a continuous process. It carries on throughout our lives, to help us fit and be accepted into the many groups within society that we encounter during our lifetime or to simply adjust to the changes in our existing community. The ‘educational’ function that Murdock refers to, can also be termed ‘socialisation’. The family has the responsibility of transmitting a society’s way of life, norms and values to the younger members. This function is an important one as, without culture, the society could not survive, and too much deviation from the norm would disrupt the stability of the society.

Classical sociology has also be long concerned with the process known as socialisation. Talcott Parsons (1959) has written about the functions of the family and identified two functions that he perceives as being ‘basic and irreducible’. For Parsons, the family provided primary socialisation of children and as a result, produced the stabilisation of the personalities within adults amongst wider society. [Haralambos & Holborn, 2000, p.509]

How children become socialised into different characters can be based on their sex. Through this more focused form of socialisation, boys and girls are repeatedly taught what it means to be male or female and what gender roles will be expected of them is termed gender socialisation (Giddens, 1993). Although it is an important social topic that affects all members of society at one time, widespread mainstream literature concerning gender socialisation is difficult to come by.

There are many different theories of how gender socialisation happens and how or when it occurs. The two main theories I shall touch upon within this paper are social learning theory and as a follow on to this, social identification theory. These two theories are concerned with the development of gender identity and attempt to explain how the environment around an individual can influence their personal and social gender identity. Social learning theory proposes, established by Bandura (1971) that both gender identity and gender role are learned through a process including observation, imitation, punishment and reinforcement. On the other hand, social identification theory developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979) as a response to Bandura is based upon the notion that an individual portrays certain behaviours or an identity that reflects the social group to which they belong, to help them adapt and adopt the ways of the group.

In its simplest form, gender socialisation is how individuals learn and accept the expected gender norms and values of the culture and society they are born into. Through this education they begin to develop a sense of identity and their ideas of gender become internalised and guide their behaviour. The mass media, wide spread social norms, environmental factors such as living conditions and even language distribute the stereotypes which influence social behaviour and therefore what is expected from gender in society. These external factors contribute to categorizing members of society and placing social label upon them. Examples of labels can include race, class and most importantly for this paper, gender. A shared stereotype is when an expected behaviour or conformity is mutual and accepted by all members of the social group, the way that individuals interpret this label determines how well they are accepted into their social group.

Such gender stereotypes can be seen as a set of ‘rules’ appropriate for males and females. These rules help to guide how males and females are labelled by their social group and indicate how they should behave, expectations become internalised and form an individual’s gender identity. Separate stereotypes are linked to male and female members of society, with no two overlapping. Men are seen to be strong and emotionless whilst women are expected to show their emotions and are seen as submissive and gentle. For example, if a woman is seen to cry at an emotional moment in a movie, in a public cinema for instance, no individual around her would glance or question it, but if a male viewer was seen to cry openly and express such intense emotion, he may be exposed to ridicule or judgement. How fair this situation may be is often debated. For this paper the question of how such judgements occur will attempt to be answered. Why have social actors been encouraged to accept such stereotypes as a given? Why do individuals therefore find themselves accepting these roles for themselves?

To understand gender identity it is important to make a distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. ‘Sex’ involves the biological and physical differences between men and women, whilst gender is culturally and socially learnt. Terminology such as ‘male’ and ‘female’ are sex based categories; however ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are gendered categories. An individual’s sex is a biological fact that is the same in any culture or society, nonetheless sex categorisation means, in terms of gender role as ‘man’ or ‘woman’, can be viewed extremely differently across cultures ( WHO 2013). These gender roles can have a lasting impact in an individual’s public and private identity. Although often used interchangeably, sex and gender are clearly different characteristics. Gender involves social customs, attributes and behaviours whereas sex can be seen as a more personal demonstration of such characteristics. In its simplest form sex is biological and gender is sociological.

‘Gender role’ is seen sociologically as the characteristics and behaviours that society can attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a ‘real man’, in any society requires a male to be both recognised biologically as a man plus what the culture of that society defines as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a ‘real woman’ needs biological female attributes and feminine characteristics. Such stereotypical features are clearly defined for each sex, with those who break such ‘guidelines’ being seen as deviant, outcasts in their given society. This paper will look further into what are expected gender behaviours and the sociological explanations for these expected personas.

Gendered differences can depend on the given society and the cultural values, economic system, history and family structures that it holds, and are thoroughly maintained through these mediums. As a result of this a continuous ‘loop-back effect’ between so called gendered institutions and the social construction of gender within individuals can be seen to exist (West and Zimmerman 1987)

Gender identity goes beyond just recognising the physical biological gender characteristics belonging to male and female and identifying them from each other. Gender identity is in fact an internal and personal conception of how individuals view themselves as male or female and therefore how they conduct their actions within society. ‘Gender cannot be equated with biological and physiological differences between human males and females. The building blocks of gender are socially constructed’ (Lorber 1994:17).

As a social group, communities are embedded with gender, all members experience gender constructed experiences throughout their childhood, adolescence and eventually adulthood. These experiences are reproduced in and through those that they interact with. To what extent individuals accept the expected gender roles they are shown is debateable although no matter how much or how little they see themselves as masculine or feminine, gender can still influence their day to day existence.

British sociology saw the only significant form of stratification within any given society was that of class. The term gender wasn’t mentioned in early sociological thought, with any reference to difference between men and women categorised and referred to as ‘sex’. Sex being considered as an important and influential sociological concept only came into consideration with the emerging and developing feminist perspectives of the 1970’s. Feminists had to fight through traditional theories to change existing thought on the concept of differences and inequalities brought about by an individual’s gender and sex identity.

Socialisation is a fundamental sociological concept and can be applied to many areas of society that are seen as important to sociological study. As highlighted earlier, socialisation is defined as the way in which an individual learns to become part of a group, including wider civilization, as well as their small immediate environment and community. Socialisation begins the moment an individual is born, and they encounter different degrees of the process throughout all their life stages in order to help them adapt to each and every social group they encounter. Socialisation also helps to equip a social actor with the tools they need to cope and bend with any changes that may occur within their existing social group. Given the importance of socialisation within the discipline of sociology as a whole, concentrating on a focused area of socialisation can help with building a general knowledge that can be applied to further study of sociology and its topics. Gender is something that is experienced and encountered by all members of any given society and there are many different theories about what exactly affects an individual’s gender socialisation, but this paper shall focus on early socialisation and the influence family life can have in the socialisation process.

Parental influence on gender identity

A child’s initial experiences come from their parents; therefore as a result their first experience with gender identity also comes from their close family environment. With the advancement in technology, expectant parents can learn the sex of their unborn child as early as 14-16 weeks into a pregnancy (nhs.co.uk). From that moment the words ‘it’s a boy/girl!’ leave the technicians mouth, gender expectations begin. The most innocent of tasks such as buying a baby’s first blanket is gendered. A pretty pink flowered one for your baby girl is associated with the expectation that she will be soft and delicate, whereas purchasing a vivid blue truck covered blanket for the soon to be baby boy, can be seen to set him up to be strong and tough. Associating such gender traits in a simple act may seem extreme but it is just the start of teaching a child what is expected from their gender.

The process of gender socialization can be seen to begin in the context of the family (McHale et al., 2003). The family unit is the environment that a child is introduced to the world in and what their developing gender demands. Although many factors are seen to have an influence on the socialisation of a child and teaching them what is expected from their gender, parents are seen to act as the principle source of socialisation, the primary socialising agents of a child’s gender roles. (Block, 1983; Witt, 1997).

Studies have shown that gendered treatment of children is evident in the first 24 hours after birth. Children internalize what they see from their parent’s behaviour and by the age of two, they have a compressive awareness of the difference in sex roles. Ruble and martin (1998) studied preschool children whose socialisation had only occurred at home (primary) and saw that children showed awareness of stereotyped gender traits. They could recognise males as having a higher power them females, but also associated negative connotations with a male figure, such as anger or unfriendliness, whereas they saw women as having less significant social standing but associated with positive traits such as kindness and approachableness.

Children also demonstrated to discover gender identity through their own gendered perception. For instance, when asked to assign a sex or gender to a neutral doll, a girl would use female associations similar to them, whereas a boy child would make the doll into a male and demonstrate traits that are associated to society’s masculine gendered attributes. Parents are seen to encourage such gendered behaviour by adhering to sex-based toys and games for their children, which have a heavy influence in the construction of gender identity and stereotypes. While both mothers and fathers contribute to the gender stereotyping of their children, fathers have been found to reinforce gender stereotypes more often than mothers do (Ruble, 1988). Lytton and Romney (1991) conducted a meta-analysis of 172 parents and their treatment of the boy versus girl children they were raising. Within this study, Lytton and Romney discovered that out of multiple identified socialisation areas; the only area that showed mothers and fathers treating children differently was giving them activities based on their separate genders. Giving boys and girls activities initially based on their sex, resulted in an enforcement of gender roles and becoming gender orientated. Encouraging their daughters to play house or with dolls and prams, or by allowing their sons to play with trucks or building blocks, parents may both knowingly and unknowingly be encouraging their child’s future gendered persona.

Perhaps due to an influence of western culture norms, Lytton and Romney saw that parents scold and punish boys more severely in the advent of misbehaving or going out of their gendered expectations, then that they do with female children. This idea shall be further explored in a later section of this paper.

A further study, this time by Cowan and Hoffman (1986), saw that a child’s first words are also seen as gendered. For instance, being taught to assign a different name to each of their parents, mother for female carer and father for male carer, demonstrates how parental influence takes place. Hoffman also noted that the

Critically examine how sociology discusses social interactions (or social relations) and the role these interactions play in shaping the notion of self and/or identity.

Social interaction involves people communicating face-to-face, acting and reacting in relation to each other using verbal as well as non-verbal cues. Every social interaction is characterised and dependent on people’s distinct positions in terms of their statuses, their standards of conduct – or ‘norms’ – and their sets of expected behaviour – or ‘roles’ (Furze et al., 2008: 115). Furze et al. identify three major modes of social interaction, each of which is not without its limitations. This essay will suggest that perhaps there is a need for a refinement or refashioning of existing approaches to the study of social interaction due to such limitations. In addition, the inexplicable link between notions of the self, individual identity and the social realm will be established, namely through the work of Richard Jenkins.

Exchange theory involves social interactions which trade in attention and other valued resources. As an important social force that cements social interactions, it is a competitive exchange of resources. People communicate to varying degrees to extract some sort of benefit from interactions, one that is often of an economic nature. For example, a brief everyday interaction between a supermarket shopper and the cashier could be subject to this theory.

Rational choice theory describes how interacting people will always try to maximise benefits and minimise costs to themselves. That is, everyone wants to gain the most from their interactions – socially, emotionally, and economically – while paying the least.

Dramaturgical analysis describes the way in which social interaction involves a constant role-playing, an approach that was first developed by sociologist Erving Goffman (1959). He likens the presentation of the self in everyday life to that of actors in a theatre. We are constantly engaged in role-playing which is most evident when we are ‘front stage’ in public settings (Furze et al., 2008: 127). We learn, socialise and adopt roles so that we know what is considered acceptable behaviour in the public domain. We take these on through the various institutions of socialisation, such as the family, the school and the media, for example.

Furthermore, Goffman’s analysis problematises Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of power, practice and conflict theories of social interaction. Conflict theory emphasises that when people interact, their statuses are arranged in a hierarchy and the degree of inequality strongly affects the character of social interaction between the interacting parties (Bourdieu, 1977). On the other hand Goffman implies that such cues can be manipulated and misinterpreted. For example, a luxury car may signify wealth but if it were in fact stolen property then its public impression contradicts the actual status held by its owner.

These theoretical frameworks for social interaction, then, are important to sociology because they have been developed in an attempt to explain how we live with each other in various forms of social relations. The idea of face-to-face relations is a much broader idea now than, say, around 20 years ago where avenues for social interaction such as the Internet and mobile phones were. It is mostly structured around norms and status we carry, for example. The ever-increasing popularity over the past five years of Internet Social Networking Sites such as Facebook and Twitter, for example, complicate Goffman’s notion of the front stage-backstage binary.

The notion of the self in an early historical sociological view was that there was a separation between society and the self. C. Wright Mills (1959) as well as Emile Durkheim in the example of suicide maintain that, certainly, the public world (socio-cultural world) and the private self are always interconnected (Geary, 2009). We are shaped by a specific set of forces which locate the self in and of particular sets of circumstances and this is what is what is referred to as the process of socialisation. We develop a sense of self by how we perceive the other.

Identifying ourselves or others is a matter of meaning, and meaning always involves interaction: agreement and disagreement, convention and innovation, communication and negotiation (Jenkins, 2004: 4). Identity formation, then, is almost always already part of social and cultural relations or interactions. To identify the self and the so-called other person, according to Jenkins, relates to the way meaning-making impacts on us, as well as the way we alter such meanings. The individual and the collective are routinely entangled with each other and the three approaches – exchange theory, rational choice theory and dramaturgical analysis – outlined by Furze et al. are some examples. These must accommodate the fluidity of identity and notions of the self.

Why do you think the U.S. is characterized by more inequality and fewer public efforts to reduce inequality than any other developed nation?

Capitalism cannot provide a decent standard of living for all, but as long as it can provide a tolerable standard of living for substantial layers of the population, it can maintain social stability. Recent studies have shown that the “middle America” begins to feel insecure, which points at the inevitable social problems.

The average salary is the salary, which includes both the income of the richest and the poorest. This amount is far from real wages of most Americans. According to the latest statistical review, in the period after 1998, when the U.S. economy grew by 25%, the average salary of one fifth of U.S. residents fell by 3.8%, while the salary of the rest remained at 1973 level (Hurst 132-34).

While the economy was rapidly growing, this prosperity has not affected the middle class, not to mention industrial workers and the poor. Along with the freezing of income of the middle class, social inequality was growing. Since 1973 the annual revenue growth of 1% of the richest was 3.4%, and for 0.1% of the richest it was 5.2%. But for the remaining 90% this figure was 0.3% per year since 1973. Leaders of large companies were earning 26 times more than their employees. Now they are earning 300 times more (Crompton 98-102).

According to experts, children from families with low income have a 1%chance to get rich, while children of the rich have 22% opportunity. For the middle class the figure is 1.8%, not much more than for the poor. The middle class of America is more and more afraid to become poor. Families face a decrease in their incomes. The number of families, whose income fell to $ 20,000, has increased from 13% in 1990 to 17% in 2007 (Hurst 206).

Unemployment in the U.S. has reached the highest level over the past 20 years. Average duration of unemployment is 18 weeks. And, most often the unemployed have to accept a new job with less pay.

House owners (about 70% of Americans), after paying taxes, have to give 11% of their income for mortgages. Today, these people are insolvent. Today the average American family with two working spouses has to work for 32 weeks to pay taxes, medical insurance, credit for housing, and education. In 1979, they needed 28 weeks. After all these payments, such a family has less means for basic needs than in 1980. In the current economic situation, an average American feels much worse than 25 years ago (Hurst 57-60).

An average American works longer and harder than before just to make ends meet. And one increasingly has to take loans, family debt reached 120% of family income. Private pension funds are extremely small. Moreover, now pensions begin to be paid only after the worker invests a certain amount.

In this world richest country 45% of Americans have no pension program. Only 20% have a guaranteed pension. The same situation is in health care. The number of uninsured people reached 16%, i.e. about 45 million Americans will not get treatment if they get sick.

Despite all the efforts, most of the U.S. social problems do not disappear. Obviously, these are the negative effects of economic growth that exist in almost every post-industrial society.

Moreover, the distribution of wealth including personal property and shares has not changed in the U.S. for 200 years. Tiree and Smith managed to obtain data on the taxable property of persons who had permanent jobs in Philadelphia in 1789. Comparing these data with the distribution of income in 1949, 1959 and 1969, they found a completely equal distribution of wealth in these two periods. Both, at that time and today, dealers and persons of intellectual labor were richer than the workers and clerks (Hurst 89-93).

Since 1982, profits of American capitalists have grown considerably. This was achieved by reduction of salaries of workers, and increased exploitation. Thus, the rate of added value grew up while investments into new equipment have been reduced to minimum. Therefore the returns were growing.

Inequality of income distribution remains in American society despite various changes in the economy and many programs helping the poor. The privileges are established for those who have the power in any societies. People with high status often have a very visible political influence, which they can use to their advantage.

In the 1960s, the President Lyndon Johnson declared the war against poverty. The weapons of this war were tax cuts, retraining programs, educational programs and increased benefits. These actions were important, since it was estimated that between 1965 and 1975 the number of families below the poverty line was less than 5% of all families. However, since then many of these programs were reduced or abolished in order to stabilize the government budget. More positive results of programs have been undermined by rising unemployment and an increase in the number of poor families with single mothers. Therefore, in the U.S. there are still many poor families (Hurst 248-49).

How is social stratification a creation of society rather than simply an expression of individual differences.

The question of why there is social inequality is central in the study of society. It has two strikingly different answers. The first one was given by the conservatives, who argued that the unequal distribution of social benefits is a tool for solving the major tasks of society. Supporters of a radical approach, by contrast, sharply criticize the existing social order and believe that social inequality is a mechanism of exploitation of individuals and is associated with the struggle for scarce products and services.

According to the functionalist theory of social inequality, stratification exists because it is useful to society. Davis and Moore argue that social stratification is not only universal but also necessary; therefore, no society can exist without stratification and classes. The system of stratification is required in order to fill all the statuses that form the social structure, and to give the individuals the motivations to perform duties associated with their position. In this regard the society must motivate people on two levels (Crompton 57-59):

1. It should encourage individuals to take various positions, since not all the duties associated with different statuses, are equally useful for the human body, equally important for social survival, and require equal abilities. If the social life was different, the position would make no difference, and the problem of social status would be considerably smaller;

2. When these positions are occupied, the company should awaken in people a desire to play the relevant role, because the duties associated with many posts are considered as painful and in the absence of motivation many would not manage to do their roles.

These social realities have led to the view that society should have certain benefits that can be used as incentives for their members, and the mode of distribution of these benefits among different statuses. Inequality is the emotional stimulus that society has created in order to solve the problem of filling in all statuses and make their owners to do their best to fit the role. Since these benefits are built into the social system, social stratification may be considered a structural feature of all societies.

On the basis of the economic model of supply and demand, Davis and Moore concluded that the highest paid positions are those occupied by the most talented or skilled workers, as well as functionally most important ones. Thus, separate individuals who hold high-paying jobs, should receive remuneration, otherwise the post will remain unclaimed, and society will disintegrate (Crompton 115-122).

On the other hand, a person is born in a privileged or unprivileged position. For example, almost two-thirds of managers in 243 large U.S. companies have grown up in families of upper middle class or upper stratum of society. Basing on similar data, advocates of conflict theory claim that society is organized so that individualsaa‚¬a„? rank is determined by birth and does not dependent on their abilities and characteristics of the society (Hurst 206-219).

Advocates of the conflict theory believe that the stratification of society exists because it is profitable to individuals and groups with authority over others. While functionalists identify common interests of members of society, conflictologists focus on the differences of interests. From their point of view, the society is an arena where people are fighting for the privileges, prestige and power.

The theory of conflict is based largely on the ideas of Karl Marx. He argued that to comprehend the mechanism of a particular economic system one must know what preceded this system, as well as the processes that contributed to its development. According to Marx, the level of technique and method of organization of production determines the evolution of society in general. At each stage of history, these factors determine the group, which will rule in society, and groups that it will obey. Possession of means of production is only one source of power. Another source is the possession of means of control over people. The role of bureaucracy in society (exclusive control of national income and national wealth) gives it a special privileged status (Crompton 87-94).

Even in modern developed countries, individuals can flourish without property. Much of the power is provided by the position in large transnational corporations, rather than property. Employees do not merely possess a relatively small property, but their influence lasts only as long as they occupy a certain position. A very similar pattern is observed in the government. In this case, no class exists in isolation and independently of the other classes.

Sociologists are divided on the sources of social stratification, but they are united in the fact that social inequality is a structural aspect of the modern life of the whole society. Speaking about the structuring of social inequality, social scientists mean not only the fact that individuals and social groups differ in the privileges they have, prestige they receive, and power they possess. Structuring means that inequality in the society is institutionalized as a system. Inequality is not formed at random, but in accordance with the repetitive, relatively consistent and stable models: it is usually passed down from generation to generation, for which the individuals and groups with the benefits usually find appropriate ways (Crompton 54-58).

How do caste and class system differ? How are they the same? Why does industrialization introduce a measure of meritocracy into social stratification?

Inequality exists in human societies of all types. Stratification can be defined as structured differences between groups of people; the society consists of layers located in a hierarchical order, where the privileged layers are closer to the top and the underprivileged ones are at the bottom. However, class and caste systems are different in their essence (Crompton 41-43).

Caste system is primarily associated with the cultures of the Indian subcontinent, and is presented by four main classes (varnas), differing in the degree of social prestige. Below these four groups are the “untouchables”. There are also jatis in the caste system: local marginalized groups within which the division into castes takes place.

The caste system is very complex, and its structure varies from region to region, but it shares some common principles. Brahmins, forming the highest Varna, represent the highest degree of purity, while the untouchables represent the lowest one. Brahmins should avoid certain contacts with the untouchables, while only the untouchables are allowed to have physical contact with objects or animals, which are considered unclean. The caste system is closely linked with the Hindu concept of reincarnation, under which people who neglect the rights and duties of their caste should be born in their next incarnation in a caste, which occupies a lower position. In the Indian caste system, an individual is not allowed to move from one caste to another during his life (Crompton 65-72).

The concept of caste is sometimes used outside the context of Indian culture, e.g. in cases, when two or more ethnic groups are separated from each other, primarily for reasons of racial purity. In such circumstances, there are strict taboos (and sometimes legal prohibitions) on intergroup marriages. After the abolition of slavery in the southern states of the U.S., the level of disengagement of black and white population was so strong that the term “caste” is sometimes used for this system of stratification. There are also reasons to speak about the existence of caste system in South Africa, where rigid segregation remains between whites and blacks and where interracial marriages were until recently forbidden by law.

The class system differs from the caste system in many aspects. Let us consider the four of these main features (Crompton 105-113).

1. Unlike other types of strata, classes do not depend on legal or religious orientation. The class membership is not associated with the congenital status, whatever it was determined by – by law or custom. The class system is much more mobile than other stratification systems; the boundaries between classes are never clear-cut. Formal restrictions on marriages between people from different classes do not exist.

2. The class membership is achieved by the individual, at least partly, and is not simply “given” at birth, as in caste systems. Social mobility is distributed more widely, while in the caste system, an individual move from one caste to another is generally impossible.

3. Classes are related to differences in economic status groups, with inequality in the ownership of physical resources and control, whereas in caste systems, the leading role is played by non-economic factors (such as religion).

4. In caste stratification system, inequality manifests itself primarily in the personal relationships of people, in the difference between rights and responsibilities (Brahmin-Harijan). In contrast, class system is manifested mainly in the large-scale relations of impersonal nature. For example, the essential foundations for the class division are the differences in working conditions and payment, which relate to people of any category and, in turn, depend on the situation of the economy as a whole.

Thus, classes can be defined as large-scale groups of people with similar material resources, which in turn determine the lifestyle they lead. Class differences primarily depend on the welfare of people and kind of occupation. In modern Western society, the following main classes exist: the upper class (rich people, businessmen, industrialists, and the upper stratum of managers who own or directly control the means of production), the middle class (which includes the majority of white collar workers and professionals) and the working class (aa‚¬A“blue collaraa‚¬? workers, or people involved in physical labor) (Hurst 327-333).

According to Weber, the division into classes is determined not only by the presence or absence of control over the means of production, but also by economic differences, not related directly to the property. These determining factors primarily include skills and expertise that affect the ability of the person to perform a job. People belonging to the categories of professionals and managers are also working for hire, but they earn more and have better working conditions than the workers. Qualification certificates, degrees, titles, diplomas and trainings place them in a more advantageous position in the labor market compared with those who do not have the relevant qualifications (Crompton 93-98).

Thus, the concept of status in the meritocracy society is associated with varying degrees of social prestige of social groups. The distinctive features of the exact status can be changed independently of the class division. While the class affiliation is an objective feature, the status, in contrast, depends on subjective evaluations of social distinctions by individuals.