Category: Free Essays

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

My family’s story

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

My view

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

Family disruption or economic loss

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Review

This literature review focuses on literature regarding Sumer and the Sumerian

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

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

United States and the current criminal justice system.

Discussion
Sumerian Creation Story

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

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

Sumerian and United States: Social Class

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

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

Sumerian and United States: Criminal Justice System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

helped keep the social order.

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

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

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

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

attributed to neighborhood social disorganization stemming from urban structural

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

There are several differences between Sumer and contemporary American society.

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

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

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

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

have different goals and objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

class by getting an education and accumulating greater wealth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Rationales for Government involvement In Post Secondary Education

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

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

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

III. Estimating Private and Social Returns to Education

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

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

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

III. Social Returns to Education

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

A. Innovation, knowledge creation and economic growth

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

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

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

B. Knowledge spillovers

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

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

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

C. Non-market effects of education

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

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

effect of wifes’ schooling on husband earnings

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

effect of educ on own health and spouse health

effect of educ on consumer choice efficiency, labour market etc

effect of educ on charitable giving and volunteeractivity

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

D. Intergenerational effect

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

parental educ on a number of child outcomes including

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

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

child abuse and neglect are also associarted with parents educ

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

children of less educated poarents generally cost more to educate

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

E. Health and longeivity

child health is posivitve related to parents educ

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

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

F. Criminal Activity

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

lower crime rates

G. Civic participation

correlation between educ and voting is high .

higher educ is also associated with greater charitable giving and volunteerism

trust and participation

educ raises the quality of peoples involvement in the society

H. Tax and transfer returns

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

FLEMISH EDUCATION, BETWEEN MERTIOCRACY AND EGALITARANISM
By: Ides Nicaise

I. A Century of Reforms- without much success

social inequality in education still exist in flanders

compulsory educ until the age of 18

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

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

Two Basic Views of Equality

Meritocracy

Egalitarianism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

innate abilities – genetically determined

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

personal preferences and effort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is wrong with meritocracy?

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

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

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

Egalitarianism: a relic from the communist era?

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

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

Absolute rights do indeed apply to ” basic goods

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

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

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

Principle of positive discrimination- priority given to disadvantage

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

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

Trojan Horse of the Lower Classes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro

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

Social Equality in Education

Current educ system filters, segregates and reproduces social inequality

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

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

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

2. Equal Opportunity Strategies

Integrated approach to poverty, inequality and social exc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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