Category: Free Essays

In this essay, we will be explaining and giving the definitions of prejudice and discrimination. Also, we will go in depth and elaborate about the various kinds of discrimination in today’s society such as gender, disability, size, looks, monetary, status, education, sexual and racial discrimination. After which, we will give solutions and ways to reduce racial discrimination in Singapore. Finally we will end with a round up of conclusion.

Prejudice and discrimination is a rising issue in today’s society. According to Dictionary.com, prejudice is an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. Discrimination is the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

To be prejudiced is to have a cultural mindset and that is relied on negative or unpleasant stereotypes about individuals or groups because of their ethnic, religious, racial or cultural background. To discriminate is to have an active denial of desired goal from a certain group of people. The group can be based on sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion, language, or even class. More recently, disadvantaged groups now also include those based on gender, age, and physical disabilities.

Prejudice and discrimination are very common at both the individual and societal levels. Any attempt to eradicate or solve the problem of prejudice and discrimination must thus deal with prevailing beliefs or ideologies, and social structure.

Gender-

There are many types of discrimination. Gender discrimination, also known as sexism is very common. In most societies, women have been viewed as the ‘weaker sex’ who is in constant need of protection from the rough world. Women are more delicate by nature compared to men, and are often victims of physical, emotional and psychological abuse. Gender discrimination does not only apply in communities and sometimes families but also a lot of times in workplaces. In Chinese Culture, boys are more wanted than girls as they can pass down the family name. According to BBC news, around a million girl fetuses are aborted and tens of thousands of girl babies are abandoned in China, every year. A boy will bring status and he will also continue the family line. Families also throw big celebrations for baby boys while neglecting the less-wanted girls. The preference for boys is tied up in the Confucian belief that male heirs are necessary to carry on the family name and take care of the family spirits. A Chinese family worries that if there is no son no one will look after them and keep them company in the afterlife. Confucius once said, “There are three ways of being disloyal to your ancestors. Not carrying on the family name is the worse.”

In early Japan, there is large gender discrimination. They have a saying that goes “men as breadwinners and women as homemakers”. Even after Japan introduced the Equal Employment Opportunity Law in 1985, which prohibited discrimination against women in employment and urged employers to treat women equally in terms of recruitment, job assignment and promotion. But, they are still the last to be rehired in a full-time job. Japanese women are also expected to quit their job if they have children. Even if companies are facing a shortage of workers, they had no plan to try to hire more women. Women have to work twice as hard as man to advance their careers because of the prejudices within Japanese companies. Their university education is roughly the same as those without an upper secondary education. In 1997, statistics show that Japanese women hold only 9.3% of professional positions, compared to 44.3% in the United States. Women’s income is only 45%of men’s even though they make up 64% of Japan industry.

Females appear to be less strongly oriented toward personal terminal values than men, but more strongly oriented toward moral means.

Also in sports, especially soccer, where female officials/referees are slowly introduced to the male side of the game are being discriminated. One such example was Andy Gray, a former footballer, popular football pundit and commentator. He was British television channel Sky Sports main pundit since 1992. However, he was fired after he was found to made sexist comments and made offensive gestures to a female co-presenter. He had commented, “Can you believe that? A female linesman. Women don’t know the offside rule.” in which his fellow presenter, Richard Keys replied, “Course they don’t. Somebody better get down there and explain.” during a post-match show when they thought they were off air. In another show, he was caught on camera( in which it was edited out later on) tugging his pants and asking his female co-presenter Charlotte Jackson to tuck the microphone into his pants. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3371091/Andy-Gray-sacked-over-sexism-row.html)

In Singapore today, Gender discrimination while still existent, is less obvious.

Disability –

Besides the various types of discriminations stated above, there is also a discrimination against the disabled people. Having a ‘disability’ means that a person has a physical or mental impairment. This in turn has a substantial and long-term negative effect on one’s ability to carry out normal everyday activities. Disability discrimination occurs when one is treated less favorably because of their disability as compared to someone without a disability. This is known as direct discrimination. There are cases in which people with some form of disability are treated differently, or are victimized. People who are not disabled laugh at the disabled because of the way they walk or talk. These people gang up and make fun of the disabled. They belittle them, and feel satisfied with themselves. The disabled are not able to do anything about it because there are too many people treating them that way. There is also indirect discrimination where everyone is treated equally, but by treating everyone equally, the disabled is put to a disadvantage. This is more subtle and may also be unintentional. An example would be when there are stairs to enter a building but a person with a disability might not be able to use the stairs and may need a ramp.

Size/looks –

Being of a different size or looking different may also be a form of prejudice and discrimination. Often during first meetings, people are judged on first impressions, and first impressions are all about the visuals. Many a time people are discriminated against just because they are “too fat”, “too skinny” or “not good looking enough”. Society has set a standard where everyone wants an ideal body and face. This is known as the golden ratio. The ratio of “(foot to navel): (navel to head)” is the golden ratio of the human body. A person’s face has to be symmetrical and have “nice proportions” to be considered good looking. There is a reason why plastic surgeries are in demand. While applying for jobs, people are required to attach photos of themselves. More often than not, the people who are better looking tend to get the job as compared to those who are less good looking. Then there is the case of body size. People tend to make remarks about fat people and fat jokes. An example would be “Yo Mama So Fat” jokes, which is very common. Even though different cultures have a preference for people of different sizes, everyone in general prefer slim to fat.

Monetary/financially-

Financial discrimination is when people look down on others that they are poorer than them. This will affect them if they want to find a job, get a rent or buy an apartment. People tend to look at the appearance to analyze whether you are rich or you are poor. For example, salesman will normally look for people that are trendier from those who wear clothes that seem old and tear. Service staff of well-known brand in some regions might not serve or even come up to you if they think that you have no money to pay if they let you try. So, what is the point to spend so much time to serve you?

In United States, there is a case that they are discriminating against the blind people by refusing to make money readable for them as they think there do not have the need. They don’t go out a lot, there does not have many chance for them to use the notes. Even for the device that is specially made for them to differentiate the money is expensive. At the end, blind people have to folding their bills in different positions to tell them apart. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/395668/financial_discrimination_against_the.html?cat=15)

Financial discrimination also involved the low-waged workers. In a way that large number were paid lesser than the minimum wage that they should get and they had worked overtime without pay. When they get injured in the work place, they had to pay the bills themselves instead of having compensation from their company. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112506238)

Status/Education –

For status discrimination, most of this happens in the work place. We can see lot of who butter up status that up high and despise those who have low status than them. Everybody wants to get to a higher place. For these people that have status discrimination in mind, they normally think that this is a short cut and time saving way. For lower status in the society, they are always afraid of offending the people of the higher status. This is because they can’t afford to spend the money to fight cases with them.

We can also see employer refuse to hire people that have foreign name, speaks with accent, from another country or even locals who does not have a high level certificate. Competition is getting higher and higher in the work place.

Nowadays, it is the certificate of education that decides the fate of status in society. Without a certificate, you will get no jobs.

In Singapore, there are several foreign domestic worker abuse cases. Many do not know how to speak English and many doesn’t know where to seek for help.

There are also many cases about children bring their parents to old folks homes and do not care about them anymore, or old folks being abuse because they are a burden to the family.

Sexual discrimination (gay/sexual orientation) –

People often get confused between gender discrimination and sexual discrimination. While gender discrimination is biased opinions about the female/male gender, sexual discrimination is about their sexual orientation.

In society today, talking about homosexuality is still an uncomfortable and touchy topic. While it has progressed from the past where homosexuality was illegal and you could be hanged for admitting that you were a homosexual, it has now been legally acceptable to pronounce yourself one. However this does not stop the community around you to form perceptions and opinions about you.

The 2 main places where Sexual discrimination is most evident are in schools and the workplace. In the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), homosexuals and effeminate men are managed according to the dictates of a manpower directive issued. Probably its most well know classification is Category 302, a medical code given to servicemen who are “homosexuals, transvestites, paedophiles, etc.” homosexuals are further classified into those “with effeminate behaviour” and those “without effeminate behaviour”. This form of discrimination persists despite the fact that homosexuality was depathologised by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, and homosexuality is not regarded as a psychiatric condition by the local medical profession. More so, the categorization of homosexuality with transvestism and paedophilia by the SAF further backs up the public’s wrong impression that it is abnormal.

During the enlistment for Nation Service, any self-declared or discovered servicemen who are homosexual are immediately referred and sent to the Psychological Medicine Branch of the Headquarters of Medical Services for a thorough psychiatric assessment. After which, each of their parents are to come in for an interview. Once they are catagorised as a homosexual, they are instantly medically downgraded to a Public Employment Status of C (PES C), regardless of their level of fitness, and put through modified Basic Military Training. After Basic Military Training, they are deployed into a vocation which has no security risks, posted to non-sensitive units and given a security status which restricts their access to classified documents. (http://knol.google.com/k/discrimination-against-homosexuals-in-singapore#Singapore_Armed_Forces)

In Singapore, while being homosexual is legal, same-sex marriage is not, and any acts of indecency between two people of the same sex, will have you charged. Singapore being a diverse nation, which encourages harmony between different race, religion and background does not have as many Sexual discrimination cases as compared to America. In fact, according to BBC News on 16 May 2009, there was an event help by pinkdot.sg to commemorate love in all forms and between people of every orientation. The event was for Singaporeans in general – to affirm our respect for diversity and the freedom to love, regardless of sexual orientation.

Figure : 2,500 pink-attired supporters of gay rights, in a Singapore park.

“We recognize that many Singaporeans are conservative… so we planned an inclusive event that would reach all Singaporeans, straight and gay,” organizer Mr Soh says.

Racial –

Racial discrimination is the discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race, also known as Racism. Where most countries do not condone Racism, it is still exists and has become a stereotype in society today.

In the US, many laws forbid racial discrimination, and a number of these are directly derived from Title VII in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The first of these acts makes manifest that employers cannot refuse to hire qualified employees based on race or skin color, and they can’t do other things like harass them for race, refuse promotions, or pay them at lower rates. The 1991 Civil Rights Act defines some ways that people who have experienced racial discrimination can sue.

Till today, racial discriminations still exist, especially in workplaces where largely foreign workers are employed (mostly Chinese nationals, Bangladeshis and Indian nationals). Faced with language barriers and already lowly paid, they still have to follow orders and listen to vulgarities being thrown at them by their local employers and superiors. The same can be said for domestic helpers, where there are numerous reports of physical (and sometimes sexual) abuses by their employers and agencies.

Solutions that can be used to reduce prejudice and discrimination in Singapore
Education

It not right to judge someone base on his or her race. They might look different from others but they are still human. In order to make people minimize discrimination, it is better to start from the younger generation because they are the future. First step is to take down “the Special Assistance Plan( a programme that is catered to students who achieved the top 10% of the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE)) school system” (Aaron, 2006). This school system concentrate on Chinese education as there are so many Chinese students and that most of these schools has rich Chinese traditions and history (eg, Hwa Chong Institution). Therefore, how can the racism be reduced in schools like this. Furthermore, government schools should also include religious subject in their system. In addition, universities should also organize some events that relates to intercultural exchanges. This will give an opportunity for students of any nationality to study different cultures.

Workplace

The company should take “racially and culturally staff” (Strategies for Reducing Racism, 2001). It is not only for worker and for employee but also apply for management or director. Talk to different people from different cultural and try to figure out what is problem that they have meet. By doing this, the organization will know what they need to do to improve better working environment for their employees. Moreover, try to put different pictures of multicultural so none will feel isolate. Furthermore, there should be a special team to solve any racial problem in the workplace. This group can also come up with some activities for employees so everybody can get closer to each other.

Race

In Singapore alone, the government has implemented racial harmony. It was in 1964, that Singapore went through 2 five-day periods of racial riots. First in 21st July and second was in 2nd September. The minority of Malays in Singapore had thought that they would benefit from the special rights for Malays that was part of the 1957 Federation of Malaya Constitution when Singapore merged with Malaya. However, it was not part of the agreement of the merger that the special rights were applicable for the Malays in Singapore as well, causing unrest among the Singapore Malays. Reason being that then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had wanted equal rights for all Singapore citizens, regardless of race.

The riots that broke out in the 2 dates resulted in lives lost and many injured. (http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_45_2005-01-06.html)

And so, on 21st July, which was also the date that the first racial riot broke out in 1964, is celebrated as Racial Harmony Day, in which inter-racial harmony is emphasized and celebrated in schools which students are allowed and also encouraged to dress up in traditional costumes of races other than their own.

As most Singaporeans stays in HDB flats, the government have also implemented certain racial quotas for certain flats so that there is a balance between races in a neighbourhood. For instance, certain flats are only allowed to be bought by a certain race. If so happens that the owner of the flat wishes to sell the flat, the buyer would have to be of the same race as the previous owner so that there is always a balance in the races within the area.

Because of this rule, there are many cases whereby neighbours of different races have inter-cultural exchanges during festive periods. Like how an Indian neighbor share their homemade delicacies with their Chinese neighbour and vice versa.

Locality

Welcome new people no matter where they come from, give them some flower or small gift with nice saying such as “It is nice to meet you; I hope you will enjoy living here”. In this way, everybody will act equally with each other and there will be no prejudice or racism. Another way is that some family can even put the sign with the writing “All race are welcome here”. By doing this, the new people will feel just like at home.

Individual

People do not have to make a group in order to reduce racism. People can minimize discrimination by themselves. Just be nice and be polite to everybody. Be brave to stand up again racial discrimination, read book or research about racism on the internet. Talk to those who still a victim of discrimination so people will understand more about this issue.

Media

As Racial Harmony Day is only emphasized in schools, it can also be spread through the media like radio, television, movies, etc, so that both young and old can be more educated about the importance of racial harmony. Having Racial Harmony Day in school is not enough as the younger generations could still be influenced by others around them especially family members and neighbours. Even though the older generations might have grown up with different races in the older kampong days, there still might be possibility that they have prejudices against other races due to conflicts that might have happened in the past.

Conclusion

After looking at prejudice and racial discrimination in Singapore, there is still a lot to be done even though it is a multi-racial society as it is still very much a predicament in Singapore. Through our solutions such as more inter-cultural exchanges outside of schools where the government is only implementing the racial harmony idealism, in my opinion, racial harmony must still be educated to each and everyone regardless of age so that everyone knows the importance of racial harmony.

Bibilogy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1506469.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8054402.stm

http://aaron-ng.info/blog/racism-in-singapore.html

The main purpose of this study is to identify the gender difference in preference of being single and married in The Mines. The study also aims to investigate the relationship between male and female perspective toward being single and married and male and female preference of being single and married.15 male and 15 female from The Mines in Selangor were involved in this study. The study was conducted using quantitative approach where questionnaire were used as the instrument to collect data. The data were then analyzed using Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. The preliminary analysis of the data revealed that most of the men prefer in single life for all 20 statements that has been mentioned in the questionnaire and most of the female prefer married life for all 20 statements that has been mentioned in the questionnaire. The implication and suggestions from the result of this study will be discussed.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the background of the study, problem and its significance, and the scope and the limitation of the study.

Introduction

Being single can be dramatically different from living married. Marriages conventionally characterize the commencement of a family, but living single generally indicates that you are free to do what as you please. The dissimilarity among single and married life vary from very little to very huge, but there are a few difference that serve to illustrate the preference between male and female. Responsibility is one of the issue influencing the preference among male and female. Whereas living single is just self-responsible, living married are responsible for partners. While living single, a people only think of himself, but married people think their partners and children. Single people want to live the life as an exploration and they want to discover new things but married people cannot do it. Single people do not take responsibility, but married people take responsibility as spouse in their life. Married couples uses more time discuss the future such as how to save money, what kind of occupation choices to make and what time to start thinking about children. Living married will concern more with future capability to raise family compare to living single which do not have to be bothered about much beyond monthly expenses. Single people only are as an individual in the life, but married people are as a husband or a wife or a father or a mother in the life. The life is effortless for single people; on the other hand the life gives more responsibility and complicated for married people. Being married is like a second job. You ought to toil at it for it to be flourishing. Married couples need devoted time to communicate with each other and assist one another with their physical and emotional demands. For this reason, married couple generally devoted less free time to hang out with friends or watch the most up-to-date movie. A single person have more free time but also might realize that the free time is not that pleasurable since there is no one to spend together. Once a person get married, the person no longer an independent entity. You might keep your occupation and your relationship is first-rate, but start from your wedding you must all the time think as a husband and wife. What you have decide affecting your future together. Whatever things you purchase have an impact on both of your finances. Whatever thing you do must be well thought-out from your wife or husband’s point of view. When making a decision in single life, you only have to consider your own welfare, but you are also lack of the emotional support that makes complicated decisions easier to bear. Being married can have considerable financial benefits, on the other side, it also can be pretty pricey. Living a married life receives a tax break and get advantage from the ability to share their financial resources. Mortgage and rental fee are shared. Living single do not receive tax break and only responsible of their own living costs. On the shortcoming for married life, living in single life can spend money whenever and wherever when you see fit without have to worry about a mad spouse.

Problem Statement

There are a lot writing about gender roles in marriage life. For men, married life means a better life style, since they have a woman to take care of them. However, this is totally different for women. According to Betty Friedan the dream image of the young American woman is “suburban housewife” .Just as prescriptive journalism of the 19th century geared to the middling classes emphasize the stereotype of that women’s role in culture as wife and mother, the 1950s saw an perfect achieve in magazines, books journal, article, movies, advertisement and songs, that illustrate the middle-class, white woman satisfied only by a blissful marriage. There was an article from a popular research of 1960 offered a sociological study of the about one-third of American adult female whose lives not match with this domestic norm. Based on consultation with married and single women, and a host of “experts”, the author detailed the “frenzied” mating efforts of women who tried, but failed, to marry as well as the unpleasant emotional effects of being single. Even though the data presented that single women could live happily-sometimes even happier than those who are married-the article’s abstract stress on “frantic hordes of unwed women” persistently looking for husbands perpetrated a stereotypical depiction at odds with some of the statistics and testimonies quoted.

Objectives of the study

The main objective of this study is to examine the gender difference in preference of being single and married. More specifically, the study is conducted to fulfill the following objectives:

To investigate male and female perspective toward being single and married

To investigate male and female preference of being single and married

To investigate the relationship between male and female perspective toward being single and married and male and female preference of being single and married

Significant of study

Nowadays, there are decreasing in number of married people. There are certainly differences of single and married life in it. In the single life difficulties affect a single person, but married life difficulties affect more people and so that harder the life for married people. People prefer more single life than married life such as freedom and responsibility reasons. Based on this study, the researcher want to find out what is the other reasons affecting these differences, the researcher could have some idea to change the perspective of male and female toward being single and married. Hopefully, this research could help to raise the number of married people in the society nowadays.

Definition of Terms

For clearer understanding of the terms used in this study, below is their meaning:

1.5.1 Married

‘It refers to the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.’ (Merriam Webster, 2013)

1.5.2 Single

‘It means unmarried; of or relating to celibacy; unaccompanied by others.’ (Merriam Webster, 2013) Chapter 2

Literature Review
2.0 Introduction

This research is about preference of married life and single life among men and women. Working through psychological articles and journals, five relatively research journal and articles are found. Below are the summary of each articles and journals.

2.1 Single versus Married Life

“Each of single and married life has its advantages and disadvantages at different times and they both definitely take a different way of thinking to take pleasure in. Married couples over and over again wonder how it would be like to be single again; on the other hand single people spend immeasurable time searching for their companion. So, which is better?”

Perry Berryman examined that the major advantages about being married is finally there is someone start building a stable life with you, someone who has made a vow to you. Gone are the days of pretending, you can be real self, because your other half will find out the truth slowly. You also start being respecting from the other who treats marriage as a rite of passage into adulthood. “If the marriage is good and stable, it will make you a stronger person and get through all the trouble and difficulties since there is a supportive partner in your life that is a constant (although not perfect). On the contrast, freedom is one of the advantages of being single. According to Perry Berryman, the disadvantages of both lifestyles vary from everyone. “If you involved in a bad marriage then single life will seem like a relief. Likewise, if you can’t find a partner to spend free time together, then you will probably feel abandoned, loneliness are around you and upset no matter how successful your life is. The key to evaluate the differences is actually in get pleasure from the lifestyle you owned while you have it. (Berryman, 2012)

A married person pays significantly less when dealing with the expenditure of living in contrast to a single person. Married couples advantage from both federal and Society Security when it comes to the living wages. When people were single, they tend to waste money on things like gym membership or accessory; however, once they get married they are less likely to waste on these things. Because there are some heavy expenses that appear with marriage. Retirement appear to be more of a reality in married life, people saved a number of of their earnings for retirement. On the other hand, living single does not start saving for retirement until their 40’s. (Hampton, 2006)

According to Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher (2011), they studied the physical, emotional, sexual, and economic benefit that marriage provided to individual and society as a whole. “Today a wide agreement say that marriage is not a good deal for female; when parents are discontented, divorce is better for children; and that marriage is, for all intents and purposes, a personal choice, not a public institution. They completely disagree with these statements, compete instead that by a broad range of index, in fact, being single or divorced is not as good as being married- physically, materially, and mentally. They compete that married people live healthier, longer, earn more income, mount up more wealth, feel more achievement in their lives, get pleasure from more enjoyable sexual relationships, and have happier and healthier children than those who remain single, cohabit, or get divorced.” (Linda J. & Maggie, 2011)

“Diehard romantics say love has no price, but a pair of European economists goes up against this statement. In 2002, they calculated the financial value of marriage at $100,000 annually.” (Financial Times) According to Conger, people are putting off marriages later in life than ever before. The regular age of getting married was continue going up 90 percent more single-person households existed in 2005 than in 1970. Researchers have shown that married people are more likely to live healthier and earn more income than single. A marriage also appears to increase healthiness. The Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that married people is less likely to drink or smoke heavily, suffer frequent headache and experience from psychological problems than single people. Across nations and racial groups, people report more satisfaction from marriage than occupation, society or wealth. In a survey, 43 percent of respondents who had married reported that they were “very happy”, compare to 24 percent of single people. (Cristen Conger)

“Marriage is one of the most significant institutions affecting people’s well-being and life. Married life enhances sexual relations and promote obligation between partners. This obligation has optimistic effects, for instance on spouses’ wellbeing and their household income.” (Alois Stutzer and Bruno S. Frey, 2003) Here are two explanations why marriage contributes to well-being are put emphasis on (Argyle, 1999): First, marriage provides extra sources of confidence, for example by making available an escape from stress in job of one’s life. It is gainful for one’s personal identity to have more than one leg to stand on. Subsequently, married people have more chance of benefiting from a lifelong and caring cherished relationship, and experience less from aloneness. For those who are unmarried, people who live together with a partner are notably more satisfied than those who live alone. However, this effect is reliant on the society one lives in. It turns out that people living together in individualistic societies experience more life contentment than single, and occasionally even married, persons. The contrary holds for collectivist societies. (Alois Stutzer and Bruno S. Frey, 2003)

Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction

This chapter describes the research methodology used in the study. The research design, the location where the research was conducted and the description of research subject are described. It also defines the data collection instrument used and the way data was collected.

3.1 Research design

A quantitative approach was followed. Quantitative research is an inquiry into an identified problem, based on testing a theory, measured with numbers, and analyzed using statistical techniques. The goal of quantitative methods is to determine whether the predictive generalizations of a theory hold true. Survey research is one of the most important areas of measurement in applied social research. The broad area of survey research encompasses any measurement procedures that involve asking questions of respondents. A “survey” can be anything forms a short paper-and-pencil feedback form to an intensive one-on-one in-depth interview (Trochim, 2006).

3.2 Research Subject

The definition of population is generally a large collection of individuals or objects that is the main focus of a scientific query (Castillo, 2009). The study population consisted of the married individual from The Mines Shopping Mall.

Convenience sampling method is used in this study. A sample is a set selected from the population of interest and used to make an inference about the population as a whole Haslam and Mcgarty (2003). Castillo (2009) defines convenience sampling as a non- probability sampling technique where the subjects are selected because of their convenient accessibility and proximity to the researcher. The sample consists of 30 agents base on their availability in the right place at the right time. All subjects were willing to participate and gave their full cooperation during the study.

The sample included 15 females and 15 males of married people. Questionnaires were distributed among available subjects until the sample size reached 30. The subjects were people who were willing to participate in the research and met the sampling criteria.

3.3 Research Instrument

In this survey design research, the research instrument used was questionnaire. Questionnaire is a set of printed or written questions with a choice of answers, devised for the purposes of a survey or statistical study. In this study, information was collected through a prepared set of questions distributed personally to the subjects by the researcher.

Survey questionnaire have advantages over many types of surveys. According to Guj (2010), “they are cheap and can easily target groups of interest in many ways and they can be used to target a large audience in a wide geographical area.”

A set of questionnaire was used to collect the data. All of them consisted of close-ended questions to get precise details. Closed-ended questions are controlled by the researcher and are easier to analyze. However, they can limit the respondents’ answer.

The questionnaires were in English only and consisted of two sections A and B. Section A aimed at participants’ demographic data such as age, gender and others. Section B focused on determining the differences between single life and married life. Guidelines for the participants whether to tick the answer were included on the questionnaire.

3.2.1 The sampling criteria

Subjects included in the sample were selected as they meet the sampling criteria set by the researcher. The participants had to meet the following criteria to be included in the sample.

They should be:

Mentally sound in order to be consent to participation

Willing to participate

Either of any sex

Of any race

3.3 Research Instrument

In this survey design research, the research instrument used was questionnaire. Questionnaire is a set of printed or written questions with a choice of answers, devised for the purposes of a survey or statistical study. In this study, information was collected through a prepared set of questions distributed personally to the subjects by the researcher.

Survey questionnaire have advantages over many types of surveys. According to Guj (2010), “they are cheap and can easily target groups of interest in many ways and they can be used to target a large audience in a wide geographical area.”

A set of questionnaire was used to collect the date. All of them consisted of close-ended questions to get precise details. Close-ended questions are controlled by the researcher and are easier to analyze. However, they can limit the respondents’ answer.

The questionnaires were in English only and consisted of two section A and B. Section A aimed at participants’ demographic data such as age, gender and others. Section B focused on determining the differences between single life and married life. Guidelines for the participants whether to tick the answer were included on the questionnaire.

3.4 Research Location

The research was conducted at The Mines Shopping Mall which falls at Jalan Dulang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. It following a major revamp and Fun, Food Fashion & Future as its key messages and core values to provide a better, greater shopping experience to its patrons.

3.5 Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Frequency tables were drawn and from these, the data was presented in pie diagrams and bar graphs.

3.6 Conclusion

The researcher used a quantitative and survey research design. The questionnaires were checked by lecturer after finish prepared. Then the researchers were collected the data of 30 subjects of convenient sample with equal numbers of male and female.

This chapter discuss about the research design such as survey, experiment, and case study. And also learned about types of sampling that including random sampling and non-random sampling. To complete the research, types of questionnaires options like ranking scale or likert scale was required for researchers.

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
4.0 Introduction

This chapter discusses about the findings obtained from the data collected in the form of questionnaires. Pie charts and bar charts were drawn for better analyzing purpose.

4.1 Demographic Data

The data for this study were obtained from married shoppers at The Mines shopping mall. The sample composition was 15 (50 percent) male and 15 (50 percent) female (see Figure 1).Majority of the respondent (60 percent) are Chinese, following by Indian (13 percent, Malay (20 percent) and other races (7 percent)(see Figure 2).Participants ranged in age from 17 through 50 years with the majority of respondent under the age of 40 years (see Figure 3)Participant ranged in income level from RM1000 to RM 4000.The majority of respondent (63 percent) had income under RM1000 or RM1999 .Most of the remaining participants (37 percent) had income more than RM2000( see Figure 4).Majority of the respondent (30 percent) are student, following by employee (23 percent),homemaker (20 percent)self employed (20 percent) and retired( 7 percent) (see Figure 5).

Figure 1: Number of male and female participants in this study.

Figure 2: Races of participants in this study.

Figure 3: Age group of participants in this study.

Figure 4: Income level of participants in this study.

Figure 5: Employment Status if participants in this study.

4.2 Single Life vs. Married Life

Figure 1: Preference among male and female about single and married life.

Figure 1 show that the preference among male and female about which categories does individual prefer. 8 of male respondents were preferred married life while 6 of male respondents were preferred single life. However, that is 1 of male respondent was preferred both that is married and single life. Furthermore, the right side of graph show that the preference among female about which categories does individual prefer. 6 of female respondents were preferred married life while 6 of female respondents were preferred single life. However, that is 3 of female respondent was preferred both that is married and single life.

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
5.0 Introduction

This chapter summarizes the entire research work by coming to a conclusion and finalizes the results. Recommendations will also be given in this chapter.

5.1 Summary of the study
This research was conducted mainly to examine if there is any differences between married and single life. Understanding the similarities and differences between married and single life among gender can help figure out the society is prefer single or married life. This was a quantitative research and the methodology used was survey using questionnaire as the research instrument. A convenient sampling was used to get 30 participants with equal numbers of male and female who are married since the topic is based on single and married life. The questionnaires were handed out at The Mines Shopping Mall.
5.2 Findings
The preliminary analysis of the data revealed that out of 15 male respondents, 8 of male who preferred married life more than single life. However, there are 6 out of 15 male respondents were preferred single life instead of married life. There are several statements where by one of male respondent was preferred both. Nevertheless, the result of prefer single or married life among 15 female respondents were equal which is 6 of respondents preferred single life and 6 of respondents preferred married life. The rest of the female respondents (3 respondents) were preferred both. This result was obtained through questionnaire while conducting the survey.
5.3 Conclusions
The average age of getting married was keep rising nowadays. People do believe the life after getting married would be changing. Responsibility is one of the main reasons of individual who doesn’t wants to get married. While single people are just self-responsible, married people are responsible for their partners. Beyond that, individual would lose their freedom after getting married. They can’t spend all the times with their job or friends but have to spend some times for their partner too. Here are just some of the reasons that people choosing being single instead of married. However, married people might not agree with that. According to the research, we can see that married people are preferred married life instead of single life. The reason could be life has more happiness with their partners, or the life is not that bad as single people aspect. They experienced joyfulness through marriage. So, married people do prefer married life instead of single life.
5.4 Recommendations

The findings in this study may be limited with the time is constrained. It is yet to be verified that whether conclusions reached here will hold in other organizations or countries. It is also much advisable to allocate more time for this study to obtain a more detail and reliable information. A larger sample population should also be taken into consideration. However, the results obtain in this study could be used as guidelines for other as a guideline to study the respond of individual on single and married life.

References

Merriam Webster. (2013). m-w.com. Retrieved february 12, 2013, from merriam webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Bibliography

Alois Stutzer and Bruno S. Frey. (2003). Does marriage make people happy, or do happy people get married? The Journal of Socio-Economics , 22.

Argyle. (1999).

Berryman, P. (2012).

Cristen Conger. (n.d.).

Financial Times. (n.d.).

Hampton, C. (2006).

Linda J., W., & Maggie, G. (2011). Retrieved from http://books.google.com.my/books/about/The_Case_for_Marriage.html?id=ASfw0zU65tUC&redir_esc=y

Merriam Webster. (2013). m-w.com. Retrieved february 12, 2013, from merriam webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/married-people-happier-than-singles.htm
http://books.google.com.my/books/about/The_Case_for_Marriage.html?id=ASfw0zU65tUC&redir_esc=y
http://www.randomhouse.com/book/184776/the-case-for-marriage-by-linda-waite-and-maggie-gallagher/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/married-people-happier-than-singles.htm
http://www.professorshouse.com/Relationships/Dating/Articles/Single-Versus-Married-Life/

http://www.carlhampton.com/Family%20Matters/Marriage_vs_The_Single_Life.htm
http://www.powells.com/biblio?inkey=17-0767906322-0
http://www.purdue.edu/humanrel/contribute_pdf_docs/Relationships.doc
http://www.christianbook.com/the-case-for-marriage/linda-waite/9780767906326/pd/06320

A social dilemma in practice.

A social dilemma (SD) is characterized by the conflict of two possible behavioral properties. In the first one a person is acting in self interest and gains the best outcome for themselves in the short run even though in the long run it will affect them and everyone else. This is referred to as non co-operation. In the second possibility, everyone co-operates to benefit in the long run even though they are tempted to think about just the present moment and that it can give them more as individuals (Van Vugt, Lange et.al 1996).In other words, an individual is tempted to perform a certain behavior, which would profit them in that very moment or give them more in comparison to others, despite the fact that in the long run it would be probably damaging to them and others. Examples of social dilemmas that are quite often mentioned in the media are global warming, water shortage, food shortage and overpopulation. In this essay the main concentration is on overpopulation with factors such as food shortage and water shortage having a great influence on the development of this social dilemma. The concentration of this essay will be on trying to understand how different psychological, structural factors such as cooperation/no-cooperation, group formation, motivation and different theories/games can be of use in understanding or to trying to solve social dilemmas such as overpopulation.

Overpopulation is one of the most serious social dilemmas and one which is growing every day. The word overpopulation sounds as if there is not enough space on the planet; in fact there is plenty of space, however it is space that is not sufficient for living or for producing food or water. The issue is in that overpopulation is responsible for a number of problems in the world today. Problems such as food shortages, air pollution, water pollution and water shortages, amongst many others, influence our quality of life (Sample 2007). The question is, how can the scarce resources be used to provide satisfactory lifestyles, or a lifestyle that is deemed to be at least average, for everyone on this planet if the resources are limited and the population is increasing all the time? How can we prevent the population running out of drinking water due to overpopulation? At present there are around 7 billion people on this planet (Rosenberg 2010). The number of people being born is higher than the number of people dying (Sample 2007). In order to solve the problems that overpopulation is causing, it is necessary to look at how to solve the social dilemma of overpopulation.

There are numbers of unpalatable ways that give the possibility of the population being reduced. These are catastrophes such as a natural disaster, war or disease. One less drastic or controlled way to reduce population is to introduce certain rules which would maintain the population. It would mean that the number of people being born and the number of people dying is around the same, without going to extremes one way or the other.

The very important, and at the same time very difficult if not impossible task, that is facing societies today is how to manage the social dilemma of overpopulation in a way where both collectivists and individuals understand the importance of co-operation. There are a number of possible outcomes in trying to co-operate or not cooperate. The first one is when everyone co-operates and the expected outcomes are accomplished. So with this situation it would mean that every person on the planet would co-operate. The second outcome is where most people co-operate and small number do not. This would mean that depending on the number of people co-operating there is still a chance of getting closer to the desired outcome. In this case, the people who do not co-operate are better off because in our example of overpopulation they would have more children and still have a lifestyle that is acceptable and resources are not depleted. Whereas the people who do co-operate are worse off because they are sacrificing the number of children they have to save depleting resources and the lifestyle people should, on average, have. The last possible outcome is where no one co-operates and the resources are completely used and humanity suffers (Kolloc 1998).

The way social dilemmas are presented to people has a strong influence on their views and approach to it. Literature and research related to SD quite often uses tree mythical stories such as The Prisoners Dilemma, The Public Goods Dilemma and The Commons Dilemma to gain and to provide understanding of how people behave. These three stories explain SD in simple but still striking way (Kollock 1998).

The Prisoner Dilemma is a simple but very effective example of social dilemma. It involves two prisoners that have the option of co-operating with each other by not being aware of the other prisoners’ decision or defecting without talking to one another. Their sentence depends on their level of cooperation. The first option is of both of them having the highest sentence due to defecting (not cooperating with each other), the second is splitting it between both of them by cooperating and the last possible outcome is when one of them is cooperating and the other defecting and therefore the one who was cooperating ends up with a longer sentence than the one who was defecting (Daniel, Arce & Sandler 2005). As mentioned above, in the overpopulation dilemma there are four possible outcomes when it comes to cooperation. In the Prisoner Dilemma the best possible outcome is to cooperate, however the fact that other people do not know what others would do tempts them to defect and come out with the best possible outcome for themselves.

The Public Goods Game is a SD in which everyone can use public goods regardless of whether they contribute or not towards it. People who do not contribute but still use public goods are called free riders. As long as there are only a few free riders it is manageable, but if most people turn into free riders there is no contribution towards maintaining the public goods and the system collapses and everyone is worse off (Dawes 2000). In the overpopulation dilemma the goods would represent for example the limited water or the limited food on the planet to be used by everyone. Rational thinking would say that everyone should be careful with limited resources and use it wisely. This means that everyone has a certain responsibility to produce or provide a certain amount of food and use only the equivalent to what they produce. Therefore if someone uses more public goods then they produce they would be seen as free riders. If there are too many free riders, then this would lead to either other people producing even more then they should to produce for the free riders or eventually there would be not enough food left to keep an acceptable lifestyle.

The Commons Dilemma Game is where a group of herdsmen are using common land for their cows. Every herdsmen benefits from using that land even though by all of them using it the same way the land gets destroyed and they won’t be able to use it again (or at least not for a long time), therefore all of them will suffer (Dawes 2000). In overpopulation for example it can be compared to people using water without any restrictions and wasting it even when not needed. If all seven million (Rosenberg 2010) people on this planet have the same approach and use water even if not needed then the water becomes scarce and the acceptable lifestyle of people on the planet gets affected, or the water just gets all used and people would not be able to live without it.

Game theory argues that individuals are selfish actors that are motivated to utilize as much as possible for themselves. Therefore game theory predicts no-cooperation of an individual in social dilemmas and supports the Prisoners dilemma (Weber et.al.2008). Psychological theories question game theory by suggesting interventions that influence people’s attitudes and beliefs that would guide ones co-operative or non cooperative behavior (Van Vugt et.al. 1996). This could be done by increasing awareness of the problem and educating people on possible outcomes of that problem.

Attribution models argue that peoples’ selfish or co-operative approach to social dilemma depends on how they in general view other people. Their approach depends on whether they believe that people are naturally greedy or cooperative (Weber, Kopelman & Messick 2004), whereas appropriateness models question the fact that people analyze the outcome before deciding on their action. It argues that people tend to make their decisions depending on what other people around them and people important to them do (Weber et.al. 2004). Therefore, the influence would be on motivating people through suggesting that people are naturally caring, cooperative and that the individual’s decision can have either a negative or positive influence on people important to them.

Another powerful predictor is group formation and situation. The way certain groups are run can influence how people behave in a social dilemma. When people feel like they are part of a group and that they are appreciated or have a certain function in within the group, they tend to contribute more towards positive outcomes of their group and consume less from common resources that are scarce (Van Vugt & De-Cremer, 1999, Kramer & Brewer, 1984). The problem is that when social dilemmas involve two or more groups, the likelihood of cooperation is weak (Kerr, 1999). In situations where there are too many groups, electing a leader for each group is of benefit. These leaders would form a group on its own where co-operation and communication is important. These leaders are assigned to control the goods and to effectively communicate within the groups that they are leaders of as well as communicate with the group of the leader that they are part of. While there are plenty of goods, the leaders tend to be voted democratically, however when the resources are scarce, leaders with tough rules tend to be voted for (De-Cremer & Van Vugt 1999). Therefore in the overpopulation dilemma the problem is in how to manage the groups. The importance in managing a high number of groups is in communication and building trust (Osrom 1990). Constant communication within the group and in between the groups reinforces group identity. People are more likely to cooperate if they don’t feel excluded from decision making.

Another possible explanation of why communications seems to be of benefit to co-operation is that it provides moral support and reminds the reasons why cooperation is important and what the benefits of cooperation are (Kollock 1998). However there is a negative side to communication as well. It is possible that certain groups can use communications to find out what the other groups are doing and to promise what they won’t deliver or to mislead the other groups (Osrom 1990). This can lead to selfish behavior of certain individuals or groups.

Reciprocity is a possible strategic solution to social dilemmas. Axelrod in 1984 in his The Evolution of Co-operation supported the benefits of reciprocity by providing support for the Tit-For-Tat strategy. Axelrod argued that enhancing the cooperation and positive long term outcome of people involved eliciting patterns of co-operation (Parks, Sanna & Posey 2003). It is argued that it is wise and that it pays off to co-operate. Research shows that co-operation pays off by creating better opportunities for oneself; people who cooperate are more likely to be preferred as leaders (Dawes et.al. 2000). Individuals tend to differ in whether they prefer to gain by being a part of a group (pro-socials) or if they prefer to be themselves and all gain goes to them (pro-selfers). Pro-socials tend to be more co-operative and less self concerned. They tend to help others and are less likely to cheat (Dijk, Cremer & Handgraaf 2004). Therefore pro-social people are more favorable in being the leaders.

Approaching social dilemma from a structural understanding would mean attempting to solve the dilemma by interventions that change the incentives one gets when co-operating or not co-operating (Van Vugt et.al. 1996). Interventions would involve rules, which would be expected to be followed by everyone (e.g. strict about food waste). By adjusting the environment (trying to come up with solutions for food, water etc.) and by providing reward for those who follow the rules and strict punishment for those who do not.

The dilemma is in making sure that everyone is following these rules. Taking into consideration that it would be impossible to solve the dilemma if we only ask seven billion people to control the population, the more likely way to achieve it as mentioned above is tough group formation. Groups such as continents and countries that would be broken down into smaller groups with assigned leaders to be in charge of controlling the population.

Furthermore, if the members of a group have the ability to punish defectors, it is more likely that people cooperate (Horne & Cultip 2002). Members would not want to be seen as defectors and have everyone against them, therefore they are more aware of what they should do to follow the rules of their group. However, the costs of having someone in place to monitor members’ behavior and to reward or punish them can be quite costly (Horne et.al. 2002). Research (Osrom 1990) shows, that people who tend not to trust others are willing more to invest into regulatory systems and that a considerable number of people do not mind to punish person who defect even if it does not affect their profit (Camerer & Fehr 2006). Some researchers even suggest that the need to punish is an evolved mechanism in humans (Dawkins 1990). Studies show that when there are plenty of goods, groups tend to appoint a leader since they want someone to have a control over the distribution of the goods (Van Vuht et.al. 1999). As mentioned before, when there is an abundance goods, democratic leaders tends to be appointed, whereas when the resources are limited, a stronger leader is appointed (Daniel et.al. 2005). It is important to have a leader that people trust and who is fair in order for the members of the group to accept the leader (Daniel et.al. 2005). Camerer and Fehr (2006) in their research on games related to social dilemmas found that when the games are at the end the co-operation decreases. For example, people would co-operate all the way through with food and water waste, so they are seen as good members, or not defectors. However the closer to the end of the resources they get, they would become selfish and want to accumulate as much for themselves as possible.

Another effective way of co-operation is to keep the groups small. In larger groups members can feel less responsible and can get away with defecting (Kollock 1998). As noted, overpopulation involves around seven billion people from which most of them have to co-operate and as mentioned before a number of groups have to be formed. However, if major groups, for example, are continents and these groups have their own groups of countries, cities etc. than with all the rules followed solving overpopulation should be possible. Another possibility is look at the impacts overpopulation has on water, food etc and divide these into groups of concentration but that would be a completely different approach.

In conclusion social dilemmas provide deeper understanding of human nature and behavior. Through social dilemmas and through the problems that arise with them, humanity learns how to deal with difficult situations and what to expect from people in certain situations, such as when the goods are scarce. In order to solve social dilemmas it is important to consider all the above mentioned factors. The emphasis is on moving from laboratory testing to real life, to look at psychological, structural and strategic solutions all together; to realize that in dilemmas such as overpopulation, rules, groups and understanding how people think play a crucial role without which positive outcomes would not be possible. Both structural and psychological features are important in solving social dilemma of overpopulation. It is not enough to just apply rules and threat as well as it is not enough to just try to educate people, these features have to be combine in order to get close to solving the overpopulation dilemma. Overpopulation is a social dilemma because in theory it is easier to plan how it should be solved, however in real life it is much more difficult if not impossible.

‘Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power’ (Foucault, 1978: 95-96).

In human sciences one of the main issues has always been the relationship of resistance to power. Where there is power, there is resistance; power affirms that there exists resistance and visa versa. But before starting to think about resistance, we have to take in mind that ‘power is no longer considered a unitary, constant force that emanates from a particular social class or institution, rather it is seen as a more tenuous fabric of hegemonic forms’ (Constable, 2007: 11). Foucault (1978: 95-96) questions our assumption that power is always and essentially repressive, he wants to show how power also can be positively in a way that it can produce forms of pleasure, systems of knowledge, goods, and discourses and that it not only works negatively, by denying, restricting, prohibiting and repressing (Abu-Lughod, 1990: 42). The focus within studies of resistance recently shifted from large-scale collective revolts to more unlikely forms of resistance such as subversions and small or local resistances which do not especially aim to overthrow the system and which do not result from ideologies of emancipation (Abu-Lughod, 1990: 41).

Hence both concepts have turned to be more complex than initially supposed, but this makes it even more interesting and more widely applicable to various situations where people try to construct their life within structures of power.

Resistance

The term resistance has been used by many scholars to describe a wide range of actions and behaviours in all aspects of human social life and in different settings. Hollander and Einwohner (2004: 534) illustrated ‘how everything from revolutions to hairstyles has been described as resistance’. Consequently following from the diversity of actions and behaviours which used to be named as resistance, they found in their analysis of the concept that there is little agreement on the definition (ibid: 234). Therefore it is important to outline the range of characteristics that can exist within the concept of resistance.

First of all the scale whereat the resistance occurs has not always the same size; acts of resistance may be for example individual or collective, widespread or limited to local areas. Levels of coordination are also variable, in some situations there will be a higher extent in which the resisters intentionally act together, than in other. Thereby the targets where resistance is directed to also differs, they vary from individuals to groups and from organizations to institutions and social structures. As well the direction or goals are variable, while resistance mainly is understood to be aimed at achieving some sort of change, sometimes it is possible that the behaviour described as resistance aims to constrain change. Finally, while resistance is generally understood to be a political action, some writers suggest that resistance can also be identity-based (ibid: 536-537).

Action and Opposition

After having observed the dimensions of variation of resistance Hollander and Einwohner (ibid: 537) tried to describe the core elements of resistance to see how all these phenomena can be described with the same term. They identified action and opposition as two core elements within the discussions of resistance where authors seem to agree on. ‘Resistance is not a quality of an actor or a state of being, but involves some active behaviour, whether verbal, cognitive, or psychical, and another component common to almost all uses is a sense of opposition’. After having identified these core elements, the lines of disagreements became clearer, which made them realize that several debates of resistance above all differed in their position on two central issues: recognition and intent (ibid: 537).

Recognition and Intention

Acts of resistance are not always equally visible, their variation in visibility becomes clearer when we analyze ‘the contrast between ‘everyday’ resistance and more (and more obviously contentious) forms of political mobilization’. Sometimes the intention of resistance is to be recognized, while other resistance is purposefully hidden, so recognition depends in part on the goals of the people who resist (ibid: 540). While Scott (1985) in his book about modes of everyday resistance among peasant workers argues that resistance need not to be recognized as such and that it may remain relatively invisible to the powerful, other scholars define resistance as necessarily provoking recognition and even reaction from others (Hollander & Einwohner, 2004: 541).

This level of recognition also varies depending on the two different groups of others who can identify an act as resistance, to wit targets and observers. The first group contains those to whom the act is directed and the second group can comprise the general public, members of the media and researchers (ibid: 542).

After the question ‘if oppositional action must be readily apparent to others, and if it must in fact be recognized as resistance’, Hollander and Einwohner wonder ‘if the actor must be aware that she or he is resisting some exercise of power – and intending to do so – for an action to qualify resistance’ (ibid: 542). Also on this matter scholars do not completely agree, roughly classified Hollander and Einwohner (2004) distinguish three different views. The first group of scholars believes that the actor’s conscious intent is a core element to be able to classify certain behaviour as resistance. The second group thinks that measuring intent is difficult or even impossible, as resistance not only arises in public, but also privately. People in these cases ‘may be conscious of oppression and may intend to resist in some fashion’, but this will not be visible and therefore impossible to measure. Following to the last group of scholars we must not focus on the intent, as resistance can occur consciously or unconsciously, concentrating on intent will neglect important forms of resistance (ibid: 542).

Types of Resistance

Hollander and Einwohner (2004) didn’t want to define the verities and the falsities among all possible meanings and contends of the term resistance. Therefore they decided to analyse the various opinions to see if it would be possible to describe different forms of resistance without judging what is wrong and what is not. They already observed that all scholars seemed to agree that resistance implied ‘oppositional action of some kind’. Leaving discords about whether resistance must be intended by actors or whether it must be recognized by targets and/or observers. They therefore argue that it is useful to think of resistance in terms of distinct types, each defined by a different combination of actors’ intent, target’s recognition, and observers’ recognition.

Not all scholars will agree that all behaviours summarized in Table 1 should be called resistance, but it will help to emphasize again the core elements of resistance.

The first type, overt resistance, comprises for example social movements and revolutions, and individual acts of refusal. It is visible behaviour, which is recognized by both targets as observers as resistance and is also intended to be recognized as such.

Covert resistance refers to acts as gossip and subtle subversion in the workplace; they are intentional but go unnoticed by their targets. However they are recognized as resistance by culturally aware observers. These two forms of intentional forms of resistance are followed by some unintentional forms of resistance. The first one is recognized as resistance by both the observers as the targets but is not meant as such. And the second one contains so called ‘self-defined targets’ who may be the only ones who recognize certain behaviour as resistance (target-defined resistance). A separate category contains externally-defined resistance, these are acts of resistance that are neither intended nor recognized as resistance by actors or their targets, but are labelled by third parties. The last two forms of resistance go to a certain degree unnoticed by others. If recognized by their target but unrecognized by third-party observers, they have called it missed resistance. If an actor’s intentional act goes unnoticed by both targets and observers alike, it may be classified as attempted resistance (ibid: 544-547).

Interaction

Understanding the interaction between resisters, targets, and third parties plays a central role in the comprehension of resistance. Resistance is socially constructed; resisters, targets, and observers all participate in this construction (ibid: 548). Of course often there is no overall agreement on the question if certain behaviour can be seen as resistance or not. What one observer (or participant) sees as resistance, another may see as accommodation or even domination this does not only happen between the different participative groups but also within the parties there is variation. Resistance is a complex set of thoughts and behaviours (Ortner, 1995: 175).

Dichotomizing resistance and dominators ignores the fact that there are multiple systems of hierarchy, and that individuals can be simultaneously powerful and powerless within different systems (Hollander & Einwohner, 2004: 548).

I n her article about resistance and the concept of debrouillardise (a way of social manipulation) used by Auvergnat farmers in rural France, Deborah Reed-Danahay (1993: 223) describes how Kondo (1990: 221) based on her research in Japan also emphasizes the intertwining of power and meaning, so that ‘no one can be ‘without’ power’.

Everyday Resistance

After appointing the different types of resistance, it is necessary to take a first glimpse into possible forms of resistance among undocumented migrants to see on what kind of forms we have to continue focussing. First of all, it is obvious that undocumented migrants won’t participate in any overt form of resistance (i.e. demonstrations) because it probably endangers their precarious situation. Therefore it is not very likely that the target of the resistance will recognize their acts as such. It will also vary if the acts are intended as resistance. Consequently, it is more likely that possible forms of resistance among undocumented migrants will be: covert resistance, attempted resistance and externally-defined resistance.

Especially the first two forms of resistance are familiar to Scott’s concept of everyday resistance. He describes:

What everyday forms of resistance share with the more dramatic public confrontations is of course that they are intended to mitigate or deny claims made by superordinate classes or to advance claims vis-a-vis those superordinate classes. Where institutionalized politics are formal, overt, concerned with systematic, de jure change, everyday resistance is informal, often covert, and concerned largely with immediate, de facto gains (Scott, 1990: 32-33).

Scott points out different expressions of everyday resistance: foot dragging, dissimulation, false compliance, smuggling, etc. He refers to these practices as hidden transcripts (Scott, 1990) that are not easily visible in ‘official transcripts and those on-stage behaviours controlled by elites’ (Reed-Danahay, 1993: 222). He described the existence of a too strongly focus on official and public transcripts of culture resulting in an underestimation of subordinated people and argued for a look into the unofficial transcripts to see the variety of forms of resistance taking place in this area of social life (ibid: 223). Though, Reed-Danahay (ibid: 223) points at a, ly to her, ‘disturbing simplification [by Scott] by describing resistance as something which can be found in the hidden transcripts of the weak while only conformity becomes visible in the public transcripts of both the weak and the strong.’ This derives from the fact that he sees ideology as a coherent message, while there is contradiction and ambiguity in any discourse (ibid: 223)

Everyday Practices

Similar to Scott’s ‘everyday resistance’ is Michel de Certeau’s (1984) concept of ‘everyday practices’. He divides ‘strategies’ and ‘tactics’ and explains why many everyday practices are not strategic but tactical in character.

A strategy is ‘the calculus of force-relationships which becomes possible when a subject of will and power can be isolated from an ‘environment”. Strategies possess their own place which forms a starting point from where relations with the outside can be generated. Tactics on the other hand, do not possess their own place, so the other cannot be singled out as a visible totality. Tactics constantly manipulate events to turn them into opportunities.

De Certeau (ibid: xix) describes:

‘A tactic insinuates itself into the other’s place, fragmentarily, without taking it over in its entirety, without being able to keep it at a distance’.

Everyday practices are a gathering of ‘ways of operating’ characterized by ‘victories of the ‘weak’ over the ‘strong’ and consisting of clever tricks, knowing how to get away with things, ‘hunter’s cunning’, manoeuvres, polymorphic situations, etc’ (De Certeau, 1984: xix).

Tactics produce a certain movement within the system. They show to what extent it is possible to use intelligence to consort power within the daily struggle. Strategies, on the contrary, have a rather ambiguous relation with power. They use the instruments of the power for their own purposes. Hence, the structure of power where the strategies compete against at the same time sustains them (De Certeau, 1984: xviii).

Scott’s concept of everyday resistance, consisting of practices as foot dragging, dissimulation and smuggling tends to be more similar to strategies than to tactics. While De Certeau’s concept of ways of operating (or everyday practices), like ‘knowing how to get away with things’, are more tactical in character. We could say that strategies aspire to undermine the structures of power and thus are more saturated with a notion of resistance, whereas tactics not only aim to resist, but also comprise an accommodating component.

Cunning

Despite their differences, De Certeau and Scott are concerned with the same kind of behaviour. Reed-Danahay (1993: 222) presupposes to use the concept of ‘cunning’ to refer to this behaviour. ly to her, Detienne and Vernant’s (1978: 3-4 in Reed-Danahay: 1993: 222) description of the Greek quality of mA“tis summarizes accurately the significance of cunning:

[it] combine(s) flair, wisdom, forethought, subtlety of mind, deception, resourcefulness, vigilance, opportunism, various skills and experience acquired over the years. It is applied in situations which are transient, shifting, disconcerting, and ambiguous, situations which do not lead themselves to precise measurement, exact calculation, or rigorous logic (1978: 3-4; quoted in Scott 1990: 164 in ibid: 222).

Also De Certeau (1984: xix) is conscious about the connection between mA“tis and his ‘ways of operating’. Together with cunning, mA“tis refers to the idea of Goffman’s concept of ‘making do’ in difficult situations and overcoming hardships (Reed-Danahay, 1993: 223). ly to Reed-Danahay, ‘resistance suggests a mechanical metaphor of solid bodies coming into contact.’ Unlike resistance, cunning includes some fluidity in social life, leaving room for play or manipulation (ibid: 223).

Debrouillardise

Reed-Danahay therefore speaks of a more complex notion of power and resistance, where forms of power lay both with agents of the dominant culture and with the resisting people themselves (ibid: 224). In her fieldwork in a mountain valley in the Auvergne region of central France she describes how people from a place fictionally named Lavialle have ‘adopted a stance of ‘resistance’ to agents who threaten their cultural autonomy’. She shows how these farmers use the French concept of debrouillardise as a manner to talk about social manipulation expressing accommodation, resistance, cunning, ways of ‘making out’ and ways of ‘making do’ (ibid: 221). Debrouillardise connotes both resisting domination and other forms of social manipulation or even partial accommodation. It is a form of everyday resistance and it is a way of taking advantage of a situation that presents itself. Debrouillardise has a dual nature, it consist of both ‘making out’ and ‘making do’ and is associated with both defensive postures and coping strategies in everyday life (ibid: 224).

Conclusion

Migrants and Resistance

Abu-Lughod and romanticizing resistance

With the concept of debrouillardise Reed-Danahay tries to cover the gap between theory and practice. This is viable because the villagers she observes are actually using the concept in their ordinary language.

According to her debrouillardise refers to a more complex form of power than the theories of Scott (ibid: 224).

Debrouillardise

Accomodation

The ethnographic literature also contains examples of positive values associated with behaviours interpreted as everyday resistance when no ‘native’ term or vocabulary for it is present. (223)

Even while resisting power, individuals or groups may simultaneously support the structures of domination that necessitate resistance in the first place. Various authors have referred to this complexity as accommodation (e.g., Sotirin and Gottfried, 1999; Weitz, 2001), ambiguity (Trethewey, 1997), complicity (Healey, 1999; Ortner, 1995), conformity (St. Martin and Gavey, 1996), or assimilation (Faith, 1994).These authors stress that a single activity may constitute both resistance and accommodation to different aspects of power and authority (Hollander & Einwohner, 2004: 549).

Nevertheless it is easy to romanticize resistance as Abu-Lughod says, to view its forms as signs of ineffectiveness of systems of power and of the resilience and creativity of the human spirit in refusal to be dominated, to focus on successful forms of resistance and neglecting to consider accommodation, passivity or acquiescence adequately (In: Constable, 2007: ??). It is only valuable if we can find a way between romanticizing resistance and portraying young migrants as passive oppressed victims.

Power is defined as the ability to exercise control. Control therefore is not feeling vulnerable and having charge over a thing in order to get things done. Power is to act, think, behave, feel and believe. Control is the expression of commands, demands, directives, orders and requests, as to how I am to act, think, behave, feel and believe.

THE POWER AND CONTROL THEORY.

Power-control theory begins with the assumption that mothers constitute the primary agents of socialization in the family. In households in which the mother and father have relatively similar levels of power at work, “balanced households,” mothers will be less likely to differentially exert control upon their Daughters. Thus, in balanced households, both sons and daughters will have similar levels of control placed upon them, leading them to develop similar attitudes regarding the risks and benefits of engaging in deviant behaviour. This line of reasoning suggests that balanced households will experience fewer gender differences in deviant behaviour. Power-control theorists further assume that households in which mothers and fathers have dissimilar levels of power in the work place, so-called “unbalanced households,” are more “patriarchal” in their attitudes regarding gender roles. Power-control theory states that relative power in the workplace conditions patterns of parental control of children in two-parent families, resulting in gender differences in rates of no serious delinquency.

INEQUALITIES IN THE FAMILY

In 1973, Young and Wilmott claimed that the traditional segregated division of labour in the home is breaking down. The conjugal relationship in the middle class is becoming either joint or symmetrical which is leading to egalitarian marriage. There are many ways by which there is inequality in power and control family that should be looked at but following was stated as the major ways by which the division of labour in the house is breaking down.

Household task and childcare in the family is the duty of the mother. Feminist argue that this task is not supposed to be the major duty of the wife, they believe that this task should be shared among the wife and husband as they both own the child and they both live in the same house. Survey on housework and child care suggest that men today are more involved in domestic task than their fathers and grandfathers, women also have to do the majority of the housework and child care even when they have a full time job that cannot be neglected because of the society view on power and control in the family as women being the ones to do the work and men been the breadwinner. Time survey 2005 by et al.(2006)discovered that the women in paid work spend 21hours of their time doing household chores compared to men who spend 12hours of their time doing the same thing. Some British Household Panel Survey (2001) suggested that some household chores are still done by the women as the males find it really threatening to engage in household chores because they believe that doing it risks their role as the head and breadwinner of the family. Women are also responsible for the physical and emotional well being of their family at the expense of their own.

Decision making is another aspect of inequality in power and control in the family, in the middle class families where there is a patriarchal view on the family, major decision making such as where to live, what house to buy are mostly shouldered on the husband this is because the traditional view on the power and control in such families still exist there where the husband is the head of the family and he has to be the one to make major decisions in the family. Some men believe that major decision making such as if they are ready to have children or if the wife should stay at home should be made by them as they are the bread winner of the family.

Fatherhood is another area of power and control in the family. Most families today are single families where there is only one person to do the housework and childcare. The new right critique of one parent families is that they lack fathers, suggested that children that grow up in such way are less likely to be socialized into the culture of discipline and compromise found in nuclear families and they may end up been less successful parents. This is because such children lack an authoritative figure and there is nobody to turn to in time of crisis. This lack of authoritative figure or someone to watch over them increases social problems such as teenage pregnancy, drug use because they have been influenced by their peer groups. Furthermore, the difference between the fathers of 1990aa‚¬a„?s and 1960aa‚¬a„?s cannot be underestimated. This is so because the fathers of 1990aa‚¬a„?s are more involved in teh life of their children than their fathers and are taking active roles un the emotional development of their children. Beck (1992)notes that in the post modern age men no longer look to their jobs to give them a sense of identity and purpose but they now look up to their children to give them that. In this study of fatherhood, teenage children, fathers and mothers agreed that fathers should still be the breadwinner of the family despite the employment and family life changes and that women are experts at parenting. However, it is important not to overweight the importance of men role in child care this is because it is the main responsibility of the mother to look after the child rather that jointly shared with the father, most fathers would like to spend more time with their children but due to the work pressure and long working hours are unable to do so.

Womenaa‚¬a„?s participation in the labour market has been limited by their domestic responsibility. Due to their various domestic responsibility, only very few women have careers. Feminist also went further by saying that it is only the males that have careers but a lot of women only have jobs as a result of this, most employers find women unreliable because of the family commitments and they are unable to get same access to promotion and work training like the men. Morden marriages do not appear as equal as the functionalist see it rather women are at a great disadvantage, based on the criteria so far.

Who has more power and control in the family?

Before we can discuss this it is important to know that it is not a very definite thing to say who has more control in the family but we have to look at the family or marriage system. For example if the family is egalitarian in nature or not. Therefore we will be able to decide who has more power and control based on the nature of the family

The following can be seen as the three major family natures. It can be an egalitarian family where both partners share the same responsibilities, or a patriarchal family where the traditional view on who holds power in the family still exist and a lone parent family that is either the father or the mother as the head.

EGALITARIAN FAMILIES.

The power and control in these families are usually a shared responsibility, so child care and house care are the responsibility of both partners as they both have full time jobs. Therefore major decision making is also what they both decide to do. In this type of family, Households in which husbands and wives share equal levels of power are considered “balanced” and therefore less patriarchal. Therefore, it can be concluded that in families like this , the two partners have equal right and duties in both child care and housework and other aspect of the family life where there is possible division of labour.

PARTRIACHAL FAMILIES

There is the traditional view of power and control in this type of family. This family can be majorly seen among the middle class family. The power and control of the family lies in the hand of the father as the breadwinner and he is the one that tackles any necessary decision that needs to be taken. The major responsibility of the wife/mother is to do the house work and it is therefore very important for her to do her duties. Feminists argues that this type of structure is not equal as the mother ends up doing the most work especially if she has a full time job.

LONE-PARENTS FAMILIES

The issue of power and control in this type of family is solely in the hand of who is has the child custody. Therefore it is the duty of the single father or mother to see to the affairs of the household and childcare in every way possible. Single mothers (and fathers for that matter) must contend with a variety of power struggles in their daily lives, such as the continued existence of the noncustodial parent in child-rearing and decision making [i.e., single parents who must rely on child-support payments or are limited in decision-making power because the non-custodial parent has partial custody], the potential involvement of the state [i.e., single mothers or single fathers who are jobless and must rely on the state for monies], as well as power differentials at work.

VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY.

One of the most important aspects of power in the family is also domestic violence. This type of violence is one done behind closed doors where the man exercises his power over the woman through the use of physical power by either beating or harassing. This is the most common type of violence as it is done behind closed doors and it has no witness of it taking place apart from the victim. In the year 2008/09, the British Crime Survey recorded a total of 293,000 recorded domestic violence. In any one year, there are 13 million separate incidents of physical violence or threats of violence against women from partners or

Former partners. (Walby and Allen, 2004). Also the British Crime Survey said women are more likely to suffer domestic violence rather than the men, this figures might be underestimated because not all crimes are reported by the victims majorly because they are afraid of the repercussion or they feel they may not be taken seriously better still they feel they can change their partners and they continue to suffer in silence. It is not only the women that do suffer domestic violence even the men do but out of 90% of recorded domestic violence, 10% are does suffered by the men.

Feminist suggest that domestic violence is as a result of patriarchy. This indicates that because of this, men tend to exercise their power over the women probably out of frustration or their anxiety over maintaining their role as the head of the family.

THEORITICAL EXPLANATION ON THE INEQUALIIES OF POWER AND CONTROL IN THE FAMILY.

FUNTIONALIST see the sexual division of labour in the family as biologically inevitable. They see it has been in the gene of a woman to be more caring than the man and are more emotional than the man.

FEMINIST this particular set of theorists see the power of men in the family as declining why because women have made a really progress in term of equality and they believe that men are already adapting to this change although they believe that women are not strong enough in terms of attitudes and behaviour, the future hold a movement of domestic and economic equality.

MARXISTS. See the housewife roles as serving the needs of capitalism as this maintains the present workforce and produces labour power for the future

However, these theories have been criticised based on the fact that most of them did not look at every society that women roles vary in all societies. Feminist underestimate the degree of power that some women enjoy, the women ability to make rational choices have been underestimated by the feminist point of view.

CONCLUSION.

For long power in the family has been seen as a very large topic that has been argued and debated over time, but before the conclusion can be made that either the male or female has more power or control in the family. We have taken a look at the inequalities in the family and can conclude the female gender is at a great disadvantage when it comes to this. Not only have we looked at this, we have also looked at who has more power in the family based on the different family structures. Family domestic violence has also been looked at and we ca n see from the above analysis that domestic violence is also a way by which power is exercised in the family. Furthermore, different theoretical view on the inequalities in the family has been looked at and also how these theories have also been criticized. Power and control therefore is a topic that has helped to understand how the family structure is like and the level of equality in the family.

Poverty and the Welfare State.

Question 1 – Describe critically Murray’s analysis of the underclass. How does the population in the USA characterized by his use of this term differ from that in Britain.

Question 2 – In an essay of no more than 1000 words, outline and critically evaluate the view that the Welfare State tends to create more poverty than it has the ability to solve. your essay must include examples of state policies as well as consider the different ideologies of welfare in Britain

Question 1.

Murray’s articles in the Times magazine in 1989 which outlined his thesis concerning the emergence of an ‘underclass’ in the UK similar to the one he had already identified in the US has been one of the more controversial texts in social policy recently (Murray, 1989, 1990). Murray’s central thesis is that the welfare state through the provision of benefits to unmarried mothers and the cessation of those benefits should these women marry has the effect of removing fatherhood and the influence thereof a father figure from the lives of these children (Murray, 1989). They in turn become dependent upon welfare and so a ‘class’ of people is formed outside of the norms of wage earning society dependent wholly on the state for support (Murray, 1989). Before we discuss some of the criticisms of this view it is worth noting the peculiarities and differences between Murray’s thesis as it relates to the US and the UK.

In the first instance Murray’s work in the UK is much less racialised than his identification of the population in the US (Murray, 1984). In the case of the US Murray’s thesis and identification of the population comprising the majority of the underclass has been that it is a Black population. Murray then identified single black mothers as forming the core of the underclass. While this was a feature certainly still of his analysis of the British underclass it was not as strikingly so as his British version however the later versions of his thesis on the UK underclass also took on these racial overtones, (Murray, 1994).

Murray can be criticized on any number of grounds but perhaps some of the most devastating criticisms can be found when we consider research which is actually undertaken on those who constitute the ‘underclass’ rather than abstract theorizing about the underclass which denotes much of the vague definitions of what the underclass is meant to be (Alcock 1997). In this regard recent work by Edwards and Duncan (1997) for example has demonstrated the degree to which the stereotypes of the composition of the underclass do not match the realities of the lives involved. In their study of single women with children and their uptake of paid work they found that black single mothers living in positively regarded underclass areas (inner city areas of London for example) were more likely to seek work and to regard working themselves as being beneficial for their children (Edwards and Duncan, 1997:33). This was in contrast to single mothers from less predominantly underclass areas that held traditional views about rearing their children. These views emphasised the importance of caring for their children through being at home with them rather than outside the home in employment. Consequently the members of this group were much less likely to have work or to seek work or see work as a good. Thus the image of black single mothers creating an underclass through their rejection of a work ethic would seem to be unfounded.

Thus even in this small instance fatal flaws in Murray’s thesis can be identified, ultimately it can be said that the very vagueness of the definitions of what constitutes the underclass in the literature can it be argued be seen to be reflective of the fact that an identifiable object such as the underclass is impossible to define and serves merely as a critique of welfare arrangements and a moral attack on the nature of those who are marginalized by society.

Question 2.

With the collapse of communist states across the world in the 1980s a major perceived competitor to the market economy was removed with some like Fukuyama proclaiming it to be the ‘end of history’ and the triumphant victory of liberalism (Fukuyama, 1992). In the UK as in other European countries of course the welfare state has mediated against the ‘evils’ of capitalism as set out by Beveridge for some time, serving as Marxists had argued as a bribe of the working class and ensuring the legitimization and continuation of the welfare state (Mishra, 1990). It is not surprising then with all the past attacks on the nature of the welfare state to note that with the ‘end of history’ there has come a renewed assault on the welfare state in the UK.

Criticisms of the welfare state have come from both the left and the right but also crucially from the middle way of social democratic viewpoints. Almost consistent research has demonstrated the failure of the welfare state in reducing relative levels of poverty; in fact the UK today has a divide between rich and poor which is increasing quicker than at any other time in the history of the welfare state (Hills and Stewart, 2005). Thus it has become an almost consistent feature of debate that the welfare state has failed but the reasons given for this failure are completely oppositional. The two most prominent sources of these reasons have been neo-liberalists and social democratic parties.

For neo-liberalists the ‘evils’ of the welfare state far outweigh the ‘evils’ of the free market so in discussing the view that the welfare state creates poverty it is worth recounting their views on the failings of the welfare state. At the core of many of the arguments thus against the welfare state are notions of desert. Desert is seen as a principle of morals and thus the failings of the welfare state in this respect is a moral failure which in turn leads to the moral turpitude of those the welfare state attempts to help (Lavalette and Pratt, 1997). This moral attack on the poor and the perceived institutions which has lead to their poverty is of course nothing new (Thane, 1992). Since the Poor Law state welfare arrangements have been criticized for the creation of a mentality which is seen to encourage indolence and decrease motivation towards self-sufficiency.

The reliance on welfare thus leads to unwillingness to seek work. This in turn has the effect of leading to increased taxation to support those unwilling to work. This then in turn leads to increased difficulties for employers in terms of paying higher salaries to counter higher taxation and so on into a vicious cycle of dependency (Hayek, 1990). Such a trend it is argues lay at the heart of the Oil Crises and the subsequent retrenchment of the welfare state in the UK and elsewhere.

Thus for the neo-liberal critique it is the totality of the welfare state which not only fails in reducing poverty but also serves to in fact create more. It does this both in a structural sense by hindering the effective operation of the market but also by creating in those who are recipients of welfare a mentality which causes them to retreat from the fundamental basics of economic life in seeking employment. Thus for neo-liberals measures such as Income Maintenance support schemes serve to create a duality of factors leading to the increase of poverty. Reform of the welfare state for neo-liberalists must be done so that only the bare minimum of services are required for those who are truly in need, such as the young, aged or infirm, (Fitzpatrick, 2001).

Amidst these criticisms the welfare state in the UK has undergone revisions also from its social collectivist roots. This may be surprising but we can view this a response to critiques of the welfare state from both left and right and hence they’re emerged consequently an articulation of a ‘Third Way’, (Giddens, 1994). This ‘Third Way’ was to be a radical re-conceptualisation of the basis and functions of the welfare state. As such then it can be seen that New Labour in particular has followed in the footsteps of Thatcher towards reforming the welfare state. But how effective have these reforms been and what is their basis?

Perhaps the most potent of these transformations has been in a shift away from the universalism of the early welfare state to a new selectivitist philosophy. Selectivism entails the targeting of benefits through such measures as means-testing and other income threshold schemes so as that ideally those that need it the most benefit from the specified arrangement (Lowe, 2005). If anything their effect on the poorest has been marginal as these people are already in receipt of benefits and the introduction of means tests has had little impacts. Instead a stealth reform of the welfare state has occurred and those who were on the margins, previously covered by the benefit are now excluded on the basis of their income being over thresholds, even if this is just marginal, (Esping-Anderson, 2002).

Thus we can argue that this selectivist based reform of the welfare state has worsened life for many by removing the safety net for all that existed previously under a universalist system. What this means in other words is that the Third Way of Labour has in actuality enhanced and widened the gaps between rich and poor and made the effects of poverty worse their reforms in favour of making the welfare state more effective. The pace and scale of the gap and its widening between rich and poor can be considered in this light. Indeed this notion of effectiveness found in much of social policy discourse can often be seen as simply cost-cutting exercises. The effects of which are leading to a situation where it is arguable that we have now seen neo-liberalism by the back door with major consequences for UK policy treatment of both poverty itself and those living in poverty.

References

Alcock, P. (1997); Understanding Poverty, Palgrave, Basingstoke UK
Edwards, R. and Duncan S. (1997); ‘Supporting the Family: Lone Mothers, Paid Work and the Underclass Debate’; Critical Social Policy, Vol.7 No. 4
Esping-Anderson, G. (2002); Why We Need a New Welfare State, Oxford University Press, Oxford UK
Fitzpatrick, T. (2001); Welfare Theory: An Introduction, Palgrave, Basingstoke UK
Fukuyama, F. (1992); The End of History and the Last Man, Penguin, New York US
Giddens, A. (1994); Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics, Stanford University Press, California US
Hayek, F.A.V. (1990); Economic Freedom, Blackwell, Oxford UK
Hills, J. and Stewart, K. (2005); A More Equal Society, Policy Press, Bristol UK
Lavalette, M. and Pratt, A. (1997); Social Policy: A Theoretical and Conceptual Introduction, Sage, London UK
Lowe, R. (2005); The Welfare State in Britain since 1945, Palgrave, Basingstoke UK
Mishra, R. (1990); The Welfare State in Capitalist Society, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York US
Murray, C. (1984); Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980, Basic Books, New York
Murray, C. (1989); ‘Underclass’; Sunday Times Magazine, 26th November
Murray, C. (1990), The Emerging British Underclass, IEA, London UK
Murray, C. (1994); ‘Underclass: The Crisis Deepens’; The Sunday Times, 29th May
Thane, P. (1982); The Foundations of the Welfare State, Longman, London UK

This paper will explore poverty within Britain and some of the key features that are surrounding it. The broadness of poverty, various ideas and social implications is a massive area of discussion. Much of which will not be covered in depth in this paper – primarily due to the constraints due to word count that is placed upon this paper . I will look at such issues as class, education, health and addiction. I will also look at ‘Breadline Britain’ studies, Rowntrees works and various sociological viewpoints surrounding poverty. The idea of this paper is to touch upon various key elements that surround poverty in Britain – one of the world wealthiest countries. I will also explore official statistics released from the British government in order to highlight the extent of poverty.

Even this simple question rouses debate and controversy! Poverty has many definitions, for the purpose of this paper poverty shall be defined as “Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities, and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or are at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies in which they belong” Townsend – Poverty in the United Kingdom A survey of household recourses and standards of living pg 31.

Poverty can however be measured, and therefore quantified in various ways – mainly ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ . The following quote from The House of Commons Committee

“There are basically three current definitions of poverty in common usage: absolute poverty, relative poverty and social exclusion.

Absolute poverty is defined as the lack of sufficient resources with which to keep body and soul together. Relative poverty defines income or resources in relation to the average. It is concerned with the absence of the material needs to participate fully in accepted daily life.

Social exclusion is a new term used by the Government. The Prime Minister described social exclusion as “aˆ¦a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown”

The House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee.

Peter Townsend has conducted several studies concerning poverty. He argues that the society we live in determines peoples ‘needs’. Townsend puts forward the argument that some things must only be measured in relative terms. He states “resources that are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities.” So, relative poverty looks at the inclusion of various British ‘traditions’ such as a Sunday lunch, fresh produce, holidays, sporting activities and the expense usually related to events such as Birthdays and Christmas. Townsend argues that people who cannot afford these activities do indeed live in relative poverty. Townsend also states that the people most at risk include the low paid. Typically lower paid workers hold less secure roles of employment and are less likely to receive ‘fringe benefits’ often associated with more skilled, higher paid positions.

Income Poverty -stats and facts.

Income poverty is a widely used formula that is used to indicate poverty. The government releases, on a yearly basis, a survey of poverty in the UK this is known as the Households Below Average Income (HBAI). The poverty ‘formula’ used for defining poverty is simplistic – it is where the income of a home, and indeed family, is below 60% of the median income of the United Kingdom (UK) after the housing costs associated with the property in question have been accounted for. (www.cpag.org.uk)

HBAI has shown that income poverty was on the increase in the years 2004-2006 but fell a little the following year. With the recession that Britain has recently endured latest figures have yet to be released, but one would take an educated guess that these figures have risen again, given the recent economic climate.

HBAI shows that 13.4 million people in the UK are ‘income poor’. That equates to almost a quarter of the UK households (22%). Of these 13.4 million people over half, (53%) include at least one child, 15% are pensioner households and 32% are of people of working age with no dependants. As these figures show almost 70% of these households contain persons whom one could be classed as ‘vulnerable’ ie elderly and youngsters.

It must be noted that by using the HBAI statistics one can assume that poverty has most certainly been on the increase. In 1979 it reported that five million, (9%) of the British population were residing in poverty – as this paper has already shown, that figure now stands at 25% of the population. The 25% statistics are also agreed to be correct according also to Oxfam (www.oxfam.org.uk) “One if four people – 25% of the population are living on or below the income support level.”

It is also noted that the Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE) survey is not based upon a ‘breadline’ but is more down to perception www.jrf.org.uk states that within this survey “Poverty and social exclusion in Britain incorporates the views of members of the public, rather than judgments by social scientists, about what are the necessities of life that all adults and children should be able to afford”. Using their methods of assessment they found in 1999 14.5 million people in Britain were living in poverty (Howard. M et al)

One must draw a comparison to the recession of the 1980s and what is happening, or some would argue just happened, in Britain today. During the 80’s the huge increase of poverty could be attributed to the recession, interest rate hikes and the swift decline of the manufacturing sector of the economy. The government at the time has also brought changes, some of a radical nature, that saw cuts in spending costs which resulted in the loss of many public, and private sector employment contracts. These key events can all (except the interest rate hikes) be mirrored in the British economy today. If 25% of our population is already living in poverty one shudders to think what the statistics in the coming few years will show us.

Poverty – explanations

According to Mary Liddell, writing in the Guardian (Sunday 29th April 2001) “our child poverty rate is the third highest in the industrialised world.” One must agree that this is a shocking statistic and must be tackled with some urgency. So, what do sociologists have to say about poverty, its causes and implications?

This paper has already explored the work of Townsend, but Mack and Lansley (1983, 1990) endeavoured to build upon this research, and in doing so conducted two further studies for a British television programme names ‘Breadline Britain’. Within this research they conducted a survey designed to understand what the people of Britain considered to be the basic necessities in order to live in an acceptable manner. The results of this survey showed them that the public assumed there to be 26 elements that were key in order to sustain a reasonable lifestyle.

Mack and Lansley’s works, along with other new evidence of the poverty crisis were highlighted in a survey commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), and conducted via the ONS (office of national statistics) It highlighted some key issues as well as astonishing stats and statistics. It showed that

9.5 million people could not afford to heat their homes

4 million people could not afford to eat the 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day that were government guidelines.

8 million could not afford to replace what one could consider key household appliances ie fridges and freezers

Over a third of our children were going without key items such as coats, social events and items that one would consider a necessity for educational attainment – ie calculators, school pens, books etc

The report highlighted that poverty was unevenly distributed and the key groups of people most likely to experience poverty included the unemployed, low wage earners, families, disabled and the elderly.

Mack and Langely (1985) claimed that the welfare state provision would need to be increased by 150% in order to lift the welfare state dependant out of poverty. “PEOPLE NEED TO ACCEPT THAT THE PROBLEMS OF THE POOR SHOULD BE TACKLED, AND TAHT TEH STATE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO TACKLE THEM ” They also stated that the employed in Britain would ‘welcome’ a one penny in the pound income tax rise in order to assist the poor.

According to JRF on 11TH September 2000. the “highest rates of poverty were found in homes of adult unemployment, part-time employment, lone parent households, disabled and sick families, ethnic minorities and large families”

In 2000 Sue Middleton (a key analyst on the piece of research) stated that ” Britain’s children are going without items that are widely accepted as being vital to the health and development of children”

Marxists state that the existence of poverty is actually beneficial for the ruling class and that the threat, or realisation of poverty dramatically increases the desire amongst the working class to find employment. Marxists also argue that the rewards for work are unevenly distributed and that the low paid work harder for less than the owners. Whilst this theory is well known there are questions that need to be asked of its philosophy. Such as it doesn’t give explanations as to why certain groups are more vulnerable.

Jones and Novak (1999) state that it is essential for capitalism that poverty is allowed to happen, and that it should be well managed. They go further and say that the available welfare benefits, just like the welfare state, are not actually designed to help people out of the poverty they are experiencing. Rather the welfare state is there to assist poverty, not eradicate it and that it is there to ease the capitalism, whilst ensuring that harmony and the status quo is still successfully maintained.

J.C. Kincaid claims that “from the point of view of capitalism the low-wage sector helps to underpin and stabilize the whole structure of wages and the conditions of employment of the working class.” They also argue that the difference is wage structure is a thought out process which serves to fragment the working-class. If the wages of the unskilled workers were all identical there would be a risk of greater unity and a single class-consciousness might be encouraged, with a possible threat to the capitalist class as a result. Kincaid argues “It is not to be expected that any Government whose main concern is with the efficiency of a capitalist economy is going to take effective steps to abolish the low wage sector.”

Herbert J. Gans has identified a number of functions that make poverty “useful” to capitalists. He states that temporary menial jobs are taken by the poor. And also that poverty assist in the creation of careers for middle-class people. “poverty creates jobs for a number of occupations and professionals that serve the poor, or shield the rest of the population from them. Poverty helps to guarantee the status of those who are not poor.” He also stated, “The defenders of the desirability of hard work, thrift, honesty and monogamy need people who can be accused of being lazy, spendthrift, dishonest and promiscuous to justify these norms.”

Holman (1975) states that “The existence, even the creation, of a group identifiable as the poor serves to set them apart from the rest of the population. Further, the poor act as a warning. They demonstrate the fate of those who do not conform to prevailing work and social standards. Their plight is needed to reinforce the will of others to work for low returns in unpleasant and even degrading conditions from which the economic output gives a disproportionate financial reward to a minority of existing resource holders. Not least, those in poverty act as scapegoats, a vulnerable group on whom the blame for social problems can be placed, so diverting attention away from that minority which has some control over social affairs”

Poverty in ethnic minority households

Richard Berthoud – Essex University, 1998 conducted a study on ethnic minority households (2500 homes) and he found that key issues were as follows

31% of African origin families were living below the poverty line.

Unemployment in the males, absences of employment within the females and large, growing families were all key factors that lead to 60% of the ethnic minority households living below the poverty line.

Individualist theorists concerning poverty maybe outdated – they seemed to be popular in the 19th century. Such sociologists as Herbert Spencer (1874) argued that poverty was the doing of the individual. He argued that they were too lazy to work hard, and therefore were deserving candidates to reside in poverty. He also argued that assistance from the state should not be considered an option as this would only add to and encourage idleness, and that if state assistance was to be offered there was no real incentive for one to peruse employment and any initiative to work would be lost within many. Most sociologist do not agree with Spencer’s theories and would report that poverty is not the fault of the individual, but is more often than not, a result of social factors that are beyond the control of an individual.

Dependency theorists would argue that the poor need to stand up and take more responsibility for their situation, and their main obstacle is their dependency upon the welfare state, and that this poverty trap often means that the unemployed consider themselves better off not working. According to Taylor et al 1995 (pg 182) “This line of argument has influenced Conservative governments policies for reducing income tax and certain benefit levels “

Marshland (1989) argues that the provision of the welfare state should be kept to a bare minimum and should only be provided as a last resort. Marsland’s views are that the welfare state has overridden other points of assistance such as the family and other agencies that allow the poverty stricken to assist themselves.

Charles Murray developed Marslands theory even further. His publication ‘loosing ground’ in 1984 is where the underclass theory suddenly emerged. Murray (1990) states that the welfare state is responsible for housing a new ‘underclass’ Which, in simple tears is a class of people below what one could call working class. This group of people have a dependency on the welfare state. Key indications could be such things as family instabilities, crime, substance abuse, and poorly educated individuals whom choose to drop out of the labour force.

The ‘New-right’ sociologists look to the works of C Murray (1989) and they conclude that the welfare state system that is in place does indeed produce a subculture of individuals who no longer wish to support themselves via paid employment and instead favour to live on benefits and subsidisations. It is fair to state that the new right theories have been more influential within politics rather than within a sociological context. One only has to look at the radical reforms of the benefits system that has come into force within recent months and we can clearly see that the new right philosophies seeping through. The underclass theory was argued to have, along with a fever pitch media, contributed to the development of a ‘moral panic’ concerning lone parents.

Oscar Lewis (1959, 1966) studied the poor in Puerto Rico (although this paper is concentrating on Britain and the United Kingdom comparisons may be drawn) Lewis stated that poverty was cultural, and that these individuals that lived in poverty had a different culture to mainstream society. This resulted in this group of individuals feeling cut off and marginalised from the rest of the society. “As part of an unskilled labour force, the children studied by Lewis suffered from unemployment, under-employment and low wages, which meant a shortage of cash, little food, and over crowded, impoverished, living areas.” (Stephens, 1998, p. 289). Lewis referred to this as a ‘design for living’ and argued that people learn to accept poverty because they can’t do anything about it. According to Lewis, they adopted self-defeating attitudes, by becoming fatalistic and resigned to the situation, which prevented them from breaking out of it.

Cycle of deprivation

The idea of a “cycle of deprivation” was coined by Sir Keith Joseph, (Conservative party Secretary of State for Social Services in 1970’s). Joseph argued that it wasn’t just lack of income that caused poverty and that some “problem families had interrelated difficulties- which were to a greater or lesser extent inflicted from within”(Denham & Garnett, 2002). Josephs cycle of deprivation theory argues that future generations will endure the same cycle of events, Joseph said that children from poor families tend to marry into families with similar difficulties, and so reproducing the said cycle of deprivation. These families would typically “live in inner city areas, with poor housing, inadequate diet, poor health, do badly at school, leave without qualifications, enter poorly paid work, bring children up in an unsatisfactory manner, are more likely to fall into delinquency and are unable or unwilling to find work”.

The cycle of deprivation theory has not been without criticism. It has been argued, via research that that children of ‘the poor’ can and frequently do, break free from Joseph’s so-called cycle of deprivation, The cycle of deprivation theory does not make any attempt to address the root causes of poverty and fails to explain why some people get into poverty in the first place. New Labour’s Sure Start programme that was launched in 2000 followed the government’s first extensive annual report regarding poverty, which went on to say “we need to break the cycle of deprivation, to stop it being transmitted through generations” (DSS, 1999, p.5.)

“This cycle of deprivation is bad for everyone. But it is particularly unfair for children who miss out on opportunities because they inherit the disadvantage faced by their parents, so their life chances are determined by where they come from rather than who they are. “

Social Exclusion Unit (2004, pg 5)

According to www.cpag.org.uk poverty places constraints on the active social participation of children and activities one would usually consider ‘the norm’ It showed that 18% of families who live in poverty (HBAI) could not afford for their children to have friends over for lunch once every 14 days. It also showed that 12% of these children could not attend educational school trips and activities due to income deprivation. One needs to assess how this impacts children and their social capital growth. If they cannot be party to a fruitful and positive education experience how can they be expected to succeed within academia, the labour market and in turn a successful member of wider society?

Poverty and health

In the Guardian newspaper on Monday 9 October 2006 the following extract was published within their health section

“Smoking is inextricably linked to poverty, according to the campaigning group Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), which today launches interactive maps revealing the close match between cigarette consumption and deprivation.

Derek Wanless, the former chief executive of the NatWest Group who carried out the health trends review for the government, found that 48% of men in the poorest social class died before they reached 70, compared with 22% of men in the richest social group. Half of that difference, he estimated, was accounted for by smoking….. In the Princess ward of Knowsley, Merseyside, said to be the most deprived area of England, 52% of the population smoke, compared with a national average of 26%..”

According to Graham (2000) People’s lifestyles and behaviour are recognised as causes to health problems. Smoking is identified as the major preventable cause of premature death and is a habit that has been associated as common place within the lower class both women and men. Ie The ones who will most likely be affected by poverty. Other causes of avoidable health problems include diet, stress, housing, alcohol and substance misuse and exercise (Alderman et al 2000). These can, and commonly are, associated with the poverty stricken of our society. This paper has already explored such surveys carried out by JRF and this paper argues that the above comments only serve to further compound their findings.

In the month of April 1977 the Secretary of State was responsible for creating a ‘working group’ to look at health and inequalities. The main objective of this report was to pool all information regarding health within our social class system. The Black Report was produced in 1980 – it looked at if there was any need for the introductions and implications of social policy along with if any further research should be conducted.

.It highlighted many points, specifically ” that the causes of health inequalities were so deep rooted that only major public expenditure would be capable of altering the pattern” (Jenkin 1980).

The results of the report clearly showed how there was a huge gap in mortality between the social classes, and that instead of narrowing the gap was infact widening. It stated that poor families are locked into poverty which included educational, environmental and social disadvantage for the lifespan of the individual, and indeed in some cases it lasted through the generations… It highlighted how there were large numbers of young working class females that suffered from depressive illness, and that this had a massive impact upon family life and ,maybe more importantly child-rearing. It also found evidence to show that twice as many babies born into the families of unskilled workers die within the first month than babies born to the working professionals. It stated that around three times as many infants born to parents whom were unskilled or unemployed die in their first year compared to infants born into the families that consisted of professional working parents. This is undoubtedly linked with social class , poverty education and health,.

It is argued by Alock (2003) that the poorest of our country are subjected to poor housing conditions and undesirable locations that do not give them free access to the local amenities many of us take for granted such as parks, gardens, local shopping facilities, an environment that is free from pollution and dirt. Jones and Pickett (1993) go further and state that the poverty stricken are subjected to damp homes and lack of insulation and that the rising sots of heating their homes to an adequate standard often mean that they either go without heat (resulting in damp conditions) or they have to accumulate debt to heat their homes

It could be argued that poverty results in more stress, therefore increases illness and the likelihood to be dependent upon alternative substances such as alcohol or drugs. (Jones & Pickett 1993). According to sociologist Nicholas Emler, self-esteem is a risk factor for suicide, depression and victimisation (Palmer et al 2006). If a person is ill, stressed and in substandard housing conditions one can only assume that low self esteem would occur.

Poverty and education

Poverty – the facts (2007) shows us that, growing up in poverty can affect a child’s cognitive development as well as their health and well-being. According to Poverty – the facts (2007), children born into poverty are more likely to suffer such issues as homelessness and chronic overcrowding, which have a significant impact upon a child’s physical, mental and social development. These issues can cause health problems and absence from school.

Wedderburn (1994), argues the theory of material deprivation and states that economic poverty is a huge factor in a child’s low achievement at school. Furthermore, a study carried out by Ming Zhang, who researches compulsory education at Cambridge University

shows that there is a close link between poverty and truancy among primary school children, therefore further widening the educational achievements of children from poorer backgrounds.

Poverty and gender

In general women are paid less than men. One may argue that this is down top women taking career breaks to raise children, and often only returning to work part time. If a relationship breakdown occurs then the woman is usually left with the role of breadwinner and care giver – this often results in part time, low paid labour. According to Taylor et al 96% of lone parents receiving benefits are women.

David Green, director of the Institute for the Study of Civil Society states: “If you take almost any measure – how well children do in school, whether they turn to crime, whether they commit suicide, etc – it’s better to have two parents. It’s also the biggest disadvantage of lone parenthood that you’re much more likely to be poor.”

OVER 33% of Britain’s children live in single parent households, the majority of those being headed by a female.

The Low Pay Unit estimated that over 70% of the total number of low wage earners were female.

Is poverty regional?

In 2009 Ian Townsend produced a report for the House of Commons, he stated the following “In terms of numbers living in poverty (before housing costs), the North West had the greatest number of children in poverty of any region/country in 2005/06-2007/08 (1.4 million), followed by London (1.3 million).”

” the numbers of adults of working age living in poverty (before housing costs) in 2005/06-2007/08 were highest in the North West and London (0.7 million)”

.

He also states that the North West and London were also hot spots for poverty amongst the elderly, so certainly from an official standpoint it is fair to state that these 2 areas are amongst the poorest. This could be down to many reasons – maybe densely populated areas, maybe it is due to the type of jobs available, or the cost of living. There has always been what is known as the ‘North South divide’ but according to the above statistics this does not extend to poverty.

It was assumed that poverty was strongly associated with social housing developments, however a survey conducted by JRF reports “The expansion of home-ownership and poverty have rarely been linked together. The prevailing view of home-ownership continues to be one that associates the tenure with affluent households. However, it is only a partial picture of what has become the most diverse of all housing tenures in the UK.” Using the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain, a new study by Roger Burrows at the University of York demonstrates that half of all people living in poverty in Britain today are home-owners” One could argue that this report shows that poverty is not inherited, but is a ‘situation’ that people can fall into due to termination of employment, ill health etc. Whilst it is shown that the working class are more likely to suffer unstable employment and ill health one must consider the fact that it can happen to any member of today’s society

Conclusion

This paper has discussed many of the issues surrounding poverty in Britain today. I have assessed ideas from Marxist and New Right sociologists as well as looking at published papers, surveys and research. The paper has considered such aspects as gender, location, education, health and ethnicity in order to attempt to discuss poverty as a whole.

It is very clear from my research that poverty is very much at large in todays society and the groups of people who are most likely to be impacted are low wage earners, part time workers, women, families, the elderly and sick. It is ironic that today’s Conservative Liberal Dem government has pledged to reduce the benefits of these very same groups of people in order to ‘encourage’ them to help themselves via paid employment. I feel that this paper has explored some of the obstacles and constraints that are placed upon these groups of people. The country is just creeping out off a recession and paid employment – although on the increase is not as available as it was in recent times. Whilst i agree that everyone should help themselves to attain a reasonable standard of living i strongly feel that those with the greatest challenges in life – the sick, single-parents, families, low paid workers should be offered as much assistance as possible, not just economic but a practical assistance in gaining a way out of their ‘poverty traps’

It is clear from my research that poverty is unevenly distributed and I fear that will always be the case. I feel that education and the youth of today has to be the starting point, and we should be assisting them in education, self-esteem, and knowledge that they need in order to ensure that they are well equipped in adulthood with the tools to succeed in life.

There will always be people who are less well off than others, but one would like to think that as one of the richest, most developed nations in the world we can equip our people (adults and children alike) with the skills they need in order to prosper in today’s society. I do appreciate that this viewpoint is quite idealistic and there will always be a sub culture of people who do not wish to conform with ideals of paid gainful employment, but if we can provide and assist the ones who wish to have a better life it would be a start to tackling poverty in the country.

In June 2009 the Work and Pensions Secretary (Yvette Cooper) spoke about poverty in the UK and went on to state that the government was planning to invest ?5bn in unemployment relief in an effort to reduce child poverty. The current government has pledged to continue the work of the past Labour government in its pledge to eradicate child poverty by 2020, but yet has frozen the one universal, non means tested benefit relating to children – child benefit and taken it away from what they consider to be ‘wealthier families’. Again, we could draw comparisons to the government of the late 80’s whom froze child benefit in a cost cutting exercise – much like the government today

“This bill is about giving every child a fair chance in life. I want a society where children don’t miss out on school trips, aren’t stuck in poor housing with no space to do their homework and aren’t left behind because they don’t have a computer or internet access.

This is a big challenge, and one which we will not shy away from. It holds current and future government’s feet to the flames and won’t allow any government to quietly forget about child poverty or walk away.”

Whether or not the above is an achievable target is yet unknown. Eradication of absolute poverty is certainly a goal i would like to see being accomplished however, there will always be relative poverty within any society. As households start to be in a position to afford to feed and clothe themselves the wish for more ‘luxurious’ products and items will grow. It will then become a race to ‘keep up with the Jones’ therefore a cycle of relative poverty will being again, but this time it will include the want for top of the range TVs and not just the luxury of being able to afford to attend social activities

POVERTY EFFECTS ON A CHILD’S SELF ESTEEM

by

First Name, MI, Last Name

A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements of HS5006 – Survey of Research Methodology

[Name]

[Month, Year]

Address:

City, State, Zip:

Phone:

E-mail:

Instructor:

Mentor:

Abstract

A child’s self esteem is very important in determining the future of the child. A child must grow with a positive self esteem. Self esteem is affected by poverty. Poverty affects the socio-economic welfare of the family which in turn affects the child. This usually happens when the parents of the poor child are not able to afford what other children are getting form their parents including better education, medical cover, social facilities among others. The poor child who suffers from low self-esteem is not able to compete with the rest because he is psychologically affected. The effects of low self esteem could go on even up to adulthood. This article examines the impacts of poverty on a child’s self esteem.

Table of contents
Introduction
Background
Problem statement
Significance of the study
Literature review

a) Theoretical literature review

b) Empirical literature review

Methodology
Discussion and findings
Recommendations
Conclusion
1.0 Introduction

Self esteem is the key driving factor in a child’s achievement in life. For a child to succeed he must have a positive sense of self esteem. A child with low self esteem is always out competed by the rest of the children with positive self esteem. Self esteem can make one either to do well or poorly in every day activities.

On the other hand, poverty is the lack of finances to meet the daily financial commitments. A poor person, according to the United Nations is a person who lives below a $1 per day. Poverty affects a person’s ability to cater and provide the daily basic needs. Children borne out of poor families are characterized with low self esteem. This is because the parents are not in a position to provide for them the daily basic needs as the other children from the well off families.

When at school, these children are teased on their social-economic welfare lowering further their sense of self-esteem. When such children grow up with such low self esteem, they do not compete well because they were poorly prepared for the future due poor background. This research paper investigates the effect of poverty on the self esteem of the children.

2.0 Background

Poverty is the lack of well-being by the people. It is the inability of people to purchase basic necessities of life. This includes food, shelter, education and clothing. Absolute poverty is a type of poverty associated with the lack of financial capability to afford basic necessities of life. It usually occurs when a person spends less than $1 in a day. This type is also known as financial poverty. This kind of poverty can be alleviated by encouraging the people to develop small, medium or large businesses. The4 businesses should make use of natural resources for them to be effective. The other type of poverty is the poverty that is not associated with income. Also called the non- income poverty. This is where the people may have some money but in general, their life standards are below the society’s expectations i.e. they may not be in a position to afford basic education, health care etc. this type of poverty can be alleviated through increased access to affordable social services. The social services should also be qualitative in addition typo to being affordable. In general, poor people often live below the standards of the society.

Poverty is most prevalent in the unemployed, the youth, children, mothers, and the aged. Children borne out of poverty must struggle to reach the level of their counterparts from well off families. They struggle through their adulthood trying to make ends meet. Poverty is a social problem because the children borne in poor families are not given a fair opportunity to compete with the rest. There have been various measures of poverty that have been and are still in use although new measures of poverty are being advocated. The UNDP developed the human development index in 1990 to measure the level of poverty. This measures poverty based on the income. Globally, a measure that is used to measure poverty is the one developed and regularly updated by the World Bank; the $1per day. This measure is widely used although it doesn’t show the real human wellbeing. That is why better methods that can capture the well being of humans are being advocated.

Self-esteem: self esteem can be either high medium or low. According to Baumeister, smart & Boden 1996), extremely high self esteem indicate destructiveness and narcissism. Some people may have false sense of high esteem whereby the feel they have high self esteem yet they have very low self esteem. A person with low self esteem lacks self awareness and may be defensive. (Hoyle, Kernis, Leary & Baldwin 1991). Low self esteem is associated with depression. There is a strong relationship between suicide and low sense of self esteem. According to Guindon H. (2010), a person with a high sense of self esteem is more likely to be self directed and independent than low esteem individuals.

Problem statement

the way children perceive things is very important. This is because it is a vital component in developing their self esteem. In addition to that, self esteem is a key aspect in the learning process of a child. Through it, a child can view things either positively or negatively. On the other hand, low self esteem in children can be blamed on poverty. As children grow up, they may face low self esteem problems especially during their puberty. Self esteem varies with from one child top another (Williams, 2007). According to sociological researchers, there are two types of poverty namely: situational poverty where a family can plunge into poverty due to some negative aspects of change like loss of a job or problems of a disease and generational poverty which when it strike a family it is difficult to deal with and a child may suffer even up to old age. Children are affected differently by the two type of poverty (Dana, 2003).
A child born in a family that has generational poverty grows in the knowledge that the situation the family is in is determined by fate and the situation is beyond control. A child born in a family with generational poverty always feel inferior compared to his/her peers and usually suffer from low self esteem. However, low self esteem disappears and the child grows confidence if the situation disappears.

3.0 Research questions

This research seeks to investigate the relationship between poverty and the self esteem of children; whether the relationship is direct on inverse. It undertakes to answer the following research questions:

Does poverty have and impact on the self esteem of children?
Is the relationship between poverty and self esteem a direct or an inverse relationship?
Does low self-esteem progress in to adult life in a poverty stricken family?
4.0 Significance of the study

literature on the effects of poverty on psychological development of a child triggered the research into this topic on the effects of poverty on a child’s self esteem. The former studies were not clear and specific on the effects of poverty on the self esteem of a child (Sandra and Josefina, 2002). This later became reality and a challenge. The observation of children across different family backgrounds drew the interests of different researchers. They started working on it and in the preliminary observations, the self esteem in children decreased as the level of poverty increased among children but not absolutely. This means that some children had high self esteem though they were from poor backgrounds and vice versa. No observations were made on whether the low self esteem disappeared as the children grew albeit still being in poverty. This unanswered questions triggered the topic and these forms the main objective of this research. Through this study, we shall find out the relationship between poverty and self esteem in children. From the findings, researchers can come out with a better methodology of dealing with low self esteem in children from poverty stricken families.

5.0 Literature review
5.1 Theoretical literature review

This research will make use of different library material and electronic databases such as J-STOR and inform global database in compiling of the research. In addition the research will make use of books and peer reviewed journals to compile and complete the task. The use of government publication will be very instrumental to get the statistics and figures that are relevant to the topic.

According to Sandra, W. (2007), children can be affected by the family issues like lack of funds, peer pressure, stigma and family stresses. Children from poverty stricken families often do suffer from stresses from the family unlike their peers from other well off families. It is more humiliating to them when they are not in a position to pay the full amount required for school activities. Also affecting children’s self esteem are factors like stigma attached to poverty stricken families, class divisions, humiliation from peers pointing out what they lack, low quality clothing compared to their peers etc. in addition to this, there are other factors like lack of access to some facilities like swimming pools, certain games like golf etc. all these factors can have a negative impact on the self esteem of the child which in turn negatively influences the child’s education. Children always want to feel confident in their abilities. Contrary to this, their schoolwork and future life prospects will be highly affected negatively. Sandra, W. (2007), adds that for children to do well, they need role models that are positive, positive friend, families together wit h communities. This will make a difference on their self esteem.

Parents also have a role to play as far as self esteem is concerned. As much as they should praise the children for a job well done, they should watch out not to overdo it because it will backfire. Very high expectations to children pressure them so much that they make mistakes avoiding challenges. Too much criticism also damages self esteem. Therefore, parents must strike a balance. A child can overcome financial as well as emotional if all the players, teachers, aunts, parents and peer can be of positive influence to them (Sandra, W. 2007).

Rani, (2006) studies the impact of single poor mothers on their children in India and He notes that the impacts are wide, varied and complex. Many single women in India, though they do not have any formal employment, they head their households providing everything that is needed. When the husband dies, these women assume every responsibility of the home. They work outside leaving the children alone at home. Since they are poor, they can not afford to hire a care taker to take care of the children. Their financial indigence can not allow them to provide mentorship for their children. They thus feel anxious about their children’s future. The conditions are hard for both the mothers and the children. The mothers are hands tied to care for the children’s basic needs. With the soaring economic conditions, they strain and cut down expenses. This leads to provision of poor quality services to these children. They drop out of school. In pursuit for the basic needs, they end up assisting the mother in provision of basic necessities. The family’s role as a socialization agent is weakened. The whole scenario is a total mess (Rani, I. 2006).

Mclahahan & Booth, (1989) argue that the socialization process is different in single parent families. That the attachment of children to parents, the expectations and values of parents and the ability of parents to influence their children’s behavior are some of the factors that are vital in enhancing socialization within families. In addition to that, structural factors of whether a family is single parent or not matters. Single mothers are less influential regarding children’s decisions than when they are two. Peer pressure is more intense in children from single mother families then others. Though some researchers say that school performance of children fro the two types of families differ, Rani, (2006) says that studies carried out show that children from two parent families out performed their counterparts form single parent mothers. This is explained by the low socio economic standards of the children from single mother families. In this connection, the children from poor families’ educational performance are affected by the poor economic standards of their mothers (Mclanahan, 1985). More so, the school drop out rate was high for children from single mothers that those from two parents. Single mothers rarely monitor the social activities of their adolescents. This leads them to be susceptible to peer-pressure more than their counterparts resulting to other chain of bad social behavior. These children according to studies spend more time doing chores at home as compared to their counterparts from two parents.

According to wisegeek, (2010), poverty starts affecting children even before they are borne. This experienced when the mother s are poor and can not insured. Therefore they always don’t get prenatal care early enough making them suffer from diabetes, high blood pressure and other complications. This leads to developmental delays in their children growth, lagging behind their peers. As if hat is not enough, children from poverty stricken families usually experience many health complications like asthma (due to living in poorly ventilated house structures) and obesity (due to the inability of parents to afford a diet rich in proteins). Another problem of growing up in poverty is mental problems. This occurs to due to stresses that accompany poverty stricken families. These problems include; unemployment, divorce, death, drug abuse etc. Anxiety and depression feelings are the outcomes of such situations and they can last to adult hood. In addition to lack of quality time from working parents who strive to make ends meet, children from poor families spent much of their time in poor quality daycare centers. This could impact negatively on their emotional health (wisegeek, 2010).

Children form poor background often receive low quality education once in elementary school because they are involved in a lot of movements or they are forced to attend cheap schools that provide poor services. This will set up long term repercussions to the child. If he can’t learn properly in elementary school he will be affected even in high school and college. The lack of a university degree will ruin the rest of the lifetime of the child as he will struggle a lot.

Teenagers form poor families are most likely to indulge in drug abuse, risky promiscuous behavior and alcohol. The indulgence in this will most likely spur chains of other unlawful activities all this happen at the expense of learning and preparation for future life which their counterparts from affluent families will be doing. This complicates their lives even further.

Solving generational poverty is a problem because it can affect two to three generations. A family suffering from generation poverty will be so frustrated; they even create myths surrounding their poverty situation thus forming a culture of poverty that limits their chances of breaking through and coming out successful. This may include indulging in unlawful acts like burglary. Due to poverty, children from families suffering from generational poverty grow up knowing that their present circumstances are fate determined in addition to factors that are beyond their control while those children fro m the middle and upper class are taught how to focus on the future and the potential to their lives (wisegeek, 2010).

5.2 Empirical literature review

Rosenburg & Owens (2001) provides an example of low esteem persons drawn from the examples and the surveys. They find that persons with low esteem are more sensitive to any experiences that threaten to damage their esteem. Criticism troubles them most causing them to react more emotionally to failure. In addition to that, they easily magnify events as negative and make non critical events as critical. These people experience low interpersonal success due to inadequate interpersonal confidence.

High self esteem people look for growth while their counterparts, the low esteem people usually protect the esteem not wanting to make mistakes. Low self esteemed people are more pessimistic, distressed emotionally, less happy and anxious. Low esteemed people are rigid, indecisive and inflexible.

Self esteem and happiness are interrelated. High self esteem fosters better physical health, good feelings, low depression, etc.

Abernathy T. Webster, and Vermeulen, M. (2010), using the Evans-Stoddart model, they examined the data on 1759 adolescents of age 12-19. They found out from the study that there is a relation ship between the income of families and the health and that the relationship is based on the social environment including the differences in lifestyles, access to healthcare and low sense of self esteem. The analysis entailed bivariate and multivariate which displayed the positive relationship between self esteem and mastery and physical exercises levels. Interpreting the findings, they found out that low physical activity experienced by children from poor families have impact negatively on their self esteem hence their health. To reduce the impact, policies and programs that reduce poverty and increase the physical activity o f such children should be established. These policies would not only boost the health of the children but will also increases the level of esteem that the child has. This will translate into improved academic performance fro the children and thus a brighter future (Abernathy, T. 2010).

In another survey carried out by Trzcinski, E. (2004), he studied school children in Middle Ages and assessed the effects of welfare on their daily activities and life. He undertook thirty interviews with children from metropolitan and large areas. He gathered the views of children as regarding the impact of multiple jobs on the child-parent relationship. His outcome of the research was that the multiple jobs done by their parents during the night or in evening interfered with the child- parent relationship. He also found out that children who affected by these jobs went to school late and that the children while at school were always teased about their poverty and welfare issues. Trzcinski, E. (2004), noted that this affected the performance of the children at school because children from urban and poor families were poor and therefore their welfare was low. They could not afford many of the things that those children from the well-off families could. He points out that this also affected the child’s psychological well being (Trzcinski, E. 2004).

6.0 Methodology

This research paper makes use of secondary data obtained from secondary sources like the books, journal articles, and the internet.

7.0 Main findings and discussion

This research paper finds a major relation ship between the impacts of poverty on child’s self-esteem. Poverty has significant effects to the children coming from poor backgrounds. According to Rani, (2006), many families that were single parents in India, they were poor. This was attributed to the inability of the mothers to posses various useful skill that would assist them get good employment. These mothers stayed out late fending for their children. The children on the other hand were lest on their on. This makes the families poor since the mother’ income in is not enough to cater for the food, shelter and the clothing. The low social economic situation of the family affects the children psychologically. This is because; their parents can not afford the better education, better health, social services recreation among many other things. These children miss a lot. Their sense of self esteem is tampered with. They start seeing themselves in a different angle as less achievers. They can’t think properly like their counterparts from well-off families. Socialization is hard because they are teased. As Trzcinski, E. 2004 found out, these children from poor back grounds are teased at school of their socio- economic welfare. This just serves to increase the pressure they have on their self esteem. They end up suffering from stress and depression. In, fact this explains the high school drop out rates among children from poor families.

The poor family conditions affect the children’s performance at school. Their counterparts out perform them shining in every aspect. There many reasons to explain this. Just as Rani, (2006) pointed out, those children from single mother families are at double risks. They have no one to supervise their academic work as the mother is too busy. She leaves early and reports I back ate. They are on their own doing every chore at home and thus they have less time to study. They also walk to school. Due to the strained economic condition of the family, their parents can only afford a cheap school that offers low quality education. With no family socialization, these children grow into adulthood equipped with very little education and skills. Thus they will still lead poor lives just because they are less prepared to compete with the rest of the children who are well prepared for the future.

In addition to the above, poverty starts having its effects on the child prom a poor family from his birth. As Guindon H. (2010) points out, the parents of these children are poor therefore they can’t afford health care insurance. They keep waiting for pre-natal care from cheap hospitals. Due to the low quality of the services, they give birth to children in poor environment growing up with many complications like asthma diabetes etc. these poor conditions affect them as they grow up because the parents are poor and can not afford good nutritional diet to their children. The poor conditions that the child grows in affects his self esteem and instead of the child growing up fighting poverty, he accepts it, and starts to think that everything and every situation they undergo is fate driven this low self esteem if not fought hard, results in vicious cycle of poverty for an individual. He will be poor since borne to his death. And the poverty can surpass to the next generation.

8.0 Recommendations to take care low self esteemed individuals

The following are the recommendations made to lower the effect of poverty on the self esteem children from poor backgrounds:

Social support: the state should increase programs that provide social support to the individuals with low self esteem. According to Guindon H. (2010), people with strong social ties have high sense of self esteem. Therefore, to raise a person’s self esteem, one needs to increase a sense of belonging.

Cognitive behavioral strategies: this helps reduce stress and depression as it increases the level of self esteem among schizophrenic patients. Tests carried out showed that techniques like relaxation, study skill and guided imagery help reduce anxiety and increase the level of self esteem in college students.

Individual, family or group strategies: one-on-one individual counseling increases self esteem thou, it should not be used on critical cases of low self esteem. Family therapy should address issues like ineffective parenting styles and poor family functioning. This may be useful in treating issues related to family dynamics (e.g. eating disorder).

Physical fitness strategy: Exercises especially sports help increase self esteem. The effect of exercises is most felt in adolescents.

Other strategies like reality strategies, solution focused therapy, narrative therapy, play therapy and creative arts have also been used to increase self esteem. In school going children especially, child centered lay therapy is highly recommended to alleviate the problems of low self esteem. However, the therapist should first understand the source of the low self esteem. Through this strategy, parents and teachers are taught ways of dealing with such cases and how to improve the child’s autonomy, responsibility and setting therapeutic limits.

The state should come up with programs to help reduce the long term effects of poverty on the development children. Nutrition programs like the women, infants and children (WIC) should be encouraged to because they help feed pregnant women and young children below the age of five with nutritious food. This includes offering of free pre-school to children from poor back grounds.

9.0 Conclusion

Poverty should be taken seriously. It is affecting many children from poor backgrounds. Such children have low self esteem which ends up messing up their entire future life. Poor children from poor backgrounds do not do well in school due to low self esteem. They also experience frequent cases of stress and depression. Majority of single mother families are poor. Frequencies of school dropouts are high in such poor families. Due to frustration, they succumb to peer-pressure hence indulging in drug abuse and promiscuity. If the low esteem goes on in the lives of these children as they grow up, they may end up being poor and frustrated.

The state should move fast to save and secure the future of these children through social programs that are helpful to them. Other non-governmental organizations should work hand in hand with the government in alleviating poverty and helping the poor families. Some of the programs that they should involve themselves with are nutrition programs, individual family strategies, physical fitness strategies, social support and cognitive behavioral strategies among many others. These will save the future generation.

References

Abernathy, T., Webster, G. and Vermeulen, M. (2010). Relationship Between Poverty and Health Among Adolescents. Retrieved on February 23, 2010 from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12003291

Boden, J., Ferguson,D. and Horwood, M. (2008). Does adolescent self esteem predict later life outcomes? A test of the causal role of self esteem. Development and psychology.20, 319-339.

Dana, H. (2003). What are the Long Term Effects of Poverty? Retrieved on January 21, 2010
from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-long-term-effects-of-poverty.htm

Guindon, H. (2009). Self esteem across lifespans: issues and interventions. Brunner-Routlegde USA

Kernis, M., Grannemann,B and Mathis, C (1991). Stability of Self Esteem as a Moderator of The Relation Between Level of Self-Esteem and Depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61, 80-84

Mclanahan, S. and Bumpass, L. (1988). Intergenerational consequences of family disruption, American journal of sociology 94 (1):130-152

Owens, T and Stryker S (2001). The future of self esteem. Extending self esteem theory and research. New York Cambrige University Press.

Rani, I. (2006). Child Care by Poor Single Mothers: Study of Mother Headed Families in India. Journal of Comparative Family studies 01.

Sandra, A., & Josefina, F. (2002). Gender and poverty: Self-esteem among elementary school
children. Journal of children and poverty, 2(1), 5-22.
Williams, S. (2007). Child poverty and Self Esteem. Retrieved on January 21, 2010 from
http://poverty.suite101.com/article.cfm/child_poverty_and_self_esteem

Sandra,W. (2007). Child Poverty and Self Esteem: How Poverty can Contribute to Children’s Negative Emotional State.retrievd on February 23, 2010 from: http://poverty.suite101.com/article.cfm/child_poverty_and_self_esteem

Trzcinski, E. (2002). Middle School Children’s Perceptions on Welfare and Poverty: An Exploratory, Qualitative Study. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 23, 4.

Wisegeek, (2010). What are the long term effects of poverty? Retrieved on February 22, 2010 from: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-long-term-effects-of-poverty.htm

Social inequality is a situation in which there can be found differences between individual groups in a society from the point of view of their social groups, social circles or social status. In some parts of the world there are different social groups that do not have the same rights to propriety, vote, freedom of speech, health care or education.

Researches show that inequalities are still present now as well as in the past, but with some minor changes depending on the countries.

The easiest way to measure the differences in social classes is to grade people by their occupation. These differences are: differences in earning, standard of education, differences in style of dressing, accent, values, behaviour, prestige, power and wealth.

According to Stephen Moore in “Sociology Alive” one example of social scale is Registrar-General’s classification which divides all jobs in five categories: Professional and higher such as doctors, architects; Intermediate professionals and administrative personnel such as teachers and farmers; skilled for non-manual work such as assistants and skilled for manual such as miners, metalworkers; semi-skilled such as farm workers, train conductors; unskilled such as labourers on construction sites.

Every society has its own ways to decide the place in the hierarchy and in some cases, once an individual occupies a certain place in the hierarchy it may be hard to change but that depends entirely on the society they live in.

Over time the principle of stratifying classes has changed and varies from society to society. Some stratification systems based on the ascription idea say that people position in society is given at birth. Other relay on the idea that individuals can achieve their position in society by marriage, hard working, education or lottery winnings, but there are cases when people can gain their status from a mix of achievement and ascription.

A stratification system is opened or closed depending on how easy it is for an individual to move up or down the layers of society. This is also called social mobility and it can take place easier in opened societies rather than the closed ones where this is very unlikely to happen.

One example of a closed stratification system that was used in the past and it is still present today is the Caste system that can be found in modern day India. This system was founded on Hinduism and on the reincarnation belief, where each person is born and must remain in the same caste as seen in the table below:

Brahmin teachers / priests higher status

Kshatryas soldiers / landlords

Vaishyas merchants / traders lower status

Shudras servants / manual workers

Dalits (“untouchables”) do the worst jobs in society social outcasts

Another stratification example it is found in South Africa with its basis in ethnicity background is the apartheid system. In this society everything is classed in relation to a person’s skin colour, even education, health system benefits, employment and housing. Because in this society the position of an individual is ascribed to him at birth the system is similar to the caste system. The higher status was given to the white individuals in the detriment of black persons. In a civilised society this is called racism and it is condemned.

In the early 20th century across Europe, Russia and Japan the dominant stratification system was the Feudalism. The society was divided in four layers: Kings, Nobility, Knights and Peasants. The dominant class was the king’s class which was seen as a god given authority. Nobility and knights were mostly owners of lands given to them by the higher classes. Peasants, in their turn, were given small piece of land for which they had to serve the higher classes. In this system there was no chance of social mobility.

The term social mobility is the ability of an individual or groups to move from one social status to another. This can be measure on two different time scales, intra-generational which refers to the movement an individual has within his lifetime, and inter-generational which refers to the movement of a individual in reference with his parent generation. Taking in consideration inter-generational social mobility when a individual is born in a lower class family his chances to achieve a higher status would be lower than the ones of a child born in a upper class family, because of the differences in the parents income and so the education that would be available to him.

Today in some countries some governments have put in place a system which is trying to help the children from lower social classes to have the same chance in education as the rest. Some governments give a monthly allowance to the parents to be used on the school needs of their children; most of the European countries have free education up to a certain level so the children that are from a lower class family would have the chance to study at the same level as the rest of the children.

There has always been an association between health and social class and despite the welfare state and the improvements in health in all sections of societies over the years, this discrepancy remain. It applies to all aspects of health, including life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality and general levels of health. For some people, the failure to close the social gap is a disgrace, but others will claim that as long as these parameters are improving in all levels of society, there is no need for concern.

The inverse care law states that “in relation to health care and the welfare state, the idea that those who have the greatest need are least likely to get the resources and those whose need is least get the most resources” quoted from handout 19.09.2012

The welfare state in Britain is a system that is put in place in which the state takes responsibility to protect the welfare and health of its citizens to meet social needs, it is done trough provision of services and benefits. This is viewed as a safety net to protect the most vulnerable people and to guarantee them access to health care, housing, education and income. Pros towards this system are that everyone has easy access to it and it is fair towards everyone that needs it, Cons there are some people that abuse the system and would rather stay in a council house and live on the benefits than search for a job that would pay just a little bit more.

Theories of inequalities

In Karl Marx’s opinion the capitalist society is split into two different social classes: the bourgeoisie – the social class which were the owners of businesses, the employers; and the proletariat – the social class which were the working class, the employees. The two different classes have a conflict of interest because the employers wanted to increase their profit and the employees wanted higher wages. Because the bourgeoisie were the ones that owned everything they were able to decide on the wages they would give to the proletariat and because their interest was higher profit those wages would diminish, until one point where the poverty of the proletariat would reach a point where they would rebel against the bourgeoisie and a revolution would start. The result would be Socialism.

The Functionalist viewpoint comes from Davis and Moore which sees society working in a harmonious way, just like an organism, where every institution has its own role to play. This viewpoint needs a good hierarchy system put in place where each person knows what role they need to accomplish to be able to do their part in the evolution of the society. The functionalists agree that this society needs to allow mobility between classes ensuring that the most talented individuals are given the possibility to reach the top of the ladder so they can perform their duties most vital to the society.

Poverty

There are three types of poverty: absolute, relative and subjective poverty.

As it is shown in Sociology, GCSE-Collins, Walker and Walker (1997) argue that the definition of poverty chosen by the state is crucial from two points of view, first shows the government acceptance of the existence of poverty and second because it influence what policies are adopted to tackle poverty and how it will deal with poor people.

Absolute poverty relate to the insufficiency of income for providing minimum needed to survive. People living in absolute poverty are barely able to survive because they lack even the most basic needs like food, clean water, shelter and clothing. Absolute poverty is hard to define because it is hard to state what exactly the limit of survival is. This differs according to age, lifestyle and climate.

Strength: it can be compared from society to society; it can be compared over time

Weakness: what counts as necessity or requirements vary from society to society.

Relative poverty is measured in relationship to the society around the individual, because a relatively poor individual has less than the average income. This differs from society to society. What is considered a necessity in some country may not be the same in others.

Strength: takes into account expectation in the society; can afford to celebrate certain holydays.

Weakness: can’t be compared over time or between societies; have inequalities rather than poverty; agreement over what is essential; expectations differ from individual to individual.

Subjective poverty is harder to measure because it differs from one individual to another. Some consider themselves poor because they do not have the same buying power as someone they relate to.

Culture of poverty

This approach takes in consideration that if one individual is brought up in a poor household they have a slim to none chance of escaping poverty because of the poverty of their parents. The Culture of poverty argument was developed by Oscar Lewis while studying the poverty in Central America. The culture of these people was different from the society they lived in.

Weakness: it is deterministic- can’t get out

Poverty Cycle

Because some poor people do not support their children and do not encourage them to strive to do better and finish school they condemn the next generation to a life of poverty from childhood.

Strength: predictable

Weakness: it is deterministic and generational.

New right view

This idea is based on the fact that the poor stopped to look after themselves and have developed a dependency culture and have no incentive to change that. All of this is caused by high enough benefits offered by the state.

Strength: inequalities are desirable for society; creates incentives to work harder

Weakness: discourage self-improvement, without welfare state there will be a need for these people to work.

Situational constraints

These usually appear in areas where the dominant social class is predominantly poor, unemployed or employed in a low wage job. Those who grow up here have a hard time to get out of this social class and a high percentage of them end up being unemployed or working in a low paid jobs.

Marxist view about poverty says that it is a good idea to have poverty because in that way there will always be a pool of labourers that will be in need of jobs and it will give employers the possibility to keep the wages down because they will always have people looking for work. In this way unions will not have the power to ask for higher wages. In fact having a welfare state stops people from revolting.

Taking in consideration all of the above, the best system was the functionalism, because even though they stated a need for class stratification, also wanted harmony in society and enough social mobility for those talented to move up on the ladder in achieving their goals and in helping of society. For a society to work properly, it will always be a need of class stratification, but with enough mobility between the social layers where everyone works primarily for the benefit of the rest and then for their own.

Life is more uncertain now than it was in the early 1950s. Discuss this claim.
Introduction

The welfare state, which was a feature of 1950s Britain was predicated on an optimistic view of the world, and one which anticipated that British social institutions such as the family would remain the same. However, increased technological change, post-war immigration policy and a fluctuating world market brought such certainties into question. Britain rapidly became a more liberal and culturally diverse society and this had implications in almost every area of social life. This paper will examine the view that life is more uncertain now than it was in the early 1950s. In doing so it will examine knowledge, particularly religious knowledge, the concept of the family, and the processes of globalization.

The Family

In the 1950s the institution of the family was seen as one of the best ways of ordering our lives. It was the primary instrument of socialization where children learned the norms and values of the society in which they lived. The transformation of family life and of family forms has been unprecedented in the last thirty years the traditional nuclear family of father, mother and children, has been challenged and in some cases abandoned in favour of other ways of living.^[1]Some of these changes have come about as the result of the feminist challenge to patriarchal power and the patriarchal nature of the traditional family. Prior to the Second World War men were the family breadwinners and women stayed at home to look after the children and to tend to the husband’s needs. From the mid-nineteen fifties onwards women started to re-enter the workplace in increasing numbers. This gave women more choices about how they would live their lives, such choices were not available in the early nineteen fifties but the late twentieth century and twenty first centuries are characterized by a diversity of family forms. The nuclear family no longer dominates, now we have step families, lone parent families and cohabiting same sex couples, all existing alongside the nuclear family. Statistics on these different family forms have been used by Conservative Governments to claim that there is a breakdown of the traditional family and this has led to a much wider moral decay in society.^[2] There has also been concern over men’s power and role in family life and the implications this may have for social order (Phillips, 1997).^[3] Phillips argues that the decline in the family may lead to the death of fatherhood and could have implications for men’s health and their son’s development. It refers not only to changes in the family but to the fact that these changes could also bring about the destruction of the things which hold society together. Feminists on the other hand welcome the change in family forms because they have challenged the patriarchal nature of the nuclear family in the same way as they have challenged the patriarchal nature of religion.

Religious Knowledge

Prior to the Enlightenment religious knowledge was regarded as authoritative. Religious knowledge is knowledge that is based on revealed truths rather than empirical data or scientific experimentation. Although sometimes science and religion are interested in the same questions such as the history of the world and the nature of humnity^[4] The rise in scientific knowledge called the claims of religion into question and the late twentieth century has seen this questioning in the form of a massive decline in Church attendance.^[5] In spite of this Armstrong (1999)^[6] has said that since the 1970s religion has been high on the agenda in the forms of the Christian Right in America and the tensions between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East. Marx, Durkheim and Weber, the acknowledged fathers of the social sciences, predicted that increased industrialization and new technologies would bring massive social change and that this would result in secularization.^[7] Certainly on the surface this appears to be occurring, Church attendance has declined since the 1950s and education and welfare, which were once functions performed by the Church, have been taken over by the state. In addition to this, other forms of knowledge, such as science, appear to have more credibility than religious knowledge.^[8] It might be said that religious knowledge remains to the extent that it provides some kind of answers to questions that science has so far failed to answer, such as where we go when we die. Social scientists have defined religion in two ways, the substantive definitions say what religion is while functionalist definitions say what religion does. Emile Durkheim (1912/1965) for example described religion as a sort of social glue which held society together. Durkheim believed that although religion would remain, it would, over time, change its form^[9] Thus, because religion served a social function, traditional religious services might be replaced by other traditional gatherings such as Thanksgiving in America (Bellah, 1970).^[10] Max Weber (1904/1930) on the other hand said that religion gave meaning to people’s actions eg. the Protestant work ethic Weber^[11] Weber believed that when people became disenchanted with the supernatural content of religion then religion would die out. Peter Berger (1967) has said of religion that:

…religion is the audacious attempt to conceive of the entire universe as being humanly significant (Berger, 1967:28).^[12]

The search for significance spreads across cultures. In the 1950s Britain was still seen as a largely Christian country and the Church of England was the established Church, the official religion. Mass immigration from 1948 onwards has meant that Britain is now a multi-cultural and multi-faith society. At the same time feminists have challenged the masculine bias contained within traditional religious knowledge and say that women’s experiences of religion have been ignored. The secularization thesis holds that religion is dying out but the situation with religious knowledge is not as simple as that, rather the situation is changing, and so traditional beliefs are called into question. This questioning tends to make people more uncertain of the beliefs they hold than might previously have been the case. Such changes are not confined to Britain but appear to be taking place on a global scale.

Globalisation

Since the 1950s the world has witnessed vast changes in transportation, in technology, communications and agriculture. Increased trade flow between different countries and the spread of capitalism has meant that the borders between nations are not as fixed as they once were and diverse societies are moving closer together.^[13] There are differing views on globalization and these can be broadly defined in the following ways. Globalists, argue that we are witnessing changes that are being felt across the world and that increasingly nation states are becoming less autonomous. Internationalists on the other hand do not hold this view, they believe that the global movements we are seeing are not a new phenomenon. Although international activity may appear to have intensified in recent years they argue that in some areas this has strengthened state powers.^[14] The third view is that of the transformationalists who say that globalization has created new circumstances which are transforming state powers. Transformationalists say that although the outcome may be uncertain politics can no longer be the preserve of individual nation states. This is because the social and political contexts are changing and this has implications for the way states operate.^[15] The information age as personified by the internet, satellite television and mobile phones means that people can communicate across the globe in almost an instant. Global economic changes can affect many different societies, some benefit from this and some end up worse than they were before. This has led Giddens (1999) to say that we are living in a runaway world that is propelled by forces that are beyond our understanding.^[16] Held (1995) has argued that nation states are defined by their borders and the forces of globalization are breaching those borders and threatening the autonomy of individual states.

Large corporations such as Microsoft control global markets hold considerable power, such power could end up in the hands of a few individuals and would thus become domination (Allen, 2004). Technology has the power to influence the way we see people and places, for example we may no longer have to visit a bank to pay our bills but can do it online. In this way the physical distances between people become unimportant.^[17] Globalisation means that wherever we live our lives may be determined by forces that are outside our control. Theorists who take this position see globalization as a threat to different social and cultural histories and to collective and individual action.^[18] Globalists argue that attempts to resist the forces of globalization are doomed to failure, rather we should welcome changes such as new technologies which may help to reduce pollution in the world.

Internationalists are skeptical about these changes and argue against the idea that there has been a fundamental shift in social relations. They believe that nation states still have the power to order their own economies and determine their own welfare regimes. They do however point to the inequalities that women and unskilled workers may face due to the forces of big business and global capitalism. Transformationalists agree that to some extent nation states have remained autonomous but they also say that the effects of globalization cannot be dismissed. The effects of globalization are uncertain and uneven, they have produced changes in the way we live and these changes need to be studied. They argue that the forms of globalization are not necessarily irreversible but may call for new structures and forms of governance.

Conclusion

The late twentieth and early twenty first centuries have brought with them vast changes to life in Britain. In the early nineteen fifties people’s futures seemed secure and this security was bolstered by Government claims that the introduction of the welfare state meant that people would be looked after from the cradle to the grave. History shows that this was an over optimistic claim and the notion of full employment on which the welfare state was based has not been realized. In the last thirty years advances in many different areas have drastically changed life for a large percentage of the population. Religion is no longer so authoritative as it once was, and many children are not growing up in traditional families. In addition to these things Britain is now part of the European Union and contact with people of other nations is becoming a normal part of life. The notion of security that existed in the years following the war were based on idealistic visions of the future and this may be why we now view life as more uncertain.

Bibliography

Book 3 v2

Book 4 v.2

Book 5 v.2

Armstrong, K 1999 “Where has God gone” Newsweek 12^th July pp 56-7

Bellah, R 1970 Beyond Belief New York, Harper and Row

Berger, P. 1967 The Sacred Canopy New York, Doubleday

Giddens, A 1999 Runaway World, The BBC Reith Lectures London, BBC Radio 4, BBC Education

Phillips, M.. 1997 “Death of the Dad” The Observer 2^nd November 1997

1