Category: Free Essays

The definition of the nuclear family within our society is that we have a family comprising of a wife/mother, husband/father, and their children. The question that we are addressing in this piece of text is whether a nuclear family gives greater stability than other forms of family?

The debate over the universality and necessity of the nuclear family began in the early twentieth century. Pioneer anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1913) stated that the family had to be universal because it filled a biological need-caring and protecting infants and young children. No culture could survive, he asserted unless the birth of children was linked to both the mother and father in legally based parenthood.

Anthropologist George P. Murdock (1949) elaborated on the idea that the nuclear family is both universal and essential : “Whether as the role prevailing form on the family……..or as the basic unit from more complex families form, (the nuclear family) exists as a distinct and strongly functional group in every known society” (p.2.)

Looking at another form of a family unit within our society and evaluating whether a homosexual partnership can give a child/children more stability within a family unit, than a nuclear family. Firstly according to Dr. Laura A. Haynes Psychologist, Tustin California, October 5 2008 she states some say it does not matter who is loving the children as long as they are loved, the need for stability is there. She read a review written by a male homosexual couple seeking a birthmother to give her baby to them to adopt. The heading was “Your Child Will Have Two Loving Dads.” An unspoken consequence was “Your Child Will Be Motherless.” It is hard to imagine the experience of a child who never has a mother or never has a father. Some Psychotherapists who treat children of same sex couples are reporting that the children do long for the gendered parent they do not have.

The argument then adheres too, that a heterosexual couples hold the stronger and more acceptable view within our society to bringing up children in general, and a homosexual couple haven’t the biological gender reform to give a child a stable and coherent upbringing. Children therefore long for the nurturing at a young from their biological mother and would therefore be deprived of their natural growth progression.

A grave concern for the children is the instability of same sex relationships across cultures. In one large study in America and Canada (Jay and Young, 1997) 38 percent of male homosexuals said that the longest relationship they have ever had was less than one year. The average length of longest relationship and the most frequent response for the men was 2 years. The longest relationship for lesbians was on average thirty-eight months. (Jay and Young, 1979, pp. 340, 302).

It seems there folds a great argument within society and societies policies to whether stability can then be held within a homosexual relationship, boarding on the senses for discriminations against the sexes. A nuclear family is acceptable within our society, and holds the confidences towards building a functional acceptance within society as a homosexual couple hold to many discrepancies from the biological family in general.

Women in the past were of fewer rights than these days. Women were treated inferior to men in the workplace, and no one tried to seek change. Nowadays, women are represented by organizations and they have shown great roles in coordination with male roles. Women are not only workers that ignore their household roles but also great caregivers. Women can balance and manage to deserve what they get now.

Not Just Housewives

Women are basically the primary caregivers. They are beings that are made not only to spread love and care; they also have major characteristics that make them great mothers and wives. That’s mainly the only role women had decades ago where women were not allowed to go to schools, to work, and sometimes obliged to stay home. A lot has changed ever since women recognized that a world with working women is possible. Nowadays, women are incorporated heavily in funded work fields. Women are progressively colonizing the entire working power fifty years ago and almost around 60% of women aged of 16 and above work, not to mention that the number of working wives whether they have kids or not, has tripled since 1960 (Ogunrin, 2003 in Ogunrin et.al. 2008). There is a question worth being asked if it is answered, no room for mystery will be allowed and the question is: Are women truly worthy of being equal to men? And can women manage between taking care and sharing love with families and being successful and brilliant at workplaces?

An important yet not enough credited fact is that a major change has been noticed where women now are able to enter the workplace that was owned by men and attain greater ranks (Black et.al., 1998). After being incorporated to the workplace women have come to an understanding that their rights should no longer be oppressed, due to such fact, women have come to find ways to defend their rights and seek change. Organizations developed by women have come into existence to help and guide women to the right path and to keep them involved in the society in several ways, ways they have been banned from being part of. For instance, women founded health organizations like the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID) which was founded to help women adapt easily to the new social norms and enhance gender equality worldwide. Other organizations founded by women seek not only gender equality but also help women know their rights and push them toward their goals.

Since the worldwide organizations stood for women’s rights, and after that women made massive treads toward receiving equal educations, they succeeded to tear out this right which was totally forbidden for women. Education contributed in the movement of the revolution that women had. It was considered a pathway to women’s equality with men. Not only that, it also ameliorated the role of women in every society by refuting the fact that says that men are smarter than women by having university degrees. Given that the higher the education the more the empowerment of women nowadays, women decided to attend universities in order to have authorities, high work positions, and high ranks in the society. In addition to that, education has entered the radical countries and raised awareness among the people, especially men, in order to give women the priority to choose, to improve, and to get accepted in the society. It worked in some countries and failed in some. To illustrate, in Saudi Arabia, women are determined and when they are, they always find a way to become better and advanced (you can have it all, 2008). Education played a major part in diminishing the gap among genders. In 1995, the Unicef states that challenging the sex differentiation, universities succeed to ameliorate many women. These differences are noticed in 20 to 30 women for every 100 men who take part in 3rd rand education (Unicef, 1995, in Orgunin et.al. 2008).

But no wonder some women still suffer from gender discrimination. This fact is proved in the workplace. Women were never treated fairly when it comes to having good jobs. Sung (2007) mentioned in his article that women in Asia who have graduated from college are finding it difficult to get jobs than man do. And it’s no lie that in countries where men and women have equal access to education, women remain jobless while men always find jobs. We now notice that women, almost all over the world, are everywhere in any work field. Business majors, engineering, and journalism are not only restricted to men, they also include women. Even when it comes to being paid, women and men earn equally and get raises based on their work, achievement and skills and not on their gender. As UN declares in the year 2005, almost equal numbers of men and women seek university studies, and another point worth mentioning is that since 1990, women have held employments that are not in the agricultural field (sung, 2007). But when statistics are gathered and facts are investigated, women do not step into all types of jobs out there. A study done by American Elites proves that even though women share positions in the workplace with men, there is no doubt that men dominated women in religious and business field ( Black et.al, 1998).

Another point worth mentioning is that women have problems with being paid. They not only are paid little money for their hard work in some countries, they are paid lesser than men. In Nigeria for instance, for two decades, women’s salaries have been augmented but still to a lesser wage than men earn. That is why, women, especially Nigerian women, feel undertreated and ignored. For several years, women have suffered from gender discrimination. While women worked hard to earn a living, they never were capable of getting exactly what they deserve. Nowadays, thanks to women’s determination and will to be treated equally, they earn exactly the same as men do regardless of their gender.

What prevented women of reaching high working posts or even to enter the world of politics is the lack of education and the belief that says women are governed by their hearts and cannot make good judgments based on intellect. From the time when women took the right of education and had organizations to defend their needs, conquering the political fields became possible. In Monrovia, Liberia for instance, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is the first African and Liberian woman elected to be president. She’s an example of a successful 21st century woman. She earned a masters in Harvard and is know as the iron-woman for her mental and intellectual strength and power. Nowadays we have ladies who are vice presidents, leaders and also queens. For centuries, a queen and princesses are not just a symbol of feminism, they also symbolize power and determination. Queen Elisabeth, Princess Diana and Queen Rania are just examples of faces known by everyone and acknowledged by all except no one. Ever since women have earned the right to learn, to earn a college degree, to work and to live freely, women had all the rights to become active in their society and not just bystanders. An article entitled “You Can Have it All” (2008) introduced a very important yet right idea which indicated that those who believe that women cannot have everything, should get acquainted with Middle eastern women of the 21st century who are strong willed and eager to work , achieve and excel.

Another issue worth discussing is that women have not only struggled to have every right to share men’s rights to work, rise, and be politically involved, they have also been facing impediments and judgments that state that women, the natural caregivers, cannot enter work place, since they cannot in any way balance their lives. How can a working woman be able to juggle two jobs a day? Can a modern working woman find time to take care of her house, children and husband and still manage to have an exterior job? The answer is yes, why will it be any different? If women can manage their time and energy and direct their efforts to making it possible, then there’s nothing to keep them from being successful at home and at work. As Tilly and Scott’s study mentioned by Forrest(1988), the results show that women who take part in the workplace do not lose or ignore their primary and leading role at home with the family. When it comes to women in this century, the 21st century, working wives or mothers is not something weird, unusual or unacceptable, it’s every woman’s right to have a life of her own outside the perimeter of the home. There’s a very big misunderstanding Forrest(1988) suggests. He says that work and family are believed to be two separate things, whereas in reality, the limits between the two are not that solid, mostly when it comes to women. An important point comes to mind which is that women who work not only seek self-satisfaction or freedom, they do work to have a better chance in being successful and in helping out the husband or partner in economical needs and in fulfilling and satisfying the family and personal needs such as food, clothing and daily activities.

This life is not a mere path we have to follow. Every single person has a role in this life. Nothing comes into being without an aim. When the word woman is said, the first thing that comes to mind is a wife, a mother and a caregiver. This is not but entirely true. Women are emotional, caring and have instincts that make them such great beings, but this doesn’t mean that the only thing they know how to do is care and love. Women have been the proof that everything is possible and that when there’s a will there’s a way. They have been struggling to prove to others that they exist and do belong in every aspect of life. They can be doctors just as good and even in times better than men. Don’t forget that a doctor has to be not only smart and witty but also affectionate, what better doctor would patients have than caring ones? A woman’s fights for freedom, rights and needs in my opinion have ended in their benefit. Yes women not only deserve but must be treated equally to men if not in every aspect at least in the ones they have a say in, since women can be good at what they do. And as long as women can find a way to be great workers and ideal mothers and wives, why not give them the credit when they do make it work?

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, published in 2001 by Barbara Ehrenreich, is a book in which the author goes “undercover” and investigates the lives of the working poor by living and working in similar conditions. The book demonstrates fairly well two social paradigms, namely conflict theory (inspired by Marx and Weber) and structural-functionalism (inspired by Talcott Parsons). Conflict theory is clearly demonstrated throughout the book-social order based on inequality, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is also evidence of structural-functionalism, though it is not the best fit. Structural-functionalism is defined as a society in which there are groups of people organized into levels that enable individuals in this society to find stability, order and meaning (Kimmel, Aronson, and Dennis 2011). Ehrenreich shows that there are certainly levels within society, however, because of the inequalities that are present, the individuals in the working poor are unable to find stability or order because they are running a never-ending race so to speak. These inequalities have many effects on society at large (both wealthy and those in poverty), as well as the families within the working poor.

The economic inequality in our culture has many probable causes, but they all affect society as a whole, regardless of your class or status. These effects include things such as trust/social cohesion, crime/deviance, and population health (especially that of the working poor). There is a correlation between income inequality in a society and general mistrust, demonstrated by a U.S. General Survey (Uslaner and Brown 2002). One economist, a Joseph Stiglitz (2012), argues that this inequality has also led to distrust of businesses and the government. Crime is also a correlated factor in societies with a bigger economic gap. Several studies have been done that show a significant increase in homicides, both in the U.S. and worldwide, in societies that have a large margin between the rich and the poor (Martin, Wilson, and Vasdev 2001). Homicides are generally the most common measure of violent crime due to the fact that statistics are reported worldwide. There are also numerous consequences for population health in societies with a larger economic inequality. Researchers have found that these societies have a slightly lower life expectancy, and a higher incidence of social and health problems like incarceration rates, teenage births, mental illness, obesity, education and others (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009). It has also been shown that this inequality and social stratification can be linked to to anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and other stress-related disorders (Booth 2010).

It is because of this constantly present inequality that I believe Ehrenreich’s book most accurately represents conflict theory. At one point in the book, Ehrenreich remarks, “Maybe, it occurs to me, that I’m getting a tiny glimpse of what it would be like to be black (p. 100).” This is a slightly good point because, while we as a society view class as an achieved status, oftentimes it is fixed and ascribed much like race. Of the consequences brought about by this societal inequality and conflict, the working poor themselves experience the majority. Throughout Nickel and Dimed we are shown that there are many “hidden costs” to being poor, and oftentimes those in poverty are stuck in a rut with no way out because of them. The working poor have to live day-to-day in hotels accumulating costs, where is would normally be cheaper to rent an apartment if they could simply afford the security deposit and starting utilities. Without a semi-permanent shelter and rising debt, the working poor are usually forced to buy less healthy, more expensive meals because they don’t have the luxury of the appliances needed to cook and store food. Being poor is often a self-fulfilling prophecy, and those who believe they are stuck in poverty for the rest of their days are often likely to do just that.

In another part of the book, Ehrenreich and other maids are watching a training video on how to clean rooms and vacuum. The video itself is slightly demeaning, almost as if made to be watched by young children. In one part of the video, the man giving instructions says “See, I am the vacuum cleaner (p. 74).” This sort of paints a picture in the readers head as to how the company views and treats its employees: like they are mindless robots whose only purpose is to serve the business. To the rich, that is basically what they are. The rich view the working poor as a group in society that is made to be taken advantage of, very similar to Karl Marx’ view of the proletariat. In their eyes it fulfills the structural-functionalism paradigm of society-as many say, “someone has to do it”. Unfortunately this is not the case, because the theory calls for all individuals in society to have stability and order in their lives. As evidenced by Ehrenreich’s investigation into the working poor, the last thing the working poor have is stability, therefore this theory is not an entirely accurate representation of our culture. Instead there is the ever-present conflict between the rich and working class.

It is shown by both Ehrenreich’s book and in the real world that the working poor are blocked from advancing in society by many different obstacles. These obstacles are things like housing, transportation, and other basic necessities (Ehrenreich 2001). For instance, the working poor often do not have a permanent residence or family to stay with while they save money, and cannot afford a large deposit for an apartment. This means they have to settle with weekly hotel rooms, which end up being more expensive, yet are the only affordable option because they don’t require large down payments. Transportation is another common factor; if one is a member of the working poor they likely do not have their own car and have to rely on public transportation. Depending on the location it is do-able, but public transportation in our society is still not widely-available in every city. One study shows that single mothers who were able to work out a carpool or something similar with their peers were much less likely to require government aid (Eden and Lein 1997).

Food and clothing are also problems; without savings it is much harder to buy uniforms and such for jobs. The working poor also have to deal with odd work schedules, often working all times of the day and never having consistent hours. Not only does this mean it is harder to save up money, but being able to spend so little time at home also puts the working poor in a position where it is difficult to find the time to cook for themselves, and are often left with the choice of unhealthy fast food. Working odd hours also leaves parents helpless when it comes to childcare; while there are many options for childcare including free programs and social networking with peers, working at all hours of the night means you might not always have a babysitter lined up. Obviously this has negative consequences for both the children and the parents.

Ehrenreich’s book shows quite well how the conflict theory can apply to our society and the ever-growing gap between the rich and the working poor. In recent years people seem to be taking more notice of the working poor, but the gap is still as large as ever. In her evaluation at the end of the book, Ehrenreich states,

The “working poor,” as they are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor…

I agree with the author in the sense that the working poor are definitely “taking one for the team” so to say. They carry out the menial labor that is required in our society, but not everyone wants to do. Unfortunately because we don’t live in a utopia, they suffer for it. They make great sacrifice by doing jobs they often know don’t lead to advancement in society, because they know that it has to be done by someone. The conflict theory applies to both Ehrenreich’s book and our society in the real world-there are numerous inequalities in the workforce, and the allocation of resources for individuals in our society is distributed unfairly.

Explain and assess the role of New Right ideology in the ‘unsettling’ and reconstruction of the welfare state during the late 1970s/early 1980s.

Following World War II, the party in power at the time; Labour, saw a need for a welfare system that would systematically ‘look after’ the socially poor at the time. Labour ideology at the time included, the idea of tackling poverty, promoting equality, making sure social rights where maintained and making sure that the socially poor (working class) could ensure a better life and try and lift them out of relative poverty. The idea for the welfare state was not just for the benefit of the working class. The idea was of universalism, welfare for all in times of need ‘social welfare for everyone, not just the poor’. The earliest example of universal welfare would be the introduction of the National Health Service in 1947 and a National insurance taxation, a form of income for people to fall back on if one was struck with unemployment, illness retirement and other negative factors that stopped someone from working. The state uses the idea that it is required to help and support the economic markets and the family and provide help is areas in the markets and the family failed or couldn’t meet needs. The state initially believed that the welfare state should not be the main source of support for the individual rather a helping hand alongside with the working wage of a full time employed male, and that wage the mothers/wives can support the family whilst the male was at work. The idea of the welfare state was seen to be a ‘social insurance’ to the nuclear family ‘set up’ and that by keeping up with continued employment and providing a contribution (National Insurance Tax) that one would have acquired a welfare record to be eligible to claim if was deemed necessary. (Cochrane & Clarke, 1993, p.23)

These newly formed institutions of welfare were brought about by the Beveridge report of 1942 and saw that a stable Keynesian style economy (this was the idea the governments should and could intervene within its own economy. It should be able to manage employment levels and the demand for goods and products by the government setting up new taxations such as national insurance and new spending policies i.e. new benefits) would deliver full time employment for males. (Cochrane & Clarke, 1993, p.25) His report established key principles of a welfare system, by trying to support the three main cause of relative poverty; old age, sickness and unemployment. The report put forward a plan to have social security, provided by contributions as a right with no forms of ‘means testing. (Hughes & Lewis, 1998, p.23) The report concluded that employees and employers should contribute to a national insurance so if anyone fell into these three categories through no fault of their own, they could draw from the state until the person came to better fortune and was back in full-time employment. The idea of the welfare state was that it should not be a ‘way of life’, meaning that welfare was kept to a minimum and that ‘voluntary unemployment’ would be penalised (Cochrane & Clarke, 1993, p.25). The welfare state was not put in place to help discourage people looking at getting employment. The welfare state was built upon the assumption that there would be full employment for all (males) making sure that an individual would provide contributions and this in turn would make sure the welfare state wasn’t costing. However, people who were not in full-time employment who were drawing on the welfare state may not have made enough or any contribution to the welfare state causing it to become tested. The key to political settlement that Beveridge put forward for the structure for the welfare state was that was there to provide financial and social welfare (universally), be able to provide a political voice including ideology of social democracy. The report also outlined the fact that there should be an a acceptance that the state needed to manage and sustain the economy which included that there has to be a high level of male employment with the eventuality of bigger economic growth. The report also suggested that there should be a social normative within the nuclear white family, e.g. male works full-time providing a sustainable wage and sustaining a social wage, whilst the mother/wife stays at home as an employed housewife. The welfare state from the ideas and recommendations for Beveridge showed that “the relationship of the state to the people ideologically represented as one of unity”. (Hughes & Lewis, 1998, p.35).

Since 1945 to the mid 1970s the Beveridgean welfare model alongside with the Keynesian economic model created a system that helped support those most in need and for a time which worked well in strong economic growth in Britain. For many in politics at the time (social democratics) it was a necessary move to allow the government to intervene in the free market. They believed the market was run by a few powerful individuals and wanted to give back political freedom and that the market gave ‘non deserving’ rewards and that they weren’t governed by moral principles (www.s-cool.co.uk/alevelsociology, p.1, 2010) by redistributing income from the wealthy to the relative poor, helping the working class by providing new opportunities and trying to restrain small powerful government that only really benefited the rich.

However from the mid to late 1970s, the main ideological features that Beveridge suggested were starting to become questioned and the thought of change was being brought forward. This was partly due with the economic situation that Britain now found itself involved in; recession, in which recession undermined the ideas that underpinned Beveridge’s reforms. The reforms needed a good and stable economic grounding and by which from the mid 1970s was not there anymore. With questions over the state in which welfare was being provisioned and the state of the economy at the time, was concluded a attack on the welfare state and system for the provision of welfare for many reforms and changes.

By the mid 1970s Britain was being ‘choked’ by recession. Britain’s welfare outgoings were far greater than it incomings due to mass unemployment making individuals dependant on social welfare from the state, that by now could not afford to keep up with welfare needs. Criticisms of the welfare state led to the ‘unsettling’ of the welfare state. The idea that Beveridge put forward as one of the main ideas of the welfare state of being universal, for everyone, in reality, the welfare state saw that many social groups were actually being missed out by the welfare system, for example disability, the fact that a disabled person could not engage in full-time employment, racial exclusions; by the 1970s Britain was a different society with more immigration, the welfare system had not been updated to include different races, only white males where included in the old welfare model, and women and the movement of feminism. Back in 1942, Beveridge built his welfare model on the idea that white males would be in full-time work and providing contributions to the welfare state in the form of national insurance and other contributions such as pensions. The fact that women did not contribute into the welfare state or a pension meant that women were still relying on the men to provide. With social changes such as the rise in single parent families, women could not benefit from social welfare in the way in which Beveridge conceptualised. With the election of the ‘New Right Conservatives’ in 1979, brought about changes in the social welfare and the welfare state (Hughes & Lewis, 1998).

they set about cutting social expenditure. They did this because they believed that to do so would regenerate private profitability, but also because they believed that reducing public reliance on state provision was a matter of principle.

The new ideology of the New Right sought to ‘liberate’ Britain. The idea that Britain had a huge tax burden from the old Labour ideologies from mid 1940s. M. Friedman quotes “the state should not be used to bring about any social objectives, no matter how laudably such objectives may be” (Glennerster, 1995, p71) Many New Right commentators suggested and argued that the capitalist economic system is capable and would ensure the provision of wealth and happiness for everyone, the market would make sure that there would be an ‘equilibrium’ between wages and prices so that wages would be able to meet the supply and demand economic model of the time. Another thought of the New Right was that governments shouldn’t intervene within the free market through taxation as it would cause many restraints on private business. And most of all, the welfare state at the time was too expensive to keep up, with the example of a loan granted to the Labour government by the IMF in 1976 to keep up with welfare needs.

The Conservatives sought to ‘reconceptualise’ the welfare state by changing the relationships between the state, the individual, social welfare and the markets. The new right sought to change and redefine social terminology such as a person who claimed social welfare was to be called ‘a welfare citizen’, compared to what the new right ideology thought, the individual should now be coined ‘a welfare consumer’ in relationship with the state. The new right believed that the state should change from being the provider of social welfare and in turn that the state should only enable social welfare, i.e. the state should be one of many providers of social welfare, not the only provider, leading to the idea that the markets should have a lending hand in providing a source of welfare which led to the idea that social welfare should be prioritised by the market, not the state.

How far is that human feelings and behaviors are inborn and how far are they all learned? This has been a very controversial issue over century and it is now come across as the nature versus nurture debate. “By birth the same, by custom different” is a quotation by Confucius which means that all human being are naturally alike, it is the habits that make each of every human being far apart and different from each other. Evolutional perspective which emphasizes on human kinship and cultural perspective which focuses on human diversity are the two main ideas that dominating the thinking of human similarities and differences in societies nowadays. Some scientists held the opinion that people behave as they do because of their genetic makeup. This is what we known as the “nature” of human behavior or attitude. While on the other hand, some scientist suppose that people think and act according to the way they are being taught and this is then known as the “nurture” of human behavior. A lot of research have been done and proved that both sides are partly right. Nature bequeaths us with innate traits and talent and nurture uses the environment factors to mold and shape these genetic tendencies. In my opinion, I think that human behaviors are largely shaped by the environment, in other word “nurture”‘ play a bigger part in designing our personality and behavior.

Evolutional psychology acknowledges that nature and nurture interact to form our behavior and personality. Our biological traits are not fixed blueprints, their expression rely on the environment factors. One of the classical examples is the experiment done by an American psychologist John Watson with a young orphan name Albert. The result shows that phobia could be explained by classical conditioning, an environmental learning. The little Albert started crying every time he see a furry object because he has learned that the furry object will always accompanying by a loud “Bang” sound that going to scare him. Other psychologist like B.F. Skinner, the father of behavioral science has also done experiments which produced dancing pigeons and proved that human behavior could be conditioned in similar way to the animal. Besides, a study published in “New Scientist” propose that sense of humor is not genetically inborn but a learned trait that induce by people and cultural. Obviously, environment definitely plays a role in shaping human’s behavior and traits. If this is not the case, the identical twins should be exactly the same theoretically even they have been brought up in different place. But studies reveal that they are never exactly the same even though they are very much alike in most aspects.

Cultural diversity is one of the dominant factors that cause differences among people. There are millions of different culture exist across the world, cultural diversity even exist within nation. Malaysia is a very good example for cultural diversity within nation, despite the different of the physical look among Chinese, Indian and Malay, we are all living under the same environment and taking the same food and yet what make us so distinct from each other? Each of us practices different culture and tradition base on our race and religion, so base on different believe that we held, our behavior and thinking will never be the same even though we are all basically living under the same roof. On the other hand, the cultural diversity is even more obvious when people are from different part of the world. The language, customs, culture, and expressive behaviors that vary from one country to another country make people different from each other. And due to the factors above, people from different part of the world could hold different opinion about the same issue. Some societies do not wear shoes in house while other societies practicing it; some societies consider looking into people’s eyes while talking is a show of politeness while some other societies consider such action as disrespectful. In addition to that, vary in parenting style in collectivist culture and individualistic culture provides a very clear example of cultural diversity between different societies. Parenting style is greatly influenced by the cultural context of a particular society because the cultural context is going to have impact on parents’ moral values, believe, and socialization goals. So, what is consider normal in one culture maybe labeled as abnormal at another culture. Studies have shown that individualism and collectivism societies often hold different attitudes and value when teaching their child. The parenting style in collectivism societies emphasize on obedience, self-discipline and the importance to do well in school. Moreover, the children are expected to live with their parents until they get marry. While on the other side of the token, the parents in the individualism societies treat their children totally in an opposite way. They encourage their children to voice out their opinion and fight back whenever the children think they are correct. The parents in individualism societies, normally the westerners give much more freedom to their children compare to the parents in collectivism societies. Furthermore, the children of the westerners are expected to live with their own when they reach the age of 18 because they are considered as adult and must be able to stand on their own feet. Thus, we can imagine that how huge the different is it when people are being brought up with different culture.

Sometime, all the people behave in the same manner under certain situation; this has nothing to do with our biological trait but is due to the social norm. Social norms are also one of the factors that guide human behaviors and attitudes. Norms is the standards for accepted and expected behavior which society prescribe as “proper” behavior. Most of our behaviors are largely shape by the society and people seldom go against what the society expect us to do as we scared that we will be rejected by the society. For instance, stop when the traffic light turn red, open the door for an old lady, and keep quiet in the library. Try to imagine you speak loudly while everybody is silently studying in the library, what will happen? Definitely everybody will look at you one kind. Furthermore, there are also norms that we share across different culture. No matter what country are we in and what culture are we practicing, we respect our friend’s privacy and do not divulge things said in confidence. This is known as universal friendship norms. Other than that, there are also universal status norms where people will talk in a more respectful way when talking to a higher-status people, for example lecturer and talk in a more casual way when the person is same level as you, for example friends. Lastly, the best known universal norms would be the taboo against incest. Sexual activity is prohibited among family member, neither parents with children, nor siblings with each other. Thus, people will govern their behavior regardless their genetic makeup in order to avoid rejection from the public.

Undoubtedly, genetic makeup makes a huge different between male and female. Male and female are born to be physically different, female is born to be has 70% more fat, 40% less muscle, 5 inches shorter and 40 pounds lighter than male. But biological traits only make different in sexes not gender. Gender is the characteristics people assign to male and female. Again, it is the society that assign specific gender role for men and women so that the society can function well with each of the gender carry out their assigned role and responsibility properly. Many people think that men are born to be more dominant and unemotional and women are born to be more emotional and soft which I do not think is true. Due to the gender role allocate to male and female, they are being brought up in a different way since they were young. Men are thought to be more independent, protective, and unemotional because since centuries ago men have been the head of the house, they are responsible to feed and protect the family; whereas women are thought to be more emotional, soft, and obedience because they are the one who going to give birth to baby, take care and teach of the child. They do not need to be strong because their job is stay and take care of everything in the house. Thus, it is the “nurture” that causes the two sexes behave in certain way and I think that men will stand out to be more dominant is due to the gender role that has been assign to them. Men are always given priority in the work place as their wages are always higher compared to the women who have same position as them and they are typical of those in higher-status positions. So, it is unassailable that men have higher status than women in the society and hence they are more dominant. On the other hand women are more emotional attached and express empathy more often is because they are being brought up and train in that way. Hence, the emotional trait inside women is not innate but learns through the families and environment.

In a nut shell, nature and nurture interact in forming our attitudes and behaviors. But just as I indicate the points above that in fact “nurture plays a bigger part than “nature” in determining human attitude and behaviors. If human behavior can be determine with merely biological traits, there will not have so many unsolved question and doubt about human thinking and behavior, nor the exits of psychology, sociology, anthropology to study the existence, culture, and behavior of human being. The environment and culture play a major role in the “nurture” part of molding our personality and behavior. If without the existence of cultural diversity, I believe that all of the people around the world will be much likely behave in the same manner as each and every one of us shares the same culture and the biological traits only play a minor role in determining our behavior traits and its major role is to differentiate us in term of our sexes. It is the same that apply to environment differences, as we are being raise up in distinct circumstance; therefore we act and behave differently. Because of the environment is changing over time, behavior and attitude of human are also constantly changing. Each and every one of us is unique due to environment and cultural that we are living in, so this is why that a same situation given but all of us react differently. In addition to that, people often choose and create their own situation base on their personal preference and believe. Thus, studying of human attitude and behavior is an ongoing process that will never end as long as human beings continue to survive in the earth.

Nation-building refers to the process of constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state. This process aims at the unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth. Originally, nation-building referred to the efforts of newly-independent nations, notably the nations of Africa, Post-Soviet states, to reshape colonial territories that had been carved out by colonial powers without regard to ethnic or other boundaries. These reformed states would then become viable and coherent national entities. Nation-building included the creation of national paraphernalia such as flags, anthems, national days, national stadiums, national airlines, national languages, and national myths. At a deeper level, national identity needed to be deliberately constructed by molding different groups into a nation, especially since colonialism had used divide and rule tactics to maintain its domination. [1]

National identity derives from a unique blend of human will and material circumstance. To understand how people or states identify themselves, and therefore what interests and visions motivate them. So some questions of national identity are not simple. National identity exists

alongside many other meanings of identity. It does not always override them all, or not in every

circumstance. Consider personal identity both philosophically and psychologically. Three questions can be asked: How do each of you perceive yourself, how do you want to be perceived by others, and how do others actually perceive you? These three questions are obviously related,

but do not always give the same answer at all times and in all circumstances. Of course, this term was investigated and examined before. For instance, I chose Anthony D. Smith’s explanation for it, and I must say that I agree with him. So, he says that, whatever else it may be, what we mean by ‘national’ identity involves some sense of political community, however tenuous. A political community in turn implies at least some common institutions and a single code of rights and duties for all the members of the community. It also suggests a definite social space, a fairly well demarcated and bounded territory, with which the members identify and to which they feel they belong. [2] This was very much what the philosophers had in mind when they defined a nation as a community of people obeying the same laws and institutions within a given territory. This is, of course, a peculiarly Western conception of the nation. But then the Western experience has exerted a powerful, indeed the leading, influence on our conception of the unit we call the ‘nation’. A new kind of policy – the rational state – and a new kind of community – the territorial nation – first emerged in the West, in close conjunction with each other. They left their imprint on subsequent non-Western conceptions, even when the latter diverged from their norms. But it is worth definition of nation. According to this view, nations must possess compact, well-defined territories. People and territory must, as it were, belong to each other, in the way that the early Dutch, for example, saw themselves as formed by the high seas and as forging (literally) the earth they possessed and made their own. [3] But the earth in question cannot be just anywhere; it is not any stretch of land. It is, and must be, the ‘historic’ land, the ‘homeland’. A ‘historic land’ is one where terrain and people have exerted mutual, and beneficial, influence over several generations. The homeland becomes a repository of historic memories and associations, the place where ‘our’ sages, saints and heroes lived, worked, prayed and fought. All this makes the homeland unique. Another thing, by which the national identity can be defined, is the idea of patria, a community of laws and institutions with a single political will. It explains as least some common regulating institutions that will give expression to common political sentiments and purposes. So, concurrent with the growth of sense of legal and political community we may trace a sense of legal equality among the members of that community. It also implies a common code of laws over and above local laws, together with agencies for their enforcement, courts of final appeal and the like. As important is the acceptance that, in principle, all members of the nation are legally equal and that the rich and powerful are bound by the laws of the patria. Finally, the legal equality of members of a political community in its demarcated homeland was felt to presuppose a measure of common values and traditions among the population, or at any rate its ‘core’ community. In other words, nations must have a measure of common culture and a civic ideology, a set of common understandings and aspirations, sentiments and ideas that bind the population together in their homeland.

The existence of these common assumptions allows us to list the fundamental features of national identity as follows:

1. an historic territory, or homeland

2. common myths and historical memories

3. a common, mass public culture

4. common legal rights and duties for all members

5. a common economy with territorial mobility for members. [4]

By moving to another term, nation, I can make a result of the ‘nation’. Nation can be defined as a named population sharing an historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for all members. [5]

Such a working definition invented the complex and abstract nature of national identity. The nation, in fact, draws on elements of other kinds of collective identity, describes not only for the way in which national identity can be combined with these other types of identity-class, religious or ethnic-but also for the different rearrangements of nationalism, the ideology, with other ideologies like liberalism, fascism and communism.

Such a definition of national identity also sets it clearly apart from any understanding of the state. The latter refers exclusively to public institutions, differentiated from, and autonomous of, other social institutions and exercising a monopoly of coercion and extraction within a given territory. The nation, on the other hand, signifies a cultural and political bond, uniting in a single political community all who share an historic culture and homeland.

This lack of congruence between the state and the nation is exemplified in the many ‘plural’ states today. Indeed, Walker Connor’s estimate in the early 1970s showed that only about 10 per cent of states could claim to be true ‘nation-states’, in the sense that the state’s boundaries coincide with the nation’s and that the total population of the state share a single ethnic culture. While most states aspire to become nation-states in this sense, they tend to limit their claims to legitimacy to an aspiration for political unity and popular sovereignty that, even in old-established Western states, risks being challenged by ethnic communities within their borders.

These cases, and there are many of them, illustrate the profound gulf between the concepts of the state and the nation, a gulf that the historical material to be discussed shortly underlines. [6]

To gain a fuller understanding of what nationhood involves, it may be helpful to clear away two common misunderstandings that bedevil this question. [7] The first is the confusion of ‘nation’ and

‘state’. In ordinary speech ‘nation’ is sometimes used as a synonym for state: when someone refers to ‘the newly emerging nations of the Third World’, it is very likely that they are really talking about newly created states. This usage is not likely to be helpful if we are trying to clarify the principle of nationality, since one of the main issues we have to consider is precisely the relationship between nations and states, and in particular the question whether each nation has a right to its own state. When this question is posed, ‘nation’ must refer to a community of people with an aspiration to be politically self determining, and ‘state’ must refer to the set of political institutions that they may aspire to possess for themselves. Let us say, following Weber, that a state is a body that successfully claims a monopoly of legitimate force in a particular territory. [8] We count states by seeing how many such bodies there are. Some of these states will be multinational, in the sense that they exercise their rule over several discrete nations. The Soviet Union was such a state; rather unusually, it openly conceded that the peoples it governed were of different nationalities. (More than one hundred were recognized.) Rather less common is the case where a single nation is for historical reasons divided between two states. This was the case for the Germans before the reunification of 1990, and is still the case for the Chinese and Koreans today. A third case occurs where people of a single nationality are scattered as minorities in a number of states-the position today of the Kurds and the Palestinians. None of this would make sense if we did not understand ‘nation’ and ‘state’ in such a way as to make it an empirical question whether those who compose a nation are all united politically within a single state.

If we look to history, nations emerge over time as a result of numerous historical processes. As a consequence, it is a pointless undertaking to attempt to locate a precise moment when any particular nation came into existence, as if it were a manufactured product designed by an engineer. Let us examine why this is so. All nations have historical antecedents, whether tribe, city-state, or kingdom. These historically earlier societies are important components in the formation of nations. For example, the English nation emerged out of the historically earlier societies of the Saxons, Angles, and Normans. However, these historical antecedents are never merely just facts, because key to the existence of the nation are memories that are shared among each of those many individuals who are members of the nation about the past of their nation, including about those earlier societies. Every nation has its own understanding of its distinctive past that is conveyed through stories, myths, and history. Whether historically accurate or not, these memories contribute to the understanding of the present that distinguishes one nation from another. This component of time – when an understanding of the past forms part of the present – is characteristic of the nation and is called ‘temporal depth’.

As the mind of the individual develops within various contexts, such as the family or different educational institutions, it seeks out those various and fluctuating traditions that are ‘at hand’.

The child learns, for example, to speak the language of his or her nation and what it means to be a member of that nation as expressed through its customs and laws. These traditions become

incorporated into the individual’s understanding of the self. When those traditions that make up part of one’s self-conception are shared by other individuals as part of their self-conception, one is then both related to those other individuals, and aware of the relation. The relation itself, for example living in the same geographical area or speaking a common language, is what is meant

by the term ‘collective consciousness’. This term in no way implies the existence of a group mind or a combination of biological instincts, as if humans were a colony of ants. Rather, it refers to a social relation of each of a number of individuals as a consequence of those individuals participating in the same evolving tradition. When those individuals not only participate in the same tradition but also understand themselves as being different from those who do not, then there exists a self-designating shared belief, which is called a ‘collective self-consciousness’, that is, a distinctive culture. [9]

Also, there is a very short and well defined explanation of ‘nation’ by Ernest Renan. He says, that, a nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things constitute this soul: the past and the present. The past refers to the possession in common of a rich legacy of remembrances; the present is the actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to continue as a nation. To have accomplished great things together in the past, and to wish to do so again, that is the essential condition for being a nation. A nation is a grand solidarity constituted by the sentiment of sacrifices. A great aggregation of men, with a healthy spirit and warmth of heart, creates a moral conscience which is called a nation. This explanation fully concludes the definition of nation for better understanding.

So, if we talk about nationality

Introduction

Early approaches to health in the UK generally saw it as the responsibility of the individual to seek and pay for health services. However, we can see the emergence of government involvement as early as the late 1700s as Britain was emerging as an industrialised nation. This new age of wealth brought about medical advances but symptomatic of the laissez-faire (leave alone) attitudes of the time, nothing much was done about public health until the Cholera outbreak of 1831 which made government intervention essential. It took the deaths of over 100,000 people in four cholera epidemics between 1831 and 1866 to get the British government to take action to improve public health in the cities.

Social reformers began to survey the living conditions of the poor and 1842 Edwin Chadwick published his Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population of Great Britain which concluded that the life expectancy of people living in the cities was about half of that living in the countryside. This was due to various forms of epidemic and endemic as a result of mainly overcrowding and the lack of drainage, ventilation and proper cleansing. Change was slow as the report offended many influential groups including water companies, corporations and public figures and the government disassociated itself from the report.

Initial public health acts failed, however, after the second outbreak of Cholera in 1848 the first Public Health Act was passed which allowed Councils to set up a local board of Health if 10% of the rate payers agreed.

Further public health acts were passed in 1872 and 1875, the latter completely changing public health as it forced councils to take action which included providing clean drinking water and proper sanitation. This was when we saw a concerted effort by the government to intervene in public health. Early hospitals were part voluntary, where the standards varied, and there were Local Authority Hospitals, which were developed from the workhouses. There were also Teaching hospitals, which were the best, but these charged fees. Most of the population paid for care they needed, although some were covered by national insurance. The services did not include dental care, ophthalmic services or hearing aids, specialised treatments and did not cover non insured family members.

In 1942 the British economist William Beveridge produced his Report on Social Insurance and Allied Service, later known as the Beveridge report.

It listed five basic problems in public health: idleness, ignorance, disease, squalor and want and proposed a scheme to look after people from ‘the cradle to the grave’.

Later in 1948 we saw the beginning of full government responsibility in the form of the National Health Service Act when the people of Britain were provided with free diagnosis and treatment of illness, as well as dental and ophthalmic services.

Formation of the modern NHS

In 1980 the DHSS published the Black report which concluded that although overall health had improved since the introduction of the welfare state, there were widespread health inequalities. It also found that the main cause of these inequalities was poverty and it stated that the death rate for men in social class V was twice that for men in social class I and that gap between the two was increasing. This report led to an assessment by the World Health Organization of health inequalities in 13 countries.

The situation did not improve and in 1992 the government published the Health of a Nation, which listed numerous targets to improve public health.

Approaches under the Conservative and New Labour governments saw an attempt to shift responsibility away from the state back towards the individual. Margaret Thatcher was unsure how to tackle the NHS in the 1980s, as it was so popular with the public, but eventually decided to follow her principles that she had followed on other policies, that of internal competition. The NHS was in real crisis at the time and it was felt by many that it had created aculture of dependency. The government wanted to transfer the emphasis from ‘dependence’ to ‘independence’, by ending the “benefit culture”. The government believed that the NHS should be for the poorest and they actively encouraged the public to make their own provision with regards to their own health and insurance, either through company or private cover. These right wing ‘think tank’ policies continue with the new Labour government in 1997 and this set about to fragment the NHS with autonomous foundation trusts.

Tony Blair did not want to dissolve Conservative reforms and was attracted to use incentives to kick start the modernisation of the HNS. He was determined to boost spending to the EU average and opposed to traditional socialist values, he believed that reform needed to be in partnership with the private or voluntary sector. Waiting times were not falling and he wanted the patient to have a choice of which hospital or which doctor to treat them under patient controlled care. He states ‘I need to know how to increase the role of the private sector in health’ (Seldon: p44). Against much hostility within the Labour Party on 19 November 2003, the bill was passed for the formation of self funding Foundation Hospitals. These hospitals are independent legal entities which can opt out of government guidelines. Critics argue that the top hospitals are attracting investment and more money, therefore creating a two tier system.

Structure of the NHS in England

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:QzBfNynbBC8w8M:http://www.hygicare.co.uk/images/hygi/clients/nhs_logos200x200.gif

The NHS is divided into two separate sections. The first is primary care which is initially the first point of contact for most patients. The services are delivered by a large range of independent health care professionals such as GPs, dentists, pharmacist’s optometrists and podiatrists.

Secondary care can be either elective care or emergency care. Elective care is generally specialist medical care or surgery, typically following a referral from a primary health care professional such as a GP. There are also tertiary care services which offer specialist care, such as hospitals for sick children.

The Department of Health is responsible for running the NHS, public health and social care in England. This organisation provides organised direction, secures resources as well as setting national minimum service standards.

The NHS Executive is part of the Department of Health with offices in Leeds and London and eight regions across the country. It supports Ministers and provides leadership and a range of management functions to the NHS, while the regional offices make sure national policy is developed in their own areas.

In October 2002, 28 Strategic Health Authorities were created to manage the NHS at local level and act as a link back to the Department of Health. The role of the SHA is to support the local health service in improving performance, integrating national priorities into local health plans as well as resolving any conflicts between local NHS organisations. SHAs also monitor the performance of Primary Care Trusts and ensure that they meet their specific targets. The number of SHA was reduced in 2006 to 10 in order to provide a better service.

There are 147 Primary Care Trusts in England, each charged with planning, securing and improving primary and community health services in their local area. They work strongly with patients, the public, GP practices to deliver these healthcare services. PCTs are allocated 75% of the NHS budget to fund services and are accountable to their local SHA.

Primary Care Groups are there to improve the health of the population and they bring together GPs, community nurses, managers, social services, local communities, Health Authorities in partnership to improve services and the health of their community.

NHS Trusts employ the majority of the workforce in the health service. Most of their income is generated from Primary Care Trusts and are mainly self governing, but accountable to SHA. They have to deliver results and if they don’t their agreements can be withdrawn. The main types of trust are as follows.

1. Acute Trusts

There are 168 acute trusts and they manage hospitals to make sure there is quality health care. They employ the vast majority of the NHS workforce.

2. Care Trusts

These Trusts are organisations that work in both health and social care. They are set up between local authorities to enable close integration and benefit the local community. They usually concentrate on specialist mental health and older people’s services

3. Mental Health Trusts

There are 60 Mental Health Trusts in England which provide specialist mental health services in hospitals and the local community.

4. Ambulance Trusts

There are 12 Ambulance Trusts in England providing patients with emergency access to health care.

5. Children’s Trusts

These are run by the local government and offer an integrated service for children.

6. Foundation Trusts

There are currently 122 Foundation Trusts which are non-profit making organisation owned by members of the local community. These Trusts remain within the NHS and its performance inspection system.

One significant change was in 2003 when The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) was set up. This is an independent body which collects information from the public so that they can be involved in health care. It represents public views on healthcare matters and provides advice and support to patients wanting to make a complaint about NHS Services.

Private Health Care

In an affluent society like Britain with an individualist culture, there has been increasing private health care in the UK since the 1980s when the conservative government introduced ‘market orientation’ in which there was compulsory tendering for ancillary services such as catering and laundry. By 1985 private contractors undertook 40% of all ancillary services. Private health care has been actively encouraged by the government to ease the burden of the NHS and although there has been substantial expansion, it only accounted for 18% of the total spending on health care in 2005. Around three quarters of those using private health care pay for it by health insurance, usually by their employers. The amount of people with private insurance has increase from 2.1 million in 1971 to 7 million by 2003. Some sorts of treatments like cosmetic surgery are only available through private medicine and there is also a tendency for people to make one off visits for minor operations to avoid long waiting times with the NHS. Patients generally get better treatment for private health care and competition between companies improves the all round service. One of the major downsides is that more affluent areas attract better hospitals and services and it the lower social groups that require more health care. People that do not have the expertise about health sometimes may be persuaded under private health care to undergo operation they do not necessarily need.

The private sector is made up of different types of company, the largest ones being PLCs, companies like BUPA which carry out approximately 850,000 operations each year. Another sector is smaller private limited companies and organisations such as Podiatrists and Physiotherapists.

Voluntary, alternative and complementary medicine

There has been a growing popularity of alternative therapies to challenge medical pre-eminence and is estimated that a fifth of the population has used some form of alternative medicine. These include professionally organised therapies such as acupuncture and chiropractic, complementary therapies such as aromatherapy and hypnotherapy and alternative disciplines such as kinesiology and radionics. Voluntary services are those which are considered not profit making and are registered charities i.e Age Concern and Mencap. They do not cover all localities and only a few are involved in the direct provision of health care.

Relationship between the different types of health care

Private health care often fails to care for those who need it the most, the poor and the elderly and private health care systems which are in competition with each other tend to be less efficient than the NHS. In 2002 the new labour government continued to use the private sector in conjunction with the NHS services to expand capacity, increase access and promote diversity in the provision and choice of health services (Department of Health, 2002). The NHS has pay beds which are rented out to the private sector, although these often cost more to service than the money they raise.

While most patients seek conventional medicine and receive treatment from the NHS, some alternative medicine has been recognised by the medical profession. These services have been incorporated into medical practices and treatments such as osteopathy and acupuncture are now available to NHS patients. Voluntary groups contribute to care in the community and can make improvements to people’s lives, yet the ‘mixed economy’ of health care and the boundaries of responsibility are not always clear.

Conclusion

Originally the HNS was set up to be free at the point of entry and it has stayed largely unchanged for over 30 years. Since the 1980s ‘internal market’, changes have taken place and new labours reforms set up Foundation Hospitals and actively encouraged the private sector. In the future there will be undoubtedly further expansion of primary and preventative health care and more commercial involvement and expansion of the private sector.

References:

Childs, D. (2006) Britain since 1945, 5th Edn, Routledge: Oxford.

Giddens, A. (2006) Sociology, 5th Edn, Polity Press: Cambridge.

History and Policy, (2009), [Online], Available at: http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-14.html (Accessed 19 Nov 2009).

Marrie Barrie, A., and Yuill, C. (2008) Understanding the Sociology of Health, an introduction, 2nd Edn, Sage: London

Nettleton, S. (2008) The Sociology of Health and Illness, 2nd Edn, Polity Press: Cambridge.

NHS (2009) [Online] Available at: http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/aboutnhs/Pages/Authoritiesandtrusts.aspx (Accessed 22 Nov 2009).

Science Museum. (2009), [Online], Available at: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/publichealth.aspx. (Accessed 17 Nov 2009).

Seldon, A. (2007) Blair Unbound, Simon and Schuster: London.

Skyminds. (2009), [Online], Available at: http://www.skyminds.net/politics/inequalities-in-great-britain-in-the-19th-and-20th-centuries/the-thatcher-years-the-individual-and-society/ (Accessed 17 Nov 2009).

Taylor, T., and Field, F. (2003) Sociology of Health and Health Care, 4th Edn, Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.

Before going through this week’s reading and into today’s lecture, I hadn’t yet come across the concept of the sociological imagination. Although the concept is seemingly new to me, it is likely that I have been using my sociological imagination for several years now especially whilst studying Society and Culture for my Higher School Certificate in years 11 and 12 at high school. In the subject, I can recall doing numerous case studies such as looking at the red light district in Calcutta, India as well as research assignments on topics like the stolen generation and my major work, the personal interest project on the stems of homophobic attitudes. To complete this work to the best of my potential, I was definitely thinking with my sociological imagination.

I would define the sociological imagination as the art of objectifying a situation so that you are able form a view that captures it as a whole. It is thus a holistic way of thinking and ability of incorporating all elements as well as backgrounds and contexts into what you may be researching. The sociological imagination is an important frame of mind for a sociologist or anthropologist to be able to effectively assess a situation.

C.W. Mills expresses this holistic idea of “shaping the complete picture” throughout this week’s reading, ‘”The Promise”. While the text was written in 1959, his views and ideas of sociological imaginative practice are still very much relevant in 21st Century context of analysing social and cultural situations. The social sciences now commonly use this idea to explore such issues as social structures (e.g. India’s social class system), welfare problems (e.g. domestic violence) or health concerns (e.g. drug and alcohol addiction and abuse).

An interesting statement Mills makes about the sociological imagination featured on page 15 is “The sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society.” Here he is stating that we are not able to understand or formulate solutions for the biography of certain situations without take into consideration history, be that of a place, a person, a theory or even anything you wish to analyse. We must look at what has been in order to comprehend what is. Take for example a 45 year old female suffering from heart disease, it seems their life is quite active and their diet is balanced but why are they in need of a bypass operation to clear a blockage in an artery? Well one of the first question doctors would ask is if there is a history of heart disease in the family. Doctors here use their sociological imagination to understand the patient’s condition and it seems genetics and the historical background of her family is what is contributing to her life now.

Also on page 15 of “The Promise”, Mills’ puts forward a further thought about the sociological imagination: “For that imagination is the capacity to shift from one perspective to another – from political to the psychological.” Mills’ here is examining framing perspectives and the sociological imagination giving you the ability of seeing things from differing perspectives. Putting yourself in another person’s frame of mind or in their circumstances makes a situation much easier to comprehend. We can see something from a feminist perspective, a Marxist perspective, a scientific perspective, a postmodernist perspective or even seeing things from a child’s perspective, the list is endless. A jury takes a number of people from many different social, cultural and historical backgrounds in order for them to find a defendant guilty or not guilty. The idea is that all of these perspectives collaborate to form the correct verdict to determine the fate of a defendant.

Mills consolidates why we must make use of our sociological imagination on page 17 by stating “Accordingly, to understand the changes of many personal milieux we are required to look beyond them.” He raises the idea here that you must look beyond one’s milieux, environment and surroundings to be able to comprehend and analyse their identity thoroughly. In the Up Series video excerpt shown in today’s lecture consolidated that Mills’ theory about looking past a person’s environment is extremely valid. Based in Britain during the 1960’s we saw fourteen children from varied socioeconomic backgrounds come together to determine whether or their social class will play a role in preordaining their future. It became particularly clear of their economic circumstances when the children were asked what they’d like to be when they grow up. One boy from an upper class background replies with “I want to go to Oxford University” whilst a boy from the lower class asks “what is a university?” Looking beyond these children’s backgrounds and paths that may or may not be planned by the children’s parents, it became clear that these children do hold many of the same characteristics regardless of social status. For instance, they all were able to successfully interact at a party together as well as being capable of playing with each other at an adventure playground. Children were essentially being children.

By thinking with the sociological imagination I am able to discover the full scope of a situation and formulate a thorough holistic opinion. As I am studying a Bachelor of Social Work at UNSW, it will be important if not fundamental technique for me to make use of whilst completing my degree looking at case studies, writing assignments as well as when on work placement and most importantly in my future career as a social worker.

Uniqueness of Myanmar Social Welfare ModelChapter 1
Introduction

Myanmar Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement was establish in the year 1953 and the government take the responsibilities of many social welfare activities and also keep expanding, in close collaboration with may United Nations agencies and international Non-governmental organization. Nowadays, United Nations agencies, Government Organizations and both local and international NGOs are carrying out the social welfare services in Myanmar in addition to the government social welfare departments.

The department was formed 5 years during the parliamentary democratic government era soon after the country independent from the British colonial. After that as the Myanmar undergoes for many changing of the governments, such as democratic government, socialist government and military junta so the social welfare model of Myanmar is also changing from one government to another. It is of great interest for social work field to study what is the social welfare model that Myanmar is practicing.

In this paper, I will try to discuss whether the Myanmar social welfare model can be explained by either Richard Titmuss models or Esping-Anderson models or combination or different from both. In chapter 2, I would like to do the literature review upon different definitions and models of social welfare in this chapter. In chapter 3, I would like to explain some information about the Social Welfare in Myanmar and try to identify which social welfare model can explain the practice. Chapter 4 will comprise the important of understanding Myanmar social welfare model and possible applicability of different models which might be best suited to country situation and culture so that the welfare services can provide the more efficiency towards the community.

Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1. Definitions of Social Welfare

“Social welfare includes those nonprofit functions of society, public or voluntary, which are clearly aimed at alleviating distress and poverty or at ameliorating the conditions of the casualties of society”(R Dolgoff & Feldstein, (2007).

The another definition is “all social interventions intended to enhance or maintain the social functioning of human beings”(R. Dolgoff, Feldstein, & Skolnik, 1997).

The National Association of Social Work (NASW) defined “Social Welfare as the full range of organized activities of voluntary and governmental agencies that seek to prevent, alleviate, or contribute to the solution of recognized social problems, or to improve the well-being of individuals, groups, or communities”.(NASW, 1971)

United Nations defined “Social welfare as an organized function is regarded as a body of activities designed to enable individuals, families, groups and communities to cope with the social problems of changing conditions. In addition to and extending beyond the range of its responsibilities for specific services, social welfare has a further function within the broad area of a country’s social development”. “Social welfare should play a major role in contributing to the effective mobilization and deployment of human and material resources of the country to deal successfully with the social requirements of change, thereby participating in nation-building”. (United Nations 1967)

2.2. Different models of social welfare

Richard Titmuss (1970) introduced 3 models of social welfare which includes residual model, industrial-achievement model and institutional model.

In residual model, it is charity and providing assistance in nature and the provision of social service is based upon selective either by mean testing or eligibility criteria. So, people can be socially stigmatized for the people who are receiving the social welfare services. The ideology of the residual model is based on the individual is responsible for trying to meet with the market economy and the welfare state is something to be avoided.

In industrial achievement model, it mainly focuses on the individualist upon meritocratic and the provision is upon the individual merit. Hence, the nature of social welfare service is like workfare. In a meritocracy, society rewards (via wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition. There is no social stigma and the welfare is upon the person’s self-responsibility.

In institutional model, Social welfare is seen as a normal and “legitimate function of modern society” (R. Dolgoff, et al., 1997). There is no stigma in this approach as it is regarded as a right of citizenship and most of the programs are universal and no more selective.

Again, on the other hand, Esping-Anderson (1990) proposed that there is another three types of model namely conservative model, liberal model and social democratic model which are in fact equivalent to the Richard Titmuss (1970) 3 models of residual model, industrial-achievement model and institutional model respectively. The residual and industrial achievement models are similar in objecting excessive welfare.

Table 1: Explanation of different models from different perspectives and the countries that are currently practices

Richard Titmuss Model

Residual

Industrial Achievement

Institutional

Esping-Anderson Model

Conservative

Liberal

Social Democratic

Practising Country

France, Germany, Austria

UK, USA, Australia

Sweden, Denmark, Norway

Nature

Charity, assistance

Workfare

Citizen right

Basis of provision

Selective (e.g. means test, eligibility)

Individual merit

Universal entitlement

Social stigma

May carry stigma

Self-responsibility

No stigma

Ideology

Free market, individual responsibility

Individualist, Meritocratic

Collectivist, State responsibility

Government Role

Non-intervention

Non-intervention

Intervention

Chapter 3
Myanmar Social Welfare at a glance
3.1. Background of Myanmar Ministry of Social Welfare(YCDC, 2003)

In Myanmar, the social welfare services are provided either from the government department, the department of social welfare or directly from UN, INGO and NGO services towards the community and vulnerable people. But still, as the government is military junta, every service either from the government or from the agencies need the government official approval in prior to any activities/services.

When looking at the Ministry level, it has instituted three departments, the social welfare department, fire services department and relief and resettlement department.

In addition to the three departments, the government has designated the Ministry of Social welfare, Relief and Resettlement as three national focal points Myanmar national Committee for women’s affairs, National Committee on the Rights of the Childs Myanmar and National Committee on Social Development.

Social Welfare in Myanmar claimed that they aim at helping towards a mutual adjustment of vulnerable and their social environment. The ministry has the following objectives of social welfare:

1. To assist the vulnerable groups so as to reintegrate into the society through social work methods.

2. To resettle and rehabilitate victims of disasters.

3. To make our country free from fire hazard.

4. To encourage the non-governmental organizations to participate in national movement for social development.

5. To train and form the fire service personnel and voluntary fire-men to become the reserve force to safeguard peace and stability of the state.

In addition to the above objectives, the followings are the adopted policy of the Ministry.

1. Equalization of opportunities fore vulnerable group in Myanmar society.

2. The government attaches a high priority to the welfare of children, youth, women, national races residing in the disabled, the aged, socially handicapped and disadvantaged groups.

3. Responsible for rendering relief and resettlement services to victims of natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, floods and fire disasters.

The Union of Myanmar has also promulgated laws to ensure the rights and to protect the Citizen. Among the laws three are some basis laws which are directly concerned with Department of Social Welfare (DSW) to implement Social welfare programmes and for the protection of the socially handicapped citizens. These laws and regulation are Prostitution Suppression Act, 1949, Disabled Persons Employment Act, 1958 and The Child Law, 1993 under basic law. There are also 3 other related law present which are Registration of Kittima Adoption Ad, 1941. , Myanmar Maternal and Child Welfare Association Law (MMCWA), 1991 and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance law, 1993.

The DSW implements social welfare services in eight different areas of social needs by both direct and indirect means. The different types of social welfare services includes child welfare service, youth welfare service, women welfare service, care of the aged, rehabilitation of disabled, rehabilitation of ex-drug addicts, rehabilitation and socialization of Vagrants and grant-in-aid to voluntary Organization.

According to local needs and situations, the contribution of social services has been made by the Non-governmental organization (NGOs) with the collaboration of community. At present, with the encouragement of the government there has been abundance of NGOs in Myanmar national as well as international NGOs.

Myanmar National Committee for Women’s Affairs (MNCWA) was formed on 3 July 1996, to implement activities for the advancement of women systematically. Subsequently, the Myanmar National Working Committee for Women’s Affair (MNWCWA) was formed on 7 October 1996, to facilitate the activities. The government also designated the Ministry of Social welfare, Relief and Resettlement as the National Focal Point for Women’s Affairs.

Myanmar has acceded to the convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991 and the Child Law was enacted in 1993. The National Committee on the Rights of the Child (NCRC) was formed in October 1993, headed by the Minister of Social Welfare.

The Department is implementing social development programmes in collaboration with the Asia and Pacific as well as ASEAN member countries.

In addition to the above services provided by Ministry of Social Welfare, the department is also involved in conducting the Post Graduate Diploma in Social Work which was recently started in 2006. Previously there is no social work training in the country even though the objective number 1 of Ministry which includes providing the services with social work methods. This course is funded by UNICEF, joint with Department of Social Welfare and Department of Psychology (Yangon University).

3.2. Analysis of the Myanmar Social Welfare Model

Even thought the ministry set up the objectives, we can found out that they did not have clear objective upon how to help and provide services towards the vulnerable and oppressed people. And also the policy and the objectives are only at the policy level and never reach to the implementation level. The staffs from the department of social welfare are civil servants and they are not motivated at all due to their low pay salary and no learning opportunities for their services.

The nature of the Myanmar Social Welfare is mixed in nature as the government did not provide the direct services to the people. The services are coming mostly from the UN/INGO/NGO and some community based organizations with in terms of charity and humanitarian assistance. Even though the Government claimed that the services are universal to all but still far away from the actual coverage as there is no citizen rights at all in the country.

The basis of provision of social welfare either universal or selective is also depend upon in the project agreement with the donor agencies and their funding policy. Compulsary education of up to 5th grade is funded by Unicef so it is universal to all the children of the country. Universal immunization programme (UCI) and expanded programme for immunization (EPI) are funded by Unicef, JICA, Japan Vaccines, AusAid so all the children under 5 years of age received the all the vaccinations under the health programme free.

But on the other hand, in public housing, it is not provided to general public. The government provided only to the government civil servants but even not all the civil servants received the housing. Only the higher level officials received the public housing. But all the military servants receive the public housing. So, we can term it as highly selective with bias and might not term it as social welfare service.

Social security is also received only the civil servants especially towards the military servants and the government did not take into account of the general public or community. The government health care is cost sharing in nature and all the patients need to provide the cost of the medicines and diagnostic and laboratory charges. The other charges such as doctors’ fees, nurses’ fees, room fees are free when they are admitted to the government hospitals.

There is a department called Medical Social Work department in most of the big hospital but they are no more functioning at all now. They just present as a one of the required structure for the hospital. The staffs are also not trained by proper social work techniques but if the patient is too poor to buy the required medicines or something, they can contact to this medical social worker. If there is any money, donated by anybody, is present in this medical social work department, they provided to this poor patient. If not, they cannot provide any support and it is some form of charity based assistance.

Family, children and youth services are based upon the residential care approach as the department of social welfare has many training schools for youth, children and even for women. In fact, these training schools are the same as the detention centre or care centre and not all the youth and children staying there are allowed to go out of this so called training school. There is no proper service setting providing towards family violence and child abuse even though there are high rate of such cases inside the country. As the government accede the UNCRC, and they formed National CRC, state and divisional CRC and even township CRC all over the country but all these are not functioning at all.

There are some government owned NGO (GONGO) such as Myanmar maternal and child welfare association (MMCWA) and Myanmar Women Affairs Federation (MWAF) but they are also only the political figures and helping towards some cases of family violence, gender based violence (GBV) and child abuse but as they are also not trained social workers in their organization, the services that they provided are also like material supports based upon the charity and humanitarian assistance approach. There is no systematically helping towards the vulnerable.

One of the important components of the social welfare services, the elderly services are also provided by INGO/NGO mainly. The government provide very small amount of money and official registration to these home for aged. The department of social welfare did not have any residential care facilities towards the aged.

Social services provided towards disability peoples and rehabilitation service is also one of the weak areas in Myanmar. The rehabilitation is mainly towards the disable from the military servants who has lost their legs due to mine in the frontiers. INGO/NGO are now trying to work towards the community based rehabilitation programme with the permission of the government.

Many of the community development are organized and implemented by the UN/INGO/NGO and government Ministry of Progress of Border Areas and National Races and Development Affairs. But this government ministry is mainly focused upon the material development such as road, bridges etc and not emphasize on the human and social capital development.

There are no specialised services or agencies working for the ex-prisoner or offender. The government has correctional department under the ministry of Home Affairs which is also known as department of prisons. After the offender release from the prison, there is no follow up or social welfare services towards them. And also there is no agencies working upon these peoples.

There is only one training school for the whole country where all the juvenile delinquent are detained and provided the correctional training. Still the staffs assigned in this training school are not trained social workers.

There is no social stigma upon receiving the social welfare services and even the people are proud of receiving the social welfare service assistance because very few peoples received these services.

Government ideology upon social welfare is to make the social control upon the community. The government did not implementing services or even not they implemented, they are not efficiently implemented. They did excess intervention towards policy upon the providing the services by the agencies.

Chapter 4

Conclusion

According to the situational analysis of the social welfare services present in the country Myanmar, the current model that the government implementing is not either residual or industrial achievement or institutional model. And also there is no specific model because the department does the services at ad hoc basic depending upon the project proposed by the UN/INGO/NGO. Due to the ruling by the military junta, the department of social welfare did not have budget for their welfare services and so the department stands only as a focal point/liaison between the agencies and the government. And most of the agencies need to provide the services under the name of the department of social welfare.

On conclusion, it is difficult to identify what is the social welfare model of Myanmar currently. But the country is in the transition stage from military junta to the multi-party election in the year 2010. And the general constitution is already drawn but still specific policies and rules will set up in the next newly elected government. So, we all hope that there will be a proper model for Myanmar social welfare in the hand of new government.

Dolgoff, R., & Feldstein, D. ((2007). Understanding Social Welfare: A Search for Justice (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dolgoff, R., Feldstein, D., & Skolnik, L. (1997). Examining a social welfare program: Structural components, alternative program characteristics, and evaluation (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

NASW. (1971). Encyclopedia of Social Work (Vol. II).

YCDC. (2003). Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement.

Multiculturalism in Canada

Multiculturalism is the acceptance or promotion of multiple racial and ethnic cultures, for practical reasons and/or for the sake of diversity and applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place. Today, most of the twentieth century racial and ethnic minority relations, in Canada, have been shaped by a clash between the liberal idea of equal citizenship and conservative racial thinking. Official policies in Canada have stressed the need to assimilate racial and ethnic minorities into an all-embracing mainstream culture. In 1971, the government of Canada announced its policy of multiculturalism. The policy not only recognized the reality of pluralism in Canada, but also seemed to reverse the earlier attempt to assimilate immigrants. It challenged all Canadians to accept cultural pluralism, while encouraging them to participate fully and equally in Canadian society. They supported that a new model of citizen participation in the larger society be adopted base on pluralism of racial and ethnic groups that were part of the Canadian family. They offered a blueprint for a Canadian identity based on public acceptance of difference and support of cultural pluralism. Therefore, the role of racial and ethnic groups is really important in Canadian multicultural society because this multicultural diversity is a result of centuries of immigration.

National disasters, military action, and political repression have always produced large-scale movements of population as displaced groups seek new homes. Those displaced for military or political reasons have often wanted a right to refuge under a state that will protect them or guarantee their fundamental rights. In the first half of the twentieth century, a large numbers of refugees fled from Nazi Germany, Palestine, and the Soviet bloc, and in 1951 a legal definition of refugee was established under the Geneva Convention. It is from the second half of the twentieth century, however, that international conflict and tension created ever greater numbers of refugees seeking shelter in a more secure home. This has been divan, in large part, by the ethnic basis of much military and political conflict, which has meant that whole populations have been forced to find a save home. In addition, the diverse population is now one of the unique features of Canadian society. In the 1991 survey has shown that more than 30% of Canadians were an origin other than British or French. But that percentage is most heavily concentrated in Ontario and western Canada , but rural areas, small towns like Quebec and Atlantic are home to fewer foreign-born people than is the rest of Canada. In rural Quebec, for example, the vast majority of the population was not only born in Canada but so were their parents, grandparents and great grandparents. By contrast, approximately 90% of foreign-born Canadians live in Canada’s 15 largest cities. But, here again, the distribution of foreign-born is uneven. Some provinces, like Quebec (outside Montreal), have relatively fewer foreign born. On the other hand, 30% of all Vancouver residents and 38% of all Toronto residents (more than a million people in Toronto alone) were born outside Canada. Therefore, accordingly, to the researches, Toronto and Vancouver may have the most cultural, racial and ethnical minorities in Canada. But they do not stand alone. The cultural mix in other Canadian cities may be different, but pluralism is a fact of Canadian society.

Official policy in Canada focuses the need to assimilate racial minorities into an all-embracing mainstream culture. The implementation of this policy has shown that these liberal assumptions have not gone unchallenged. In fact, from the 1960s, state policies in Canada became more restrictive in relation to immigration, as racial thinking became a more marked feature of official thinking. Some of Canadians do not supported multiculturalism. For example, in English-speaking areas, some people worried that multiculturalism would divide Canadians rather than unite them. Others in Quebec protested that multiculturalism was designed to undermine Quebec nationalism, but many other Canadians, supported the policy, and they saw it as recognition of a pluralism that was a fact of Canadian life. The multiculturalism policy has to relate to visible minorities, so these new communities are less worried about understanding of their values in Canada because they look to the multiculturalism policy as aid in the elimination of discrimination for equal access to jobs, housing and education. In 1981, federal multiculturalism officials established a unit devoted to race relations in Canada. Later this unit expanded to make race relations as a primary focus of the multicultural policy. Today, most provinces and many municipalities have followed this procedure and mainly focus on education, policing, social services and protection of human rights within their areas of jurisdiction. Finally, most federal multicultural programs stress on institutional change, race relations and citizen integration and participation.

Multiculturalism means the diversity of the racial and cultural mix, the need for tolerance and accepting one another as fellow Canadians. By globalization and the ever-increasing movement of people from one country to another, the challenge of appreciating and accommodating cultural differences has become a universal experience, so the government policy would be sensitive to the needs of both long-time residents and the newly arrived with the greatest success. Canada’s future depends on the commitments of all its citizens to a unified Canadian identity. Therefore, multiculturalism in Canada become a significant issue and it has a deep root in the society.

Reference

Luchtenberg, Sigrid. and McLelland, Nicola. 1998. Journal of Intercultural Studies. Vol. 19, p187, 20p

www.hrw.org / refugees

Richard, T. Schaefer. And Bonnie, Haaland. 2009. Sociology. Third Canadian Edition