toptermpaper.com

The key family types are Nuclear, Extended, Reconstituted and Lone parent. These are the family types that exist in contemporary Britain. The basic premise is that the family structure depends upon social and economical circumstances – as such family definition is open to cultural interpretation, norms and values. Whilst the family is adaptable-over the last Three hundred years in Britain, the family has changed and adapted, as we have moved from an agricultural society to industrial society.

Sociologist George Peter Murdoch who defined the universal Family concept stated:

“The nuclear family is a universal human social grouping. Either as the sole prevailing form of the family or as the basic unit from which more complex forms compounded, it exists as a distinct and strongly functional group in every society”

The concept of the pre industrial extended family is somewhat of a misrepresentation – when you consider death rates of working class families. The extended family is referred to as vertical extensions; Aunts, uncles, cousins and siblings -grandparents, children, and grandchildren who all live together, are referred to horizontal extensions – the sexual relationships, and are monogamous within the extended and nuclear family. Polygamous relationships do exist within extended family, although this is predominately within specific cultures and religions. Examples being in the Moslem faith the act of polygamy are still practised; further more there are Christian sects such as the latter Day Saints who still practise polygamy, although such relationships are not legal within the European or American laws.

The extended family can also be viewed as that of an extension to the nuclear family thru the inclusion of elders, such as grandparents, as many loan parents are female and they may well life or near their mothers, creating a matriarchal family extended unit. Extended reconstructed family, is considered to be when two opposite sex, or same sex adults with dependent children, either marry or cohabitate: thereby forming a reconstructed family – over wise known as step families. Therefore it is not surprising that the most rapidly growing family type is that of the Reconstructed / stepfamily. Statistically most children stay with their mothers when their parents either divorce or separate – so most children in a reconstructed family have step fathers – this brings in to question the social as opposed to the biological care and nurture. It is quite common in British contemporary society for cohabitation of unmarried parents. The average is 31% of all parents as quoted (http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/PO/releases/2004/june/stepfamilies.aspx)

In contemporary society British society today Lone parenting is still predominately female orientated, however not exclusively as there has been a steady rise in men taking on the role of lone parenting estimates are that an average 11% of lone parents’ are now men. Attitudes in society have changed towards the lone parents. Nonetheless they are still passively ostracised from main stream society, by the media and government: as being less able, and a drain on society – this is a view most commonly associated with conservatism – as such in today’s society the conservatives plan to introduce a tax that benefits’ the traditional stereo typical nuclear family – which will effectively penalise both cohabiters and lone parents.

www.telegraph.co.uk/…/conservative/…/Tories-5-billion-tax-breaks-for-married-couples-benefit-rich-most.html therefore in reality stigma still exists for lone parents. Single mothers were not socially acceptable in pre – industrialised Britain, nor early industrialised – any off spring were sent to children’s homes. There are notorious examples of how the mother and children were often treated, and can be found in Irelands History of Catholic unmarried mothers

(http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/reviews/r0000523.shtml.

Functionalists believed in a theory that the nuclear family is a positive social institution. Their view point is one of conservatism, which asserts it meets the needs of a contemporary industrial society. Functionalist emphasise that the ideal family type in modern society, is that of a traditional nuclear family. Their view of the nuclear family comprises of a worker husband and stay at home wife and 2.4 children. US sociologists have developed this approach, in particular Murdock, Parsons and Goode. The functional perspective on the family identifies a number of functions families will characteristically carry out: reproduction, socialisation, nurture, family hierarchy and family emotional support.

Talcott Parson was a leading American sociologist in the 1950’s who believed that the family was structured on the stabilisation of the adult family members and the socialisation of children. Based on a series of complex social structures and roles that needed to be adhered to achieve maximum family, social and cultural gratification -The social system consists of three systems a personality system, a cultural system and a physical environment to which the individual and society must adjust. Parsons model of key systems and sub systems further developed to define four functional prerequisites – these are adaptation, to a physical environment, goal attainment, the ability to manage one self and resources to achieve its goals and obtain gratification, integration, the ability to form skills and ways to deal with differences and finally latency to achieve comparative stability. Each system consequently develops four specialist subsystems to be able to meet these mental and physical requirements. There four systems are cultural, social, personality and biological- these systems are further broken down to four subsystems, these being (in hierarchical order) the socialisation system, the institutions of social control and integration, the political system goal attainment and the economic system adaptation.

The feminist view on family is diverse, as the feminist school of thought has many layers from the liberal to the radical – each having very different perspectives’ on family and the impact of family on woman, family and society. In general all feminists have been critical of the effects of family life on women – however these views are dramatically different if not diametrically opposed. Liberal feminists reject the concept that family lives are reflections of the economic structure of society. They believe that the cultural and social aspects of male/female inequality are central to an understanding of the feminist issues.

It is fair to say that most feminists believe that the family unit oppresses women and keeps men in power. This is based on the belief that society is patriarchical (male dominated) Patriarchy is defined as the combination of ideologies, cultural practices and systems which keep men in power.

The three types of feminism – liberal, Radical and Marxist aim to challenge patriarchy in different ways: Liberal feminists believe that the family is in essence institutionalised sexism, because its supports the mainstream culture which is also sexist. They advocate change through legislation and education. Jennifer Somerville a Liberal feminist “http://soc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/4/673” asserts that the Radical and Marxist feminist have failed to take in to the account the changes in society that have enabled woman to enter the work force as equals to men, nor the social changes that removed the restrictions on females, such as child care, and the running of the home have changed. Men in society today, are far more likely be involved in the care and nurturing of their respective children – and many men now enjoy the shared responsibility of caring for the child and home. The man is no longer elevated to the head of the house; as such equality in the home and family is being achieved.

The Radical Feminist Kate Millett (“Sexual Politics”, 1971 argued that “Sociology examines the status quo, calls it phenomena, and pretends to take no stand on it, thereby avoiding the necessity to comment on the invidious character of the relationship between the sex groups it studies. Yet by slow degrees of converting statistic to fact, function to prescription, bias to biology (or some other indeterminate) it comes to ratify and rationalise what has been socially enjoined or imposed into what is and ought to be. And through its pose of objectivity, it gains a special efficacy in reinforcing stereotypes…Functionalists, like other reactionaries, are out to save the family”. Radical feminists view the family and men as the enemy within, which is both insidious and damaging to woman. Radical feminists believe that patriarchy is the central starting place of division in society. Essentially men exploit women as husbands, partners, sons and brothers. This manipulative relationship is reflected in the family; in which women do all the work for the benefit of men – thus reinforcing the capitalist bourgeois ideology. Men are viewed as the enemy by radical feminists who have created a divide within the feminist ranks, as they believe that no female should be dominated or controlled, and the only way to achieve this, is to not participate in any sexual relationship with men.

Valerie Bryson (1992) who bases her feminist philosophy as Marxist, argues all radical feminists ‘see the oppression of women as the most fundamental and universal form of domination” whilst this view is polarised within radical feminist thinking, it cannot be seen as definitive or even based in the feminist combined ideology.

The Marxist feminist perspective argues that the principle source of division in society is class – therefore the exploitation of women is indispensable to the continuation of capitalism

The family produces and nurtures the next generation of workers at no cost obvious cost to the capitalists system – woman doing housework is an unpaid role, which benefits’ the capitalist, woman were also viewed as cheap labour, before the equality laws were originally implemented in Britain in 19 75 – which has gone thru many iteration’s, and the latest sexual equality act http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/equalityimpactassessment.pdf “was published in 2007.

The earliest view of the family developed from a Marxist perspective is contained in Friedrich Engels’s “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (Engels, 1972, first

Published 1884) Engels stated that:

“The monogamous bourgeois nuclear family developed to help solve the problem of the inheritance of private property – men needed to know who their children were in order to pass on their property to their heirs .The family is therefore designed to control women and protect property”

Freindrich Engles views the nuclear family as a creation of capitalism, specifically designed as patriachical, its primary purpose is to ensure and perpetuate male domination and power through the male only inheritance of land and property – It therefore served the interests of capitalism to keep woman economically and socially of less value to society than men. The Marxist feminist view the tasks carried out by woman as reaffirming male dominance – therefore house work, child care, cooking and emotional support are seen as detrimental to woman. Women also provide the sexual and emotional support to the husband or partner, in doing so the role is seen as one of submission to the hierarchy of the male head of family. Christine Delphy and Diana Leonard described the everyday situation of family as familiar exploitation – however every example could be seen as simply supportive and part of a loving relationship.

Today’s family in contemporary Britain is made up of different family groups, cultures, ethnicity, class and economic status. There are more isolated nuclear families, which have either migrated to Britain, or moved geographically within Britain – families who will have their own norms and values, based on cultural, religious, class or economics which they will bring with them, and incorporate in to their new life. Lone parents who work, as well as mothers from the traditional nuclear families who work, as a financial necessity or a career option. Same sex parents, who now have the same marriage and parenting rights as heterosexual parents. More people live together before marriage, children born outside marriage; all of these are now norms and values socially and culturally. Family and the definition of what’s constitutes family – and who actually benefits’ from the family has not changed. We create life and then teach our children. Families provide the care and nurturing essential to the learning of who we are, and where we form, what has changed is the is open to personal need and interpretation. Essentially the choices of how family is defined are to fluid in their nature and to diverse, to be able to any other than a personal preference of how to live. Nor should government or society be so prescriptive and controlling to impose.

In reviewing the different family types, mainly all have positives and negatives however when reviewing Murdoch’s assertion that every society had a form of the nuclear family , this was incorrect, as both Nayar and Kibbutz proved that the function of family can be performed equally in a society other than the western defined confines of the nuclear family structure. Different cultures, values and norms, create variations of family and also place different importance on the family status in society. In today’s society we have many variations of family, same sex families, same sex lone parents, and same sex adoption. As such the traditional term of “family” is used incorrectly as an outdated social ideal. The world has changed and the attitudes to parenting specifically in Britain have changed. There have been several significant social developments which have brought about changes in social norms and values.

The supporters of the nuclear family believe the benefits of the nuclear family are its conservative core norms, and values which underpin the moral, wellbeing of society. They also consider anything else as a failed form of the nuclear family. The traditional roles of men as the breadwinner, and woman as the happy and fulfilled house wife, staying at home, looking after the children is the theme they most project. The Media use this image of happy family relationship, between all ages groups, every day in concepts and products, actively promoting the nuclear family as the social aspiration to happiness, success and fulfilment- the paradox is that in reality many mothers and fathers in today’s society, have no choice, because it not a financially viable option, as they would not be able to house or support their selves or their child/children with just one salary. Moreover the woman may be the chief breadwinner, and the husband would then have to embrace role reversal in the nuclear family and be a stay at home dad – there has been an increase in men staying at home to fulfil the role of house husband, however it is still predominately a female responsibility to care for or arrange alternative care, for children in the nuclear family.

The pre industrialised class and economic status had a significant effect on who lived or died – an example being if the family was wealthy a land owner, they may well have a more favourable environment in which to increase their chances of survival, although they were still affected by such diseases as the Black Death (Yesinia pestis ) which over a period of two years killed between 30-40% of the entire population of England in both 1348 and 1605. Twice as many poor children died as rich children; the poor in the country were at the mercy of poor harvests, bad weather famine and infections. Also fatalities were higher in the towns where sanitation and overcrowding in poor areas encouraged the spread of the virus. Given that the pre industrial pre-plague population of England was in the range of 5-6 million people, fatalities may well have exceeded or reached as high as 2 million. Urbanisation or isolation – neither could supply the basic needs of the poor, so it’s unlikely that any child surviving the age of sixteen had an extended family, due to the circumstances that they were born in too.

Their functionalist view of the family is ideological and unrealistic, as it does not represent a reality of ever changing family, cultural, economical and demographic factors of life and work – If nothing else the functionalist view can be seen as a plausible aspiration for some conservative idealists – it is however not a viable option for all family types. Equally from a Marxist perspective, the fact that it’s wrapped in gender and equality issues – and that the feminists have such diverse diametrically viewpoints – yet have also provided the vehicle for such positives changes in women’s rights and social equality, it has to be held up as the champion of woman, yet also recognised as having done its job. Over the last 100 years in England, woman from all classes, ethnicity and culture have gained the right to vote; in the last 50 years working class woman gained entry to university, the right to divorce, and the right to birth control. These changes have impacted society to its very core; challenging the definition of the nuclear family and the society it fits into.

Religion is slower to change its views on the Nuclear and industrial vision of the nuclear family: for instance where the Catholic Church is politically, ideologically and (possibly) economically powerful, the promotion of marriage, and the ban on contraception have significant consequences for the family, in terms of such things as: size, domestic violence, traditional male/female roles. This ensures the women are still disenfranchised and that emancipation of woman still exists in contemporary modern society. In today’s society family is a hot topic. In last 60 years, there has been significant social and cultural change. There is however multiple issues as the pace of change has not be controlled or understood before being implemented.

In conclusion it’s difficult to blithely wrap family in to one perspective, the reality is that there is no ideal family unit – and common sense, pragmatism, social, cultural and economical factors must all be taken in to consideration. The western capitalist perspective of the nuclear family, extended family, same sex family or lone parent, do not necessarily translate to other cultures or societies. Equally the views of the feminists do not agree on female equality, or the emancipation and disenfranchisement of woman in today’s society. Young girls and boys nurtured by their parents will determine the values and norms relating to their roles in latter life. Woman do have self determination in Britain today – this provides the choices necessary on how they live their lives, be that in a nuclear family, in a same sex relationship or as a lone parent. If is impossible to make a definitive choice, as what benefits to the family as a whole, is to provide equal partnership, respect for both genders and a secure loving environment- in saying that domestic violence, drugs alcohol could all present as negatives. The liberal feminist stance resonant as the most pragmatic and balanced view – whilst the radicals and Marxist feminist views are polarised in a gender war.

There is a vast literature on Caste system in India with a long and diverse background. This chapter aims to review some of the relevant literatures pertaining to the caste system prevailing in India. Different authors might have varied perceptions about this particular topic for discussion.

M.N.Srinivas (1962) in his book Caste in Modern India and Other Essays, highlights the “part played by caste in democratic processes of modern India in administration and education”. The author came across certain conflicting attitudes among the people of the elite class whereby one group wanted legislation to eradicate the social evils pertaining to the caste system and on the other hand, there were people who were not only determined not to fight the evil but also tried to practise this system. In his work he tries to explain the concepts of two social processes namely ‘Sanskritization’ and Westernization. Sankritization is ‘the part of social mobility as well as the idiom in which mobility expresses itself’. This is said to occur within the framework of caste whereas Westernization happens outside the framework of caste. However, Sanskritisation may lead to caste’s becoming unpopular with their neighbours whereby the leaders of upper or dominant caste may show their bitterness by even torturing the members of the lower castes. In independent India, the reservations and safeguards granted to the backwards sections especially the Scheduled Caste and Tribes have helped in the upliftment of the lower caste. He also brings into notice the effects of British rule on the caste system which in a way helped in taking over the power previously exercised by the caste panchayats. A new principle of justice was introduced by the British which said “all men are equal before the law, and that the nature of a wrong is not affected by the caste of a person who is committing it, or by the caste of the person against whom it is committed” (M.N.Srinivas, 1962). This has not been fully followed in the rural areas where caste panchayats are still functioning strongly. The author argues that the ‘Varna’ system has certainly warped the caste but it has enabled ordinary folks to comprehend the caste system by providing them with a simple and candid system that is applicable to all parts of India. To the question of can castes exists in the India of tomorrow the author opines that only a minority considers caste as an evil to the whole nation and that this minority is gradually increasing every day. Moreover in rural areas it is possible to come across urbanized young people who consider caste detrimental to healthy relations between people. He concludes by saying that nothing else but the people themselves must understand that caste ‘necessarily means casteism and that benefits it offers are bought at a heavy price for the country as a whole’.

Taya.Zinkin (1962) in her book Caste Today describes the caste system in India. She considers its origin, the way it works, what democracy is doing to caste and vice versa. In her work she states that caste is not class and that every caste has educated and uneducated, rich and poor, well born and ordinary born. The author also says that caste is not dependent on colour because a Brahmin will not stop being a Brahmin if he is black skinned nor does an untouchable stop being one if he is fair skinned. She also argues that caste is not based on occupation, however various other literatures may not completely agree to what this author states. According to her “caste is a way of life which divides society into small groups, each of which lives in a rather different way from the rest”. Due to these differences, tiny groups and important aspects of life like marriage take place within them, these groups have immense control of power and thus a better survival. Before she goes into the details of castes, sub- castes and untouchability she tries to explain the concept of re- incarnation. It is said that the whole system is based upon a combination of status fixed by birth and rebirth. This means that a person’s birth in the existing life depends on the consequences of his deeds done in past life i.e. if one performs his duties well complying with what he is supposed to do then he may be reborn in a better situation or not be reborn at all. Marriage customs vary with castes and sub-castes. Untouchables usually make late marriages unlike the Brahmins who make early arranged child marriages. Finally Tan Zinkin(1962) talks about the beginnings of the breakdown and the loss of belief of the Hindu society. Change of attitudes among the castes and sub-castes were witnessed. “More recently, loss of belief has been the result, of the spread of education to the rural areas. With education came an arousing of new expectations, which through much of the Indian peninsula produced a new non-Brahmanical leadership, a leadership which was not only non- Brahmin but positively anti -Brahmin” (Tan Zinkin, 1962.pp38).

Tan Zinkin has been pretty much argumentative on the concept of caste. She strongly says what caste in not rather than what caste is. The theory about re incarnation has helped me to know more about the birth and rebirth cycle with regard to the caste system.

Marc Galanter (1963.pp 544-559) in his article Law and Caste in Modern India focuses on caste and laws pertaining to it during the British rule in India. He describes the way in which the legal rules and regulations affect the caste as an institution. The legal view of caste is explained under three headings namely personal law, caste autonomy and precedence and disabilities. First being legal rights and obligations of a person which is determined by the identity of the caste group to which he belongs. During the British period caste was little used for the occurrence of legal regulation and moreover all castes irrespective of their ranks had to follow the same rights and duties. However caste customs varied when it came to law of succession, law of adoption and law of marriage. Marriages between different castes or varnas were not allowed. Caste autonomy conferred some right to the caste groups to enforce certain rules which were not disturbed by the government. Precedence and disabilities dealt with the legal interventions with regard to the relations between castes. Courts imposed certain rules such as restriction on the entry of a particular caste into temples. This shows that even though the British did help in reducing the caste discrimination, on the other hand they ended up aggravating it to a certain extent. The author also talks about the independent India where the higher castes have lost their dominance over legal matters and moreover the lower ahs castes have acquired certain government benefits regarding equality and other preferential treatments. Marc Galanter (1963) concludes this essay by saying that “British period may be considered as a period of’Sanskritzation’ in legal notion of caste”. (1963.pp559)

“Caste- based oppression in India lives today in an environment seemingly hostile to its presence: a nation-state that has long been labelled the “world’s Largest democracy,” a progressive and protective constitution; a system of laws designed to proscribe and punish acts of a discrimination on the basis of caste; broad- based programmes of affirmative action that include constitutionally mandated reservations or quotas for Dalits or so- called Untouchables; and a aggressive economic liberalization campaign to fuel India’s economic growth.” Says Smitha Narula(2008) in her article Equal by Law, Unequal by Caste: The ‘Untouchable’ Condition in Critical Race Perspective. The author talks about the caste system and the discrimination attached to it and the inequality witnessed in India today focusing on the caste and gender- based discrimination and its impact on the Dalits of India.

Dr.Santosh Singh Anant(1972) in his work The Changing Concept of Caste in India enumerates the psychological aspects of caste, inter- caste relations and of untouchability. He comments on the theory of ‘status consistency’ and it is defined as “the extent to which an individual’s rank positions on a given hierarchies are at a comparable level (Rush, 1967). A Brahmin working as peon in an office and an untouchable or anyone from the lower caste working as a senior officer would be an apt example for status inconsistency. This is however happening due to the spread of education. He brings in one of the several views about the origin of caste system which dates back to 1500 B.C with the advent of Aryans from Central Asia. According to Nehru (1960) The Dravdians were the conquered race and Aryans the conquerors. Since the Dravidians were advanced in their civilization, Aryans considered them to be a potential threat to them. This is considered to be one of reasons why Aryans tried to push the Dravidians to an inferior position and thus created the theory of four- Varnas or the caste system. The author also points out that socio-economic factors such as education, industrialization, and increase in mobility have abated the rate of discrimination of caste system.

Sree Narayana Guru the Ascetic Who Changed the ‘Lunatic Asylum’ into God’s Own Country is a biography written by Murkot Ramunny about a saint who lived in Kerala state in the Southern part of India. Narayana Guru was a philosopher as well as reformer who immensely contributed to the upliftment of lower castes in Kerala. He helped in bringing about freedom of prayer and education to millions of under privileged in Kerala. It is due to his selfless service to the society that Kerala has attained 100 percent literacy rate compared to other states in India. The author in his article informs us that, even the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi paid him a visit and took inspiration from Guru for the social Upliftment of the lower casts or Harijans (Untouchables). One caste one religion one god for man was his motto. “It is years since I left caste and religion. Even then some people are working on presumption that I belong to their community. As a result, a wrong impression has been created in the minds of the people. I do not belong to any caste or religion. In order that only people who do not belong to any caste or religion should succeed me” (Narayana Guru, 1091). This piece of literature has helped me in this dissertation to know more about the caste system prevalent in the state of Kerala.

According to Harsh Mandir, in his article Burning Baskets of Shame (2010 August 9.pp3), he illustrates a real incident of manual scavenging which had happened in India couple of years back. The statistics shown by him in this article concerning the number of people doing manual scavenging was about 6.4 lacs according to the Planning Commission in 1995. He describes about a campaign named ‘Safai Karmchari Andolan’ (SKA) which was started as a non-violent mass resistance to end this hideous practice of Manual Scavenging. This campaign was started by an individual who himself was born into a scavenging family who witnessed this abhorring practice from his childhood. As reported by Harsh Mandir in this article SKA is the first movement to end Untouchability in India. But it should be right to say that this was one of the many movements which had taken place in different part of India during different period.

In the article The Indian Caste System by Madhudvisa Dasa (August 9, 2010) he tries to explain the caste system in relation to what has been written in the ancient scriptures. He quotes certain ideas from the Holy Book of Hindus, The Bhagavad Gita. The author sheds some light on the’Vedas’, which says that the Varnas or castes are not differentiated on the basis of birth but my mere qualification (Guna) and work (karma). He assumes that the present caste system has degenerated to the extent that people consider men born in Brahmin families as a Brahmin even if he does not exhibit the qualities of a Brahmin. The author agrees to the fact that one takes rebirth according to his past deeds or ‘karma’ but at the same time he says that in order to become a Brahmin adequate training is required and that it is not conferred automatically by birth as seen in the present generation.

India’s “hidden apartheid” (UNESCO Courier, 2001.pp27-29); an article written by Gopal Guru and Shiraz Sidhva criticizes the abhorrent caste system in India. The article opens with a note which says “India’s ancient caste system persists, subjecting millions to degrading poverty and human rights abuses. Attitudes die hard, despite government legislations to usher in change.” They comment on the caste system as a means of deployment by the upper caste to suppress the lower caste and thus attain a monopoly over the wealth, knowledge, power and education. The extent of discrimination was immense that these so called untouchables were forced to use drums in order to announce their arrival so that the upper caste is not polluted even by their shadow falling on them. This article informs us that the term ‘untouchables’ was abolished in 1950 under the constitution of India but there still exists a glimpse of discrimination against them. India has however tried to reduce the discrimination by reserving quotas and reservations for the lower castes in education and for government jobs.

Caste in doubt: The Indian Census and Caste (2010.June 12, pp46), an article which had been recently published in ‘The Economist’ has details about the reservations and quotas being introduced for the lower castes. This article also brings into notice the issue relating to the inclusion of caste system in the census which is to be declared in the ten yearly plan in 2011. However this had been faced with criticisms because since 1931 India has not counted caste in the census. Moreover it is impossible for it be included in the census because India’s caste system has not only the four Varnas but also various other sub-castes which may not be evidently recognised by the authorities. In spite of certain obstacles, the economic growth of the country has contributed to the lessening of discrimination on the basis of caste because a number of individuals have moved from the rigid social surroundings to the urban towns and cities in search of jobs where family background is irrelevant. “Many Indians are becoming caste- blind and marrying across caste lines. Anidhrudda, a 20 year old software engineer in Calcutta, says his inter-caste marriage was no big deal. But even he concedes that there are limits. If he had married a dalit, he says, ‘my family would not have been able to face the society’” (The Economist, 2010.pp46).

Leaders: Untouchables and Unthinkable; Indian Business (The Economist.2007.pp17) is an article which highlights the point that says that Indian business does not discriminate against the Untouchables or lower castes. Moreover, it condemns the practice of reservation in private sector because it would damage the whole business system. “Responsibility for lower castes’ lack of advancement does not lie with the private sector. There is no evidence that companies discriminate against them. The real culprit is government and the rotten educational system it has created” (The Economist.2007.pp17).It is not possible to have reservations in Business like they have it educational systems. This article says that as people get richer their concern about the caste fades. Nowadays middle class Indian families are to be seen marrying outside their caste than the rural poor and less likely to wrinkle their nose at a Dalit.

Harold A. Gould in his work The Adaptive Functions of Caste in Contemporary India (1963.pg427) informs us that caste has not fully disappeared even with the advent of modern technology and other social structural changes. His research found out that in rural areas, the existence of caste in the form of ritual purity, occupation, and system of hierarchy still exists in its own way. In contemporary India, however caste system has not disappeared completely but has declined in the urban areas among the educated middle class families.

From the above review of Literature and from various other reliable sources it can be understood that it is not possible to witness an India without a small aspect of Caste system. This is because it has been deeply rooted in the minds of Indians since ages and it still continues in certain spheres of their life. Caste system has been a topic of great interest to the Westerners as it fascinates them about the two ideologies- of caste system being important and not being important, existing within the same country and people. Recent articles from The Economist which are mentioned above, mainly talks about the reservations and quotas based on caste rather than discriminating against them on the basis of ritual purity and occupation. However it is not completely true to say that caste system has vanished from the Indian society. “Educated Indians know that caste exists, but they are unclear and troubled about what it means for them as members of the society that is a part of the modern world. No one can say that it is easy to give a clear and consistent account of the meaning and significance of caste in India today” (Fuller.C.J, 1996.Caste Today.pp153)

This essay will demonstrate the knowledge and understanding of sociological concepts and theories related to health, illness and health care. It will also look and explain the historical and contemporary patterns of inequality in health and illness. It will also critically discuss why some people are healthier than others. It will also Discuss insight of sociological methods of research discovery and evaluate the relevant data.

Sociology of health is the study between different ethnic groups and individuals in human society. The twentieth century has witnessed a rise in life expectancy for people that live in industrialized countries compared to other parts of the world the standards of health and wellbeing are quite high. Research has shown that certain groups of people tend to enjoy a much healthier life style than others. Theses health inequalities appear to be in the larger socioeconomic patterns. Sociologists have attempted to explain the link between health and the variation in social class, gender, race, age and location (Giddens 2001).

Research on class and health has shown a pattern between death and illness and an individual’s social class. There have been two nationwide studies on health in the United Kingdom one of theses being The Black Report in 1980 (Giddens 2001). The Black Report, was commissioned by the government to look at data on health inequalities and to make recommendation for policy and research, which focused largely on materialist explanation of health inequality. The report emphasised the need for an all- inclusive anti-poverty policy and for improvement in education in order to reduce health inequalities (Macintyre 1997).

Studies show that poverty can be bad for your health. Areas of the country with above average numbers of people dying young, that is before 65, are generally poor urban areas. Glasgow, London and many of the biggest cities in the North of England stand out in particular. Suicide rates amongst young men are four times higher amongst those with no known occupation compared to those in Social Class 1. People on low incomes are more likely to suffer episodes of serious depression. (BBC News 1999)

In a speech on 27 March 1977 the then Secretary of State for Social Services stated:

“aˆ¦.. The crude differences in mortality rates between the various social classes are worrying. To take the extreme example, in 1971 the death rate for adult men in social class V (unskilled workers) was nearly twice that of adult men in social class I (professional workers) even when account has been taken of the different age structure of the 2 classes. When you look at death rates for specific diseases the gap is even wider. For examples for tuberculosis the death rate in social class V is 10 times that for social class I; for bronchitis it was 5 times as high and for lung cancer and stomach cancer 3 times as high. Social class differences in mortality begin at birth. In 1971 neo-natal death rates – deaths within the first month of life – were twice as high for the children of fathers in social class V as they were in social class I. Death rates for the post-neo-natal period – from one month up to one year – were nearly 5 times higher in social class V than in social class I aˆ¦ The first step towards remedial action is to put together what is already known about the problem aˆ¦ it is a major challenge for the next 10 or more years to try to narrow the gap in health standards between different social classes.”

Many cultures have different health and cultural beliefs such as in the Asian ethnic groups believe that the extended family have influence on individuals; the oldest male is the decision maker and spokesman.

Stacy (1988) stated that various cultural social and economic factors all of which have their own roots in the eighteenth century

Biomedical is one of the ways to understanding health and illness in the western cultures, but also being accepted not only by doctors but also by none professional. There is general agreement among contributors that there are a number of important characteristics Nettleton (1995.5) describes some examples these being Mid -body dualism which is accepting that the mind and the body can be treated with two different things, Mechanical metaphor looks at the theory of which that the body is a machine, Biomedical is described as ‘reductionist’ in that there are tendency to reduce all explanations to the physical working of the body. All cultures have a known concept of physical health and illness, but most of what is recognized as medicine is a consequence of development in western society over the past three centuries. Premodern cultures, the family was the main institution coping with illness and disease. There have always been people who believe that you can be healed by different remedies such as physical and magical in the non- western cultures throughout the world (Giddens 2001).

The Bio-medical model there are three main theory’s on why the bio-medical model of health is predicted. First disease is seen as a breakdown within the human body that diverts it from its ‘normal’ state of being The germ theory of disease, second is the mind and body are able to be treated separately and the third being doctors who have been trained and are experts in treating illness and disease (Giddens 2001). Critics to this model say that the effectiveness of scientific medicine ‘overrated’. In spite of the prestige that modern medicine has acquired, improvement in overall health can be attributed far more too social and environmental changes than to medical skill. Effective sanitation, better nutrition and improved sewerage and hygiene were more influential particularly in reducing the rates of infant deaths and young people (Mc Keown 1979). Other critics like Ivan Illich (1976) states that modern medicine has done more harm than good.

Western female thought through the centuries has identified the relationship between patriarchy and gender as crucial to the women?¦s subordinate position. For two hundred years, patriarchy precluded women from having a legal or political identity and the legislation and attitudes supporting this provided the model for slavery. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries suffrage campaigners succeeded in securing some legal and political rights for women in the UK. By the middle of the 20th century, the emphasis had shifted from suffrage to social and economic equality in the public and private sphere and the women?¦s movement that sprung up during the 1960s began to argue that women were oppressed by patriarchal structures.

Equal status for women of all races, classes, sexualities and abilities – in the 21st century these feminist claims for equality are generally accepted as reasonable principles in western society; yet the contradiction between this principle of equality and the demonstrable inequalities between the sexes that still exist exposes the continuing dominance of male privilege and values throughout society (patriarchy). This essay seeks to move beyond the irrepressible evidence for gender inequality and the division of labour. Rather, it poses the question of gender inequality as it manifests itself as an effect of patriarchy drawing from a theoretical body of work which has been developed so recently that it would have been impossible to write this essay thirty years ago.

Feminist Theory and Patriarchy

Although ??K patriarchy is arguably the oldest example of a forced or exploitative division of social activities?? and clearly existed before it was ever examined by sociologists, the features of patriarchy had been accepted as natural (biological) in substance. It was not until feminists in the 1960s began to explore the features and institutions of patriarchy, that the power of the concept to explain women?¦s subordinate position in society was proven (Seidman, 1994) .

The feminist engagement with theories of patriarchy criticised pre-existing theoretical positions and their ideological use, tracing theoretical progenitors of popular views about gender, gender roles etc (Cooper, 1995; Raymond, 1980). Developing theories to explain how gender inequalities have their roots in ideologies of gender difference and a hierarchical gender order, feminist theoretical concepts of patriarchy are able to explain and challenge gender inequality and the gendered division of labour in the private and social spheres (Seidman, 1994). They have done this by challenging concepts of gender, the family and the unequal division of labour underpinned by a theory of patriarchy that has come to reveal how it operates to subordinate women and privilege men, often at women?¦s expense.

Patriarchy, Structure and Gender Inequality

Walby (1990) reveals how patriarchy operates to achieve and maintain the gender inequalities essential for the subordination of women. Crucially for this essay, she shows how it can operate differently in the private and public domain but toward the same end. She identifies patriarchy as having diverse forms of and relationships between its structures in the public and private spheres, and yet still operates in a related fashion.

Walby?¦s explanation sees the household and household production as being a key site of women?¦s subordination but acknowledges that the domestic area is not the only one that women participate in. She shows how the concept of patriarchy is useful in explaining the relationship between women?¦s subordination in the private and public arenas by showing that they work equally to achieve this subordination as well as supporting, reflecting and maintaining patriarchy itself.

Firstly, Walby points out that the structures of patriarchy differ in their form. The household has a different structure to other institutional forms, e.g., the workplace. This is an important point because if feminist theories of patriarchy are to stand they must show that patriarchy operates to the same end in both the private and public sphere, even if it uses different strategies, otherwise it could not be the main reason for the continuing inequality of women in both the private and public sphere.

Walby shows that within the private structure and the public structures, patriarchy does use different strategies to maintain gender inequality and these strategies both achieve the subordination of women. The household strategy is considered to be exclusionary and the public structures strategy as segregationist.

The exclusionary strategy in the private arena is based on household production. Application of this strategy in the domestic sphere depends on individual patriarchs controlling women in the private world of the home. The male patriarch in the household is both the oppressor and recipient of women?¦s subordination. This strategy is direct ?V women are oppressed on a personal and individual basis by the individual patriarchs who share their lives.

The segregationist strategy used in the public patriarchy actively excludes women from the public arena using various structures to subordinate them. Application depends on controlling access to public arenas (Golombok and Fivush, 1995). This strategy does not benefit the institution directly, but it does ensure that individual patriarchs are privileged at the expense of women, and it maintains gender differences.

The way in which individual patriarchs and public institutions use there power further reveals how related the structures of patriarchy are. Public institutions do not have the power to oppress individual women or exclude them directly from public structures; this work is carried out in the home. Power in institutions is used collectively rather than individually, and the segregationist strategy pursued in the public arena maintains the exclusionary strategy used in private that in turn supports the segregationist strategy used in public. Yet, the institution can only pursue its segregationist strategy because the individual patriarch subordinates the individual women daily.

Walby?¦s description of patriarchal structure looks powerful where there are fewer variables ?V e.g., when women and men seem to share the ??privilege?¦ of being exploited equally as a labour force working equal hours for equal pay in equal conditions (Haug, 1998). Haug (1998) cites research from East Germany which allows her to calculate that women do 4 hours and 41 minutes of domestic labour against men?¦s 2 hours 38 minutes. Men split their extra two hours between leisure time and paid employment. She asks if it is a realistic possibility that patriarchy could be so completely and comprehensively asserted in as little as two hours a day.

Haug does not answer this question (perhaps it is rhetorical) but I think that Walby?¦s (1990) theory of patriarchy is so powerful because it can reveal the answer to questions like this. Walby?¦s theory stands because she shows that the power of patriarchy is asserted in both the private and public sphere simultaneously supporting, reflecting and maintaining itself, regardless of the economic and social framework that prevails. In Haug?¦s case, patriarchy is not being asserted in two hours per day, rather it is an expression of patriarchy, i.e., a symbol of male privilege, which could only be expressed if the general strategies of patriarchal structure were intact and functioning.

This description of the relationship between patriarchy and structure demonstrates how inequalities in the workplace and in inequality in the home are two sides of the same coin and individual males are involved in the direct and indirect subordination of women simultaneously. The concepts that allowed Walby (1990) to define patriarchy as she has are discussed below, with reference to the work of second and third wave feminist thinkers.

Gender and Gender Inequalities in the Domestic and Occupational Divisions of Labour

Feminist concepts of gender and gender inequality allow us to refer more or less directly to a theoretical framework for understanding how they have come to form a basis that helps structure the whole of society according to the concept of patriarchy (Seidman, 1994). The gender differences, which lead to gender inequality in the division of labour, and presented as natural by patriarchy and unequal gender order has been normalised and legitimated by science, medicine and popular culture (Raymond, 1980). Feminists hold that this normalisation conceals the social and political formation of an unequal male order, arguing that gender difference is socially produced in order to sustain male dominance (Seidman, 1994).

Frable (1997) points out that there is no basis for a biological account of gender difference since gender identity can only refer to the psychological sense of being male or female. Gender is now understood as a social category (Frable, 1997) and so liberal feminism was correct to deny that nature requires rigidly separate and unequal social roles based on gender (Ruehl, 1983).

The patriarchal concepts of gender criticised by feminists are used to ascribe the roles that result in gender inequality in the division of labour (Sarup, 1993). This view is supported by Garnsey (1991) when she describes the division of labour as the differentiation of work tasks organised in structured patterns of activity. These activities are imposed and remunerated in a specific and unequal manner. When the evidence allows us to place the words ??according to gender?¦ into the last two sentences, and they new sentences mean something, then the concepts of patriarchy argued by feminists begin to take on an explanatory power.

Occupational Labour and the Economy

Liberal feminist provided concepts of gender that account for pay differentials and might even account for why women can receive less money than men for doing the same job (Golombok and Fivush, 1995). They can be used to explain why the political and social change which has allowed substantially greater numbers of women to enter the labour force has also concentrated them in the poorest employment (Golombok and Fivush, 1995). This is especially so if Garnsey?¦s (1991) description of the differentiated and imposed tasks of the division of labour is used to structure the argument.

However, they do not explain the reasons behind women?¦s oppression and in order to do this Marxist feminists to began to argue that gender inequality has been shaped by capitalist development, highlighting explanations which connect gender inequality with economic needs (e.g., Mitchell J, 1966 used Marxist theory in Women: The Longest Revolution). However, while most feminists see the close links between the organisation of production and the division of labour many thought that there was a limited future for feminism under theories which reduced the specifics of women?¦s lives to the extent that the subjective and interpersonal flavour was not captured (e.g., Firestone S, 1970; The Dialectic of Sex: the Case for Feminist Revolution).

The socialist or Marxist feminist proposition positions class as the most basic form of human conflict but this position was challenged by radical feminists according to whom, equality does not mean being like men (Sarup, 1993). Radical feminists successfully argued for the substitution of gender conflict as the source of all other conflict and fighting for equality in the occupational field became subordinate to challenging the social and cultural order (Sarup, 1993).

Asserting that a female identity and subjectivity could only be defined without reference to the patriarchal framework, many radical feminists looked for ways to identify and develop a female culture and way of being which was free from the influences of patriarchy. For example, Irigaray (1985) proposed that this be done through the promotion of entre-femmes, a kind of social form specific to women. A cultural terrain distinct from women?¦s usual site – the family.

Household Labour

Feminist writers have taken the family as a central feature of their explanation of patriarchy but they do not always agree about its role in shaping women to serve patriarchal ends in domesticity and work (Sarup, 1993). Liberal feminism recognized the gendered, social roles of wife and mother but advocated choice for women with respect to marriage, family, career etc., proposing to achieve this through a process of education and reform (Seidman, 1994). In radical feminism, the family is viewed as a major institution whose role is to foster gender inequality through the socialisation of children and subordinate women by forcing them to conform to feminine stereotypes (e.g, Greer G, 1970, The Female Eunuch). Postmodern feminism based on Foucault?¦s work explicitly criticises the emphasis on the family as ??the unit in charge?¦ (Sarup, 1993).

In order to carry out its functions, the family relies on differential relationships (Broderick, 1993). Coole et al (1990) point out that the functional needs served by the nuclear element of the nuclear family are neither exclusive nor universal which indicates that differentiation it is not essential to the performance of the vital functions of the family. This means that the social roles of wife and mother as conceived by liberal feminism are a gendered and manufactured choice. The differential relationships that identify the roles of wife and mother are part of the nuclear family model promoted by patriarchal ideologies for more than one hundred and fifty years (Coole et al, 1990; p43). This suggests that the one or some of the roles ascribed to the family by other feminists may be more accurate.

Despite the differences, feminism?¦s main assertion, that gender identities and roles are socially formed, makes the theoretical proposition that a social and political explanation (patriarchy) can be given for male dominance and patterns of gender inequality possible (Seidman, 1994).

Conclusion

The strength of feminist perspectives on patriarchy is that most of them have been developed from the standpoint of women?¦s lives (Seidman, 1994) and yet this is also a criticism ?K what women?¦s lives does the standpoint reflect? If feminist perspectives of patriarchy are to be useful they must not only make sense structurally, they must also make sense of all women?¦s lives.

Lesbian, Black, ??Third World?¦ and post-colonial critics have demonstrated some of the limitations of western feminist agendas that prefer patriarchal accounts of equality to racialised and cultural accounts (Burman, 1998). For example, the promotion of reproductive choices by western feminists in the 1970s focused

on contraceptive and abortion rights. However, many women at that time were being discriminated against because of their colour, sexuality or physical abilities and were fighting to keep their children, born and unborn (Burman, 1998).

Whilst these criticisms of western feminist raise questions about how and why the priorities of the issues and campaigns these women cho (o)se to think and act on were agreed, they do not suggest an alternative account of inequality in which the public and private oppression of women is explained (Seidman, 1994). Critics are however right to point out that the feminist account of patriarchy developed by western liberal feminists needs to be expanded to ensure that the experiences of more women can be included but they must also acknowledge that the priorities and concerns of liberal feminists have resulted in some of the most far reaching and important education and legal reforms of this century taking place in the last the last twenty years.

These reforms particularly reflect the western feminist concern with differential relationships. In the area of social policy and the law, reformers have begun to focus on protecting the individual rights of vulnerable household members ?V women, children, and the elderly (MacLean & Kurczewzki 1994) at the expense of patriarchal privilege. Crucially, whilst the law has become aware of the potential for the exploitation of family members and in acting underlines the importance of public attitudes and legislation in maintaining gender inequalities and differential relationships; the reform approach cannot be seen as an open acknowledgement that socialisation patterns and family arrangements are male dominated (MacLean & Kurczewzki 1994).

Following the vote of the General Synod in 1992, the ordination of women in the Church of England has challenged hundreds of years of patriarchal authority and tradition in the church. The implicit relationship between individual men and institutions can be viewed explicitly in the complex provision made to protect those who are individually opposed using the church?¦s own structures.

Regardless of the refusal of key patriarchal institutions to acknowledge the extent to which man have been and are systematically and deliberately privileged by their structures and actions, these dominant forms of power can help produce social change, even if they are only attempting to keep in touch with contemporary society (Cooper, 1995). The process of power is therefore open to change and feminist theorists have shown using their account of patriarchy that the ??by products?¦ of power (e.g., inequality) can be mediated by the institution which represents it and moderated to be less damaging to individuals (Cooper, 1989).

Humanist/ Sameness feminism is the different treatment of women from men in a social setting or a social system. The problem is different treatment, (social rights, political rights, etc) and a solution would be the same treatment, the reasoning behind this approach is the similarity between male and female, and ignoring the differences between the two. The work of Mill exemplifies the humanist approach in many ways for one, Mill argues that there has been no experience of any other gender roles and that there was never any real deliberation, that gender roles are just “might makes right”. By stating this, Mill is explaining that gender roles really do not exist, gender roles are what separate man and women in a social setting. Sojourner Truth really works with the ideas of humanist/sameness feminism. In response to claims about the equality of the sexes Truth responds that she is physically equal to men, in both her abilities and her appetites. Truth argues that if women do in fact have smaller intellects there is still no reason to prevent women from being educated. Truth is explaining women should be able to show their best talents, traits and abilities be given the same opportunities in any setting, in the same way that men can. Truth also claims that men have nothing to fear of women’s equality, meaning men will still have their rights as a result of women’s equality. Crenshaw’s work relates to humanist/sameness feminism as well, but in a more direct way when working with women of color in particular. Sexist oppression being the inequality of social/political status is touched on throughout Crenshaw’s work. Gender and race are served as a negative frame, social power is working to oppress and exclude those who are different.

#2 –

Difference/Gynocentric feminism is the feminist approach at looking at the difference between men and women. Gynocentric feminism favors valuing women’s contributions in society and takes a look at women’s values and integrating them into society. Lorde’s work favors gynocentric feminism very heavily by discussing the erotic. The erotic is a huge difference that stands between man and woman. Lorde explains that women often suppress the erotic, for two main reasons. 1. Our patriarchal society convinces women to fear the erotic. 2. Women’s character is drawn into question if the erotic is expressed anywhere besides in the bedroom. Lorde is arguing that our society encourages the erotic to be suppressed in order to keep patriarchy going and to make women subordinate to men. Allen’s argument, is from a very different viewpoint then that of Lorde’s but Allen’s argument points in favor to Gynocentric feminism as well. Allen’s argument is that if American society judiciously modeled the traditions of the various Native Americans then the place of women in society would become central. Allen describes how America has lost its place of origin, which derived from Native Americans. Indians established their communities on mainly female energies. Females were the center power in Native American culture. Allen is arguing that if we as a nation acknowledged the Native American ways a little bit more, then there will be a greater equality. Shiva’s work is all about women’s knowledge and Biodiversity Conservations. Difference feminism really plays into what Shiva describes, where women’s work is “othered” by patriarchy. Shiva explains that diversity is the principle of women’s knowledge. Women’s knowledge of nature and experience is important to the maintenance and promotion of ecological biodiversity. Women’s experience of nature is different from that of men. The same patriarchal forces that deny the value of women’s lives also deny the importance of diversity in the natural world. Nature becomes the other, and patriarchy attacks the environment.

# 3 —

Dominance feminism rejects both the sameness and difference approach to feminism. Dominance feminism does not break down feminism in terms of similarities and dissimilarities but in terms of power. In order for justice to exist there must be equal power for both man and woman. Marilyn Frye’s work, is all about feminism and lesbianism and whether or not they have to tie into each other or can exist separately. Lesbianism is the “fear of men” the fear of men’s power; power is not equally distributed among the two sexes. Thoughts of lesbianism can be constraining making some women feel that they are betraying their communities if they are even associated with any of the thoughts about a non patriarchal society. Women who go against a patriarchal society and do not act like a stereotypical woman are considered “lesbian” being lesbian they are therefore going against society, and losing power. Female heterosexuality is a key mechanism of the phenomenon of male domination, oppression and exploitation of females. Kimmels work was much different then much of the work read about in class, Kimmels work was from a man’s perspective but ties very deeply into the dominance feminism approach. Kimmel explains how manhood gives men something valuable, manhood is rewarded with great ceremony. Men always want to obtain power, but with men it is different then with women, men are under the constant scrutiny of other men. Homophobia, men’s fear of other men is the animating condition of the dominant definition of masculinity in America. Men have virtually all of the power, and women do not, men are the dominant sex. However men do not feel as powerful as feminists may think they feel. Feminists observe that women as a group do not hold power in our society but men as a group are in power. Differentiation of power among the two sex’s is precisely how Kimmel explains the dominance approach. Bell Hooks takes a different approach to the difference in power between the two sexes. Bell Hooks describes rape culture and relates it very closely to masculinity. Bell Hooks describes power in the bedroom, and the dominance of the man over the woman in the bedroom, whether females really enjoy that or whether they do not. Bell Hooks states that the rape of women by men is a ritual that daily perpetuates and maintains sexist oppression and exploitation. Rape is about power, in rape the female does not have power.

Question #6 –

Women’s personal lives I would say are not a concern for all three types of these feminist frameworks but are more of a concern for certain ones. When dealing with the sameness/humanist approach absolutely not, women’s personal lives are much less of a concern. The sameness approach is ignoring the difference of women and is the unequal treatment of them in a social setting or against social power. On the other hand the difference approach is much more of a concern of women’s personal lives. One example being the erotic that Lorde discusses, the erotic is not just about sex but is about a women’s very personal desire. This alone, describes that women’s personal lives would be a concern when dealing with the difference/gynocentric approach. The gynocentric feminist approach is all about the very differences between man and woman, that being said a woman’s personal life would be of concern to this framework, just because it points out many differences that may have been over looked. When thinking about dominance feminism, women’s personal lives are less of a concern but there may sometimes be an exception. Power, is obtained in groups, women as a group are not in power, men as a group are in power. When dealing with power in the bedroom, sure women’s personal lives would obviously be of some concern as to whether or not they let themselves be dominated or whether they enjoy the domination. Overall I would say women’s personal lives are less of a concern when dealing with the dominance framework of feminism because what a woman does on her own time in her own personal life does not relate to the separation of powers among man and woman.

.

Homosexuality is one of the most contradictory social questions. It should be noted that homosexuality as a social event is noted from the Ancient times and since then the interest of the society and the science. But if in ancient times homosexual contacts were allowed and did not differ from the heterosexual (especially socially) than in the present day homosexuals meet severe social critics and got to struggle their rights. Hence the interest of science and the society of all the countries to homosexuals are still very high. It goes without saying that contemporary science investigates it in different fields, but many questions are still left without an answer. For a long time homosexuality was considered to be some kind of mental disorder, but the activists of gay and lesbian communities proved that this scientific conclusion does not make a sense.

This question attracted huge social attention and caused quite controversial attitude from the different social layers. It should be noted that in the whole world the attitude to homosexuals and homosexual marriages and families is rather negative than positive. However, the issue of children in homosexual couples is even more hot debated. Every debates related to homosexual relation has the hidden or clear opposition between same-sex relation and heterosexual relation, which considered as “normal” with heterosexual majority. There have been numerous studies devoted to the problem of gay and lesbian families and how they differ from heterosexual.

The discussion is even more complicated because of the fact that contemporary society does not have clear definition of sexual norm, so there is no definite attitude to homosexuality. Some people consider gays and lesbians to be mentally ill, though there is no actual evidence to this fact.

The objective of this research is to review some latest publication discussing homosexual relations. Two issues should be mentioned here. First, the research is focused on homosexual relations because the authors of publications mainly emphasize the differences and similarities of homosexual relations with “normal”, or heterosexual. Thus, the publications are focused on the existing differences and pay less attention to similarities. Second, the term “relations” involve mainly family or family-type relations. It means the relations should be considered in three main aspects: romance, marriage, and children upbringing. Other aspects of relations are not so popular and attractive to researchers,

Same sex marriage against heterosexual marriage: Gaddy, Laycock, Taylor, Smith

This chapter analyses two major and two minor publications related to same sex marriage and its legalization. Despite it is not claimed directly, there is opposition of homosexual marriage to “normal” or heterosexual one. All publications under investigation pay much attention to the marriage as social institution. It is worth mentioning that Gaddy and Laycock prove that marriage is social institution, and from the social point of view there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. All negative attitudes are related to religious beliefs. Smith also follows this idea. The minor publication of Taylor should be mentioned as this woman is Islamic activist and her position can illustrate the believer’s point of view: it is rather neutral.

Official legislation of the same-sex marriages issue in many countries meets harsh resistance and such emotional argumentations from the opponents’ sides. Gay and lesbian activists concentrated their main attention on legalization of same-sex marriages. But it is considered to be quite a contradictory question as between gays and lesbians themselves there is no full agreement: radical liberals, for example, insist that despite struggling against the broadening of marriage definition, it will be better to concentrate on destroying the institution traditionally considered to be heterosexual. Anyway marriage as a social institution is in the centre of discussion and it is not surprising at all. If sexual attraction is the primary (after survival) biological instinct, than having a family is the most important current social necessity of any person, it is essential part of his life. Love unites these two necessities on the level of feelings and emotions, and marriage formalizes and regulates them. This question is connected with politics, culture, religion and moral beliefs

Traditionally marriage in the contemporary society involves heterosexual relations. The same-sex marriages are quite a complicated question for those who are not homosexuals. However, contemporary researchers try to follow the unbiased view on this problem despite their own sexual orientation. Thus, Pamela Taylor, the columnist of Washington Post, co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values, former director of the Islamic Writers Alliance and strong supporter of the woman imam movement, analyses the marriage as an unit of civil and religious traditions, and her colleague Susan Smith also analysis this issue. Another correspondent of Newsweek, Dr. Welton Gaddy calls nation to the discussion regarding same gender marriage and religious freedom. Two short articles Taylor and Smith as well as the research by Dr. Gaddy tell about religion and homosexual marriages. Even if is it not declared directly, the hidden comparison and antithesis exist in all these works. The collision of two strongly-rooted moral postulates happens. The first is the attitude to the marriage and family, which have always been encouraged by the society and the state; marriage always has social status higher than bachelor life and was completely positive from morality point of view. The second, the attitude to homosexuality, which is traditionally considered to be immoral, underwent mockeries and humiliation, was persecuted and/or in the better case was stigmatized. Marriage is the symbol of faith and responsibility; homosexuality was often connected with the meaning of free love and connivance to mean wishes. That could be probably called the main reason, why same-sex marriages for the majority are the combination of opposites: morality and immorality, faith and free love. That is one of the main reasons of such a violent opposition. The real attitude of the heterosexual; majority to the same-sex marriages is traditionally negative and it goes without saying that their attitude to the same-sex marriages is the result of dogmatic and stereotypes influence. But still there could be found people who understand that same-sex marriage do not bring any harm to the society. Thus, Dr. Gaddy writes: “Religious freedom protects every house of worship from government intrusion to impose a particular view of marriage or to demand a religious blessing for a special kind of marriage – like same-gender marriage.” (Gaddy, 2009)

The same stereotypes, dealing to so called ‘immorality’ of gays and lesbians and their attitude to free love, are underlying in the basis of argument that marriage and family are that type of tradition that goes back with its roots in the faraway past and spreading of homosexual marriages will be the violation of centuries’ tradition. It also discredit the meaning of the family itself, influences of the social attitude to the marriage institution and cause in the destabilization of marriage and social institution. Marriage really appeared many centuries ago and is the main social institution. But it’s so called “traditional nature” cause serious doubts. There are really not so many norms of contemporary marriage that have long lasting history. The definition of ‘traditional’ marriage has been changing through centuries. Yet, in the Bible times Jewish have had several wives and concubines and now some Islamic countries still permit polygamy. So called ‘sanctity’ of marriage institution is also disputable: for example Christian marriage ceremony blessing marriage, appeared much later that the institution of marriage was established. As for state approval – during many centuries in Europe old Kingdoms contracted marriages only within the noble estates; lower estates, which did not have personal property, did not actually have a right for signifying their relations. No one should also forget about the fact that for many centuries marriage was an object of trading and the instrument of repartition of the property. If we speak about marriage longevity, let’s remember nearest times. No so long ago marriage was considered to be the unity for the whole life as for long times the divorces were prohibited (and in some catholic countries they were permitted not so long ago). And now, in postindustrial countries every second marriage ends with a divorce. In some countries the divorce process could be started only by husband, but not by the wife. Nearly 50 years ago interracial marriages were prohibited, even non it sounds like nonsense. And 30 years ago one could hardly imagine the situation that woman could bring an action against her husband for assault. Marriage fastened male domination for quite a long time and in some Islamic countries woman is still some kind of property. All these are traditions existing for many years. Which one the opponents of same-sex marriages appeal to? Reality shows that due to a certain epoch marriage institutionalized sexual and family relations according to the given social structure, economics and culture.

Marriage as an institution undertake so many changes during its existence, that agreeing with them and insisting on the ‘traditions’, when it goes about gay and lesbian marriages is illogical and unfair. What prevents, despite certain stereotypes, to change it one more time, including in the definition homosexual couples, especially if society ready to give them the same rights and privileges? May be the fact that the question of same-sex marriages is discussed in all well-developed countries shows that existing marriage institute is out of time and does not correspond to the needs of the society? To answer this question why the same-sex marriages are so important it will be essential to answer the question why marriages are important, why people need them and what is contemporary marriage.

Analyzing the importance of marriage in contemporary society in should be mentioned the work by Douglas Laycock. He also analyzed the religious contradictions and same sex marriage. He writes that “religious and legal marriage are . . . distinct in conception as well as in origin” (Laycock, 1997). However, the most interesting in his book is the analysis of social side of marriage. He mentions that marriage institution exists from immemorial times not occasionally and it is not occasional that empowered structures, such as government and church, always tried to control it. Without any doubts marriage has positive and stabilization influence on the society. People are not enough firm, strong and civilized, for society to function without such instructions. The ability of refusing from this institution is trifling. Certainly one of the main aims of marriage is bringing up children and more wide meaning brining up future generations and ensuring continuity. But it is not the single reason for existing of marriage. Marriage regulates sexual relations and what is more important, when marrying a person; a human gets the closest relative and the companion for the major part of his life. The society is interested in marriage and not only because it makes the life of a human more stable, but also because of the fact that the spouse gives emotional and financial support in the case of illness or some problems. The society is actually released from responsibility on every person and puts it on the family. In this case official marriage is important for the society only, because it does not let people easily avoid this responsibility.

Thus, from the point of view of Dr. Laycock, there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual; marriages to government, because both types of marriages can be easily regulated. However, he mentions that opposition to homosexual marriages legalization is related to religious, and this is the civil rights violence by the nature, because freedom of religion is one of the basic civil rights.

So it can be ended that significant contemporary publication regarding to same-sex legalization prove that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriages from the social point of view. The problems with same sex marriages legalization are related to religion, and religion should not be involved in social regulation of marriage. However, another important aspect is involved in this discussion: homosexual parenthood. The next chapter reviews this issue.

Homosexual parenthood

The problem of adoption and bringing out the child on homosexual couples is very serious as homosexuals are struggling not only for their rights and marriage ability, but also for permission of children’s adoption. The publication by Dr.Cameron should be reviewed here. It has always been a tradition that heterosexuals dominated the homosexuals. In the 18-19th centuries there were big families with many children. Now it is not acute. The humanity struggles for the human rights, for the rights of gays. For example, gay want to obtain the juridical right to adopt and bring up children.

The question of adoption by homosexual couples and how it could influence the child has been studied for more than 30 years by American scientist Dr. Paul Cameron. Dr. Cameron is as Chairman of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado Springs think-tank. As the result of his research he provided o work proving that homosexual couples can be brilliant parent, and the talent to child upbringing is not related to parent’s sex. However, the society is not ready for this experiment. Dr. Cameron noted that the review documented that gays’ children were also:

“1) more apt to report sexual confusion;

2) more apt to be socially disturbed;

3) more apt to abuse substances;

4) less apt to get married;

5) more apt to have difficulty in attachment and loving relationships; and

6) more apt to have emotional difficulties. (Cameron, 2009).

The practice shows that gay couples in particular infringed human rights and children’s rights too. The situation happened in summer this year, which drew attention of American society, which is the most tolerant, when it goes about attitude to homosexual families. It was reported by Christian News Wire and discussed on different forums devoted to protection children’s rights and human rights as well. The situation happened in gay family of Frank Lombard, where lived 5-year old adopted African-American child: “The Arrest Warrant documents that Lombard sodomized one of his two adopted African-American sons and made the boy give him oral sex on-line. He offered other gays the same opportunity. Although the boy was drugged, “it is likely he developed interest in gay sex through these activities,” said Dr. Paul Cameron, (Cameron, 2009). The child was forced to homosexual relationship by his father. The question is very serious and the aspects of health and morality of a singles child and of the whole society are raised. it is not the single situation in such families and it obviously constitutes a menace to the mental health of children adopted in such families. The state and the government should regulate and give more attention to such problems as it often happens in contemporary society.

In fact not only Americans are involved in the happened situation and the struggle for so called “absolutely normal” homosexual families is lasting for many years. Gay and Lesbian leaders appeal to the fact that heterosexual families are not better than homosexual as the cases of human rights violation and inhuman treatment to children is quite a typical case in heterosexual families. That is why the question is raised: why shouldn’t children brought up with homosexual parents as there exists a chance to meet worse attitude in heterosexual family? The answer is essential – the majority of specialists find gay and lesbian families artificial and not essential. That may cause certain problems in psychological perception of child. To compare the position of Cr. Cameron with more radical view, it is necessary to cite the recent interview by Mario Conti to Sunday Herald. Mario Conti says that same-sex relationships are “far from society’s norm” and growing up with same-sex parents could make the normal pressures of growing up “far greater”. “Any child growing up with two mothers or two fathers will unwittingly enter a social and psychological minefield entirely of their guardians’ making,” he says” (Naysmith, 2002). Mario Conti is Archbishop of Glasgow and he criticized homosexual families for seeking rights for the children either from previous marriages or adopted. He calls it “selfish desires of adults” in interview to Sunday Herald, where was discussed the two cases relating homosexual families: “aˆ¦two prominent cases relating to gay parents were settled in court: one in Edinburgh in which a sheriff granted parental rights to a lesbian couple in regards to children they had from previous relationships, and another in Glasgow where a biological father was granted rights against the wishes of the child’s lesbian mother”(Naysmith, 2002). Conti criticized homosexual wishes to become parents as he thinks that children are rather like toys for them. He insists on the fact that psychological component in childish behavior would be far from the norms of ethics and morality. The interview also cites Tim Hopkins, the spokesman for the Lesbian and Gay Equality Network, who is completely disagree to Conti and says that his attitude is mainly based on prejudice and are disappointing as for the leader: “I would like to hear Mario Conti speaking out about poor parents who beat and abuse their children, whether married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual. They are the problem in Scotland, not loving parents who should be supported to do a good job bringing up children” (Naysmith, 2002). Tim Hopkins understands that abuse situations are happening not only in heterosexual families.

Thus, it can be concludes that homosexual parents are considered as unstable family so the society protests against children upbringing. Probably the statistical data can prove that families of different sex are not more stable comparatively to families of different sex. However, the publications under investigation contain the arguments against the child adoption by same-sex couples.

Romance

Romantic relations in homosexual couples are described in science literature. However, this aspect involves many emotions, so the analysis of homosexuality in literature can provide more precise details about perception of homosexual romance in society. The novel under discussion is ‘The Line of Beauty’ by Allan Hollinghurs. His protagonist Nick Guest feels he is not a part of the described world of rich and famous British aristocracy. The time the author describes are the 80-s of the 20th century, the peak of sexual revolution and it is not actually surprising that person who differs from the others turn out to be non-traditional sexual orientation, Nick Guest is gay.

In 1983 young and shy young gay, Oxford graduated Nick Guest settles down at his friend’s house in London. Toby Fedden, university friend of Nick Guest, he is smart and rich young man. Very soon Nick Guest become “partially” as much as possible a part of Toby Fedden’s aristocratic family. “Nick is gay and, although the Feddens tolerantly welcomed him into their home, Nick still “stiffened in apprehension about what might be carelessly said-some indirect insult to swallow, a joke to be weakly smiled at. If the taboo of his understated homosexuality makes Nick something of an outsider among the conservative politicos of London, he is distanced still further by his class. Nick’s father is an antiques dealer, a profession rich with cultural capital, but working-class by any other measure” (Daniel Levisohn, 2010). Even the most intimate homosexual scenes being put in the conservative and puritanical background, does not seem shocking to the reader, they seem rather like innocent. Hence the author is aimed to make a stress on the fact that the high society treats any differences indifferently until it touches them personally. The theme of disloyalty is one of the most important in the novel.

Thus, the romantic love in homosexual relation is the same as in the heterosexual relation; however the social attitude to it makes the novel shocking.

Conclusion

Analysis of recent publications related to homosexuality reveals that the attitude to the issue changed within the recent decades. First of all, people began to think about the norms in sexual behavior. Second, they cannot come to the single opinion regarding homosexuality and its correspondence to socially approved sexual standards. Third, the prominent thinkers of our day prove from the social and economical point of view there are no differences between homosexual and heterosexual relations. Even the fiction describes homosexual romance similar to heterosexual romance. However, social traditions and biases prevent people in the search of optimal position in the issue of homosexuality.

The three branches of human sciences (Social sciences), Sociology, Anthropology and Psychology are interlinked in that they try to describe the different areas of human life and their relationships to each other. They offer an explanation on human behavior and in the society they live. Furthermore, these social sciences provide essential skills in analyzing the intentions and behavior of individuals and groups they encounter. Individual identity is forged by one’s culture, groups, and by institutional influences. Institutions such as families, schools and even churches greatly influence human beings yet these institutions are merely organizations whose aim is to develop the core social values of its constituents.

In discussing cultural diversity on the perspectives of the three social sciences there is a need to understand the difference between culture and society. This is because the all the three disciplines explore culture and society to understand human behavior in depth. The term ‘Culture’ has many different meanings, for some it is the appreciation of art, literature, music and food, while for others like biologists; they take it as a colony of microorganisms growing in a nutrient medium in a laboratory. However for social scientists, culture is the full range of learned human behavior patterns. Cultures are traditions and customs, transmitted through learning and adaptations. Children obtain such traditions by growing up in a certain society, through a process called ‘enculturation’. A culture results into a degree of uniformity in behavior and thought among the inhabitants of a particular society (Baugher et. al, 2000, p. 4). The terms ‘culture’ and ‘society’ are different as cultures are considered to be complexes of learned behavior patterns and perceptions while society is a group of interacting organisms. Therefore this paper will critically analyze cultural diversity based on the three social sciences, evaluating the social sciences similarities and differences.

Discussion
Anthropological perspective of culture diversity

When it comes to understanding diversity in cultures, the anthropological view can help humanity understand and appreciate the complexity of diverse cultures. This discipline involves the study of biological and cultural origins of the humans. The subject matter of anthropology is wide-ranging, including, fossil remains, non human primate anatomy and behavior, artifacts from past cultures, past and present languages, and all the prehistoric and contemporary cultures of the world.

The subfield of cultural anthropology is the most commonly studied and useful in analyzing and interpreting the diverse cultures of the world. In recent years, recognition of the need for multicultural awareness, understanding, and skills has grown in our society. The aim is to achieve multicultural diversity competence, which is a term that refers to the ability to demonstrate respect and understanding, to communicate effectively, and to work with different cultural backgrounds (George & Fischer, 1999, p. 71). These diversities in culture encompass differences in gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, social class and physical appearance. Misunderstandings and conflicts in the society are two major consequences of lack of awareness in the ever increasing cultural diversity. Cultural anthropology explains cultural diversity through aspects of social life such as material culture, social organizations, politics, economics, symbolism, change and development, ethnicity and modern nation-state formation.

In explaining and interpreting the diverse cultures, anthropology uses ethnography- describing particular cultures; and ethnology- comparing two or more cultures. In addition it incorporates the holistic approach in cultural studies by studying biological and cultural aspects of human behavior; encompassing the broadest possible time frame by looking at contemporary, historic and prehistoric societies; examining human culture in every part of the world; and studies many different aspects of human culture (George & Fischer, 1999, p.68).

Cultural diversity is relevant to a cultural approach in learning, in that learning and motivational styles and cross cultural pedagogical strategies assume attention to diversity in learner populations and pluralistic learning outcomes. The data, concepts and insights derived from the study of other cultures helps us meet our professional goals and lead more satisfying lives in a multicultural society. Moreover, the process of studying anthropology is also valuable because of the skills and competencies that it helps to develop. Activities such as taking courses about different cultures, participating in local internships and international organizations, living in the university’s international dormitory, and participating in study abroad programs all combine to provide students with valuable skills in understanding diverse cultures hence achieve multicultural diverse competence.

There is a need to come up with a strategy to accept cultural diversity, for example, in the United states of America the freedom to pursue ones individual dream and fortunes in the united states has produced a widening gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. According to Hutnyk, 2006, managing directors in United States of America made forty times as much compared to the average worker in 1973 and three hundred as much in 2004. At the same time, earnings of middle class were growing slightly and those of lower class were actually shrinking. This situation to a European means that the state is working against well being of the population, particularly in light of tax cuts during this period. Another instance is when expressing feelings of affection which is typical for all human. The manner in which the affection is expressed is cultural, the kiss is not universally accepted as a symbol of affection; some societies consider it suggestive of cannibalism.

A basic anthropological strategy for understanding other cultures is to look at a cultural feature from within its original context rather than looking at it from the perspective of one’s own culture; being inquisitive, non-judgmental, and open to new ways of thinking is vital in understanding other cultures; Balancing contradictory needs instead of trying to eliminate them; emphasize global team work; develop a cognitive complex which is made up of twin abilities of differentiating and integrating; and developing a personal acuity (Naylor, 1997, p. 157). The strategy will not only help you personally in understanding other cultures but assist you in integrating to any culture globally.

Sociological perspective on Cultural Diversity

Sociology is critical analysis of the society in which humans live. People who make sense of the social world-past, present and future- are referred to as sociologists (Anderson & Taylor, 2005, p. 8). Sociologists research on social structures such as class, family, politics, social problems like drug abuse and crime all of which influence the society. Social interaction amongst humans is the basic sociological concept, because all humans and groups that make up a society socialize. Specialists who focus on particular details of specific interactions as they occur daily are called micro sociologists and those that focus on larger patterns of interactions amongst larger sections of the society such as state and economy are called macro sociologists.

A society is rarely culturally uniform hence the result of different cultures. As societies develop and become more complex, different cultural traditions appear. The more complex the society, the more likely the culture will be internally varied and diverse. The causes of cultural changes in a society are cultural diffusion, innovation, and imposition of cultural change by outside world (Anderson & Taylor, 2005, p. 72).

Two concepts from sociology help in understanding complexity of culture in a given society, dominant culture and subcultures. Dominant culture is the culture of the most powerful group in the society. Although it is not the only culture in society, it is commonly referred to be the culture of a society, despite other cultures present. Subcultures on the other hand are cultures of groups whose values and norms of behavior differ from those of the dominant culture. Members of subcultures tend to interact frequently and share a common world view.

Sociology stipulates that culture consists of both material objects and abstract thoughts and behavior. Several elements which sociologists consider in understanding culture diversity are language, norms, beliefs and values (Kaufman, 2004, p. 7).

Language: Learning the language of a culture is essential to becoming part of a society. Language shapes culture as it provides the categories through which social reality is understood. This was proved by Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Worf in the 1950’s through their theory called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The hypothesis states, “it is not that you perceive something first and then think of how to express it, but that language itself determines what you think and perceive” (Anderson & Taylor, 2005, p. 83). In understanding cultural diversity language is seen to reflect the assumptions of a culture. This is seen and exemplified by: language affecting people’s perception of reality; Language reflecting the social and political status of different groups in society; Groups advocating changing language referring to them as a way of asserting positive group identity; The implications of language emerging from specific historical and cultural contexts; language distorting actual group experience; language shaping people’s perceptions of groups and events in society.

Norms: They are specific cultural expectations for how to behave in a given situation. Lack of norms in any society results in turmoil however, with established norms people would be able to act, behave and interact in a society properly. In the early years of sociology, William Graham Summer in 1906 identified two types of norms; folkways and mores. Folkways are general standards of behavior adhered to by a group, example wearing pants and not skirts for men. Mores are stricter mores which are seen to control moral and ethical behaviors such as injunctions, legal and religious.

Beliefs: They are shared ideas people hold collectively within a given culture, and these beliefs are also the basis of many cultural norms and values, example in USA there is a widespread belief in God. Sociology study belief in a variety of ways, and each theoretical mentation provides different insights into the significance of beliefs for human society.

Values: They are abstract standards in a society or group that defines the ideal principles of what is desirable and morally correct, for example in USA equality and freedom are important values which provide a general outline for behavior. Values provide values for behavior, but can also be sources of conflict like the political conflict over abortion.

Understanding the four elements of sociology enables proper integration in any society. Integration into the society is achieved by respecting the diverse cultures that are found in a society. Sociology studies culture in a variety of ways, asking numerous questions about the relationship of culture to other social institutions and the role of culture in modern life. The new cultural perspective on culture according to Naylor, 1997, is that it is ephemeral, unpredictable and constantly changing; is a material manifestation of consumer-oriented society; and is best understood by analyzing its artifacts- books, films, television images.

Psychological Perspective on Culture Diversity

Social psychology a subfield of psychology has its origins in the early years of the twentieth century. Its findings do not necessarily concern human thinking throughout history but rather meet the requirements of our modern society. Social psychology research aims to capture the interplay between social thinking and socio-historical dynamics in order to understand how societies function and how culture is produced (Xenia, 2004, p. 13). Psychology is distinguished from neighboring social sciences through its emphasis on studying samples of organisms within controlled settings rather than focusing upon larger groups, organizations or nations. Psychologists test the specific results of changes in a controlled environment on the individual in that environment, but there are strongly set procedures through which organisms are tested psychometrically.

There is a big debate in psychology and more generally in social sciences how to define culture. In some definitions the concept of culture includes behavior, in the sense that our behaviors are expressions of our culture. Other definitions emphasize that participating in a culture means having understanding of our world. However with trying to find a consensual definition of this concept, the main argument of researchers in psychology is to highlight how important it is to take into account the cultural context in which psychological studies were conducted (Kerr & Tindale, 2011). They were right to point out that humans are linked to the social context in which they live, proving that psychological functioning and human behavior are universal and culture specific.

Sharing a culture means that people have a common way of viewing their relationship with the social and physical environment; of communicating their thoughts and emotions; of prioritizing their activities; of dividing tasks and resources; of attributing values, honors, and power (Xenia, 2004, pp.17-18). When they do not share the above listed elements then culture diversity occurs from a psychological point of view. The people of diverse cultures are not like minded hence the question is, whether individuals from diverse cultures can coexist harmoniously in time space and under the same political and social organizations? The answer to this question provides the idea of how to cope with culture diversity.

Various cultures flourish from the recognition that they represent a set of beliefs, modes of thinking and practices that are peculiar to them and different from others. Some cultures are more inclusive example western cultures, others refer to a small group of people for instance the Basque culture, but each one of them is important for its members because they represent the way they construct their social reality, and provides them with action alternatives.

Conclusion

Culture Diversity has been discussed using the three social science disciplines of Anthropology, Sociology and Psychology. Even though all of them have a similarity of trying to understand culture diversity in humans, they are different in terms of how they approach the study. Anthropology looks at culture diversity at the perspective of humanity, his origin and through aspects of social life such as ethnicity, symbolism, politics, race and so on. Anthropology explains that the origin of culture diversity is through mankind hence the concentration a human perspective. Sociology looks at the society which humans live so as to explain culture diversity. It states that elements such as language, beliefs, norms, and values are what bring about culture diversities. Psychology on the other hand analyses culture diversity with focus entirely on internal factors that influence individuals. Therefore the three social sciences provide an understanding of culture diversity and a basis of respecting other cultures.

Women run the risk of lagging behind in the fields of science and engineering. A wide gap exists between men and women in these fields. Women tend to have overrepresentation in social sciences and humanities, and underrepresentation in science and engineering. Although the number of women in the fields has grown steadily, women remain underrepresented at high levels of these professions. Social norms, culture and attitudes, play a significant role in undermining the role of women in the aforementioned fields. In many cases, the achievement and excellence of women are measured using male oriented standards. Even for those that excel, their salaries are in many cases dissimilar with their male counterparts. However, countries can use several recommendations that can help boost the presence of women in these fields. Inclusion of women in science and engineering is a crucial factor that can significantly accelerate technological advancement in the contemporary society.

Discussion

Underrepresentation of Women in Science and Engineering

There is a marked underrepresentation of women in science and engineering although the contemporary society needs technology most society. Science and engineering are historically According to statistics revealed by Blasdell (19); over 50 percent of the population is composed of women of whom 44 percent is in the workforce but only 13 percent in science and engineering. Recruitment of women in science and technology can help mitigate the drain of engineering talent through the provision significant resources. However, several barriers impede this inclusion and / or advancement of women in science and engineering.

Challenges and Reasons for Underrepresentation

Social norms and culture come as the most significant factors impeding the advancement of women male dominated professions. Traditions, values and styles lean and suit the male gender has shaped the culture in SET fields. The culture is not suited for the needs of women in social and learning environments. From time immemorial, women are regarded as caretakers where their work is fundamentally taking care of their families. This social norm leads to a stereotypical view on women where many men regard the abilities of women in these fields negatively. As documented by Bystydzienski (24), many men respond negatively on the capability of women to excel in technical (science) and engineering fields. The societal norms dictate that a woman cannot be successful as a mother and a wife while in these career paths. According to the International Labor Organization, science and engineering are associated with pervasive gender roles that encourage women to engage in ‘soft’ subjects (hawks and Joan 250). This undermines the excellence of women in the aforementioned fields.

Additionally, women who take SET careers are associated with a loss of femininity in their societies (Hall 82). This impedes their development in the fields since they may feel that their intuitive and imaginative styles do not fit to scientific research. Female stereotyping also is a key element among social norms that impede the accomplishments of women in SET. Women scientists are usually featured as atypical women and atypical scientists. This implies that, not only is their ‘deficiency’ in science attacked, but also their gender identity. Female norms are more associated with collaboration than competition. However, the societal norms set by men are more competitive than they are collaborative. However, women are oriented towards win-win settings (Bystydzienski 39). The competitiveness and desire to prove oneself significantly impedes the desire of women to advance in these career fields.

Legal systems to a lesser extent than norms affect women’s excellence in science and engineering. In several countries, anti-discriminatory laws require that universities offer differential entry conditions for women. However, the weakness of the legal systems in several other countries (especially developing ones) has left women at a disadvantage in the inclusion of science and engineering programs. Legal trends encourage institutions to alleviate discrimination and other institutional norms and practices that bar women from engaging in SET courses. However, with high levels of female stereotyping in different societies, women still lag behind in their advancement, in these fields (Steel and Emily 91).

Female Dominant Science Fields

Although few women re found in the engineering field, there are other science fields where there is a sizable number. Nursing is one of the most prominent science professions where women are found. Nursing, as a science, attracts a significant number of female students. Additionally, this field has also been stereotyped, and it is more associated with women than with men. One factor that leads to a high number of female nurses is the negative attitude that a man will look unmanly if he joins the course. Hawks and Joan (257) add that women are capable of interacting better with other people than men are. This implies that women can interact with patients more efficiently in hospitals than men can. Additionally, nursing combines feminine values with professional values of support and care. Furthermore, women are at an added advantage of taking nursing courses since in many cases, men are excluded.

Academic Achievement of Women in SET

The academic achievement of women in science and engineering remains low. The achievement of women in the fields falters especially immediately after the entry in the first year in universities. According to Hall (102), of the 40 percent of the students who entered university in 2010 in USA, 11 percent were female. Once they join institutions of higher learning, their performance may also deteriorate significantly. Lack of confidence in their capability to balance family responsibilities and science career significantly influences their academic achievements in the fields. Additionally, the portrayal of science and engineering male-oriented courses exacerbate their fears of their excellence. Additionally, in undergraduate science and engineering classes, women in many cases feel isolated. They also feel resented by their male counterparts since they think that their opinions are not respected by their male counterparts. Furthermore, women who have high levels of confidence in science and technology classrooms elicit negative responses from their male counterparts. According to sociologists, women also express lower levels of self-esteem than men in these fields do. The combination of these effects affects the academic achievement of women negatively. Many women will tend to mask their academic abilities to evade alienation and ensure that they achieve social success. Hawks and Joan (108) add that women win acceptance through the loss of personal terms. As he observes, women who achieve highly in these fields are likely to lose their gender roles. To avoid this, women recede to standard gender roles. In such a situation, women do not ask many questions or explore alternative option, but rather, they pursue and follow what they are taught. This significantly affects their academic achievement and thy end up lagging behind their male counterparts. To exacerbate the situation, even with their assumption of standard gender roles, the presence of women in a science or engineering class draws a lot of attention (Steel and Emily 125). This inundation with social attention creates uncomfortable learning environment that may interfere with their academic achievement and/or progress.

In America, women currently earn approximately 41 percent of PhDs in SET fields but make approximately 28 percent of the workforce in these fields. As observed by Nut, the low number of women involved in the workforce is because of high dropout rate in SET field. Decreasing the dropout rate of women in SET careers is significantly essential in the pursuit for gender equality since women in SET jobs earn approximately 35 percent more than in non-SET fields (Blaisdell 24).

Cross-gender Disparity in Salaries

Albeit the fight for equality in all fields of life, there still exists a wide disparity between the salaries of male and women workers. In the fields of science and engineering, this disparity is highly pronounced. Data collected through the census in the United States depict a significant dissimilarity between the workers in these fields. In 1999, the average salary for female scientists and engineers was almost 22 percent less than that of their male counterparts. However, this was regarded as a significant increase since this reflected a 25 percent increase from the figures posted in 1993. In 1999, among scientists and engineers who had held their degrees for less than 5 years, women earned 83 percent of what men earned. Salary differential at this time depended on the field. In life sciences, women earned 23 percent lesser than their male counterparts while in, computer science, the difference was 12 percent. However, the difference has reduced over the years. In 2009, independent surveys by Glassdoor revealed that women earned approximately 93.7 percent of what men earned. This applied for those who had zero to three years of experience. For scientists and engineers who had more than ten years of experience, women earned approximately 89.1 percent of what men earned. Another survey conducted in 2012 reveals that the gap is steadily being close, albeit at a significantly slow pace. Women scientists and engineers with zero to three years of experienced earned 95.2 percent of what their male counterparts earned. For those with over ten years of experience, women earned 92.6 percent of what men earned. Albeit the underrepresentation, it is evident that the salary gap is being closed. Factors such as emphasis on equality between men and women play a noteworthy role in changing these dynamics. Additionally, stereotyping and discrimination are diminishing, and these fields are now more cross-gender than they used to be several decades ago (Hall 124-130).

Cross-cultural Differences in Status of Women in SET

The status of women in science is in many cases vary from culture to culture. This is because the norms observed by one culture may be different from those of another culture. Studies conducted by Blaisdell (29) indicate a wide disparity in the way different cultures uphold women in science and engineering. These differences are more pronounced in societies that have stuck to their traditions than in the modernized societies. Among the African Americans and other black societies, gender roles are highly emphasized. This implies that women are expected to take care of their families while their male counterparts act as breadwinners. On this note, women need to maintain their femininity in these societies. In these societies, a career in science and engineering is highly associated with a loss of femininity. In this regard, women are regarded negatively in these societies once they take to science and engineering. This cultural stereotyping has significantly contributed to a few black women getting involved in science and technology. Through women empowerment, the number of women taking careers in science and technology in several other cultures or societies has increased. Western cultures are becoming more liberal and, thus, more women are being accepted into these male dominated careers. This increase can be attributed to less strict cultural norms, constitutions promoting equity and discouraging discrimination and government strategies promoting inclusion of women. According to statistics posted by the United Nations (quoted in Blaidell 30), the Asian communities (especially in the United States) have the highest number of women scientists and engineers. Among the Asian communities, SET (science, engineering and technology) courses are considered part of the community. Although their culture also emphasizes on gender roles on women, they show significant liberalism regarding women engaging in science and technology. The above observation indicates that, in societies where cultural norms, discrimination and stereotyping are high, number of women entering into the field of science and engineering is less and vice versa.

Opportunities for Women in SET

Regardless of the challenges, women engaging in SET fields have a multiplicity of opportunities. In the United States, the government has increased its effort in having women included in Set programs. Through affirmative actions, the entry standards for women into university in SET fields are lower than for men. This is encouraging an additional number of women engage in science and engineering. Additionally, other governmental and non-governmental research centers are including more women than it was a few years ago. Additionally, these institutes engage in campaigns and trainings to raise the number of women in science and engineering. For example, through the Executive Office of the President, NASA was involved in a national convention to encourage girls and women to engage in SET. Through their presence, girls had hands-on experience on NASA activities to inspire them in pursuing SET careers (Steel and Emily 200).

Recommendations

Based on the challenges facing women in SET, a lot remains undone. Several recommendations can help increase the presence of women in SET. First, the culture and social norms should be redefined to have an increased number of women in SET. As noted by Bystydzienski (209), women need first to adjust to the system with the system in which they have modest prior knowledge. In this regard, women need to develop coping strategies to have high representation in this field. Additionally, the cultural and social norms of the modern societies should change. Stereotyping and discrimination at entry level in universities are some of the most significant challenges for women wishing to engage in SET courses. With government strategies, discrimination and stereotyping can be reduced thus increasing the number of women in SET. Furthermore, a change in the competitiveness in SET can help increase the number of women. According to Blaisdell (21), dissatisfaction and intimidation arise among women when faced by competitiveness at work. To mitigate this problem, group activities and non-threatening environments should be encouraged. Additionally, standards for assessment should be reduced to help women feel integrated. Furthermore, connected teaching can help integrate women in science and engineering. In connected classes, truth is constructed through consensus, but not conflict. This helps reduce intimidation among women.

Conclusion

Inclusion of women in science and engineering can help in the growth of innovation. However, women are significantly underrepresented in SET fields. Social norms and some oppressive legal systems have been found to contribute to this underrepresentation. Even for women who advance in these careers, a marked disparity exists between their salaries and those of their female counterparts. However, women, through government efforts, have a multiplicity of opportunities in advancing in these fields. As identified, several strategies can be used to allay the challenges women face in SET fields. The inclusion of women in SET fields is crucial for growth of innovation thus additional women should be encouraged to join SET courses.

From the mid 1970s across countries all over the world, particularly in developed countries such as United States; women began to work in management jobs such as secretarial and clerical jobs in considerable significant numbers. Following this, there have been different researches that have emerged to examine how women are developing and progressing in managerial positions particularly positions that involve women in management within the workplace (Powell and Butterfield, 1994).

Nigeria is known as the most populous country in West Africa with an estimated population of 140 million and the percentage of women is about 57 percent of the total population, yet the involvement of women in socio-political matters especially when it relates to such positions as managers where women will have to take part in major decision making roles is limited. This is as a result of gender issues within Nigeria’s society because differences exist in the way men and women are treated (Anakwe, 2002).

Madiche (2009), argued that even though a significant number of women have changed occupations from traditional female occupations such as teaching and nursing to male dominated occupations such as engineering and banking, unfortunately, women are still underrepresented in managerial positions, because of unequal career advancement opportunities that hinders them from attaining managerial positions.

Nigeria is still a developing society where men are more highly valued than women, they dominate positions of authority more than women and it is a patriarchal society, where the cultural and social activities of women are governed by men and which favours the interest of men over that of women. The attitudes of the society about women accessing managerial position are being constrained by the gender roles of men and women (NGP, 2007). The Nigerian Civil Service is the largest employer in Nigeria and according to research, 76 percent of workers in the civil service constitute men while the remaining 24 percent are made up of women. Even though women are assigned to some managerial positions such as permanent secretaries, women still hold less than 14 percent of total managerial positions in the Nigerian civil service (CIDA Nigeria, GSAA, 2006).

Recent research by Okarfor et al., (2011), discovers that American women in significant numbers have not reached the heights of their careers, even though they are actively involved in managerial positions. Also in United Kingdom, in instances where women make up about 40 percent of total labour force, 26 percent of women are said to be in managerial type jobs, regardless of the fact that both men and women have opportunities to successfully be leaders, there exist barriers which hinder women from reaching top managerial positions.

This research study is centred on the experiences of women within the Nigeria Civil Service using Nigeria Ports Authority which is one of the many organizations of the Federal Government of Nigeria. Following the introduction, the statement of the problem and research questions was discussed. Relevant literatures on barriers that hinder women from advancing in their career were discussed to review the study. In-depth interview was the method adopted to carry out the research, which was followed by analyses of the data, summary of findings, recommendation and conclusion.

1.2 Statement of the Problem and Research Question

Managerial and professional positions are attached to a great deal of authority, respect and recognition. Those in this position are usually rewarded with high level of economic pay. However, the underrepresentation of women in management at the workplace is a fact which is known within Nigeria society. Studies reveal that over the last years, there has been an increase in the number of female managers across different organizations within the world, restructuring managerial positions from men toward women. Even at this, there are still issues surrounding women’s advancement in their careers especially to managerial positions (Ismail, 2008).

In Nigeria, gender socializations is generating social discrimination against women within formal and informal work environment, men are seen as most appropriate for managerial positions. Women lack the skills and abilities that would make an efficient manager when compared to their male colleagues who are said to be fit for such positions. The entry of women into higher positions of authority in a society like Nigeria has resulted into stereotypes which have been questioned (Omaji, 1993; Kamoche, 1997).

The experiences of women in management in Nigerian civil service are peculiar social and cultural characteristics subjecting women to be under the authority of men within the society, not only experienced by women in the civil service but also women in the Nigerian society. Thus it is important to examine the factors that encourage or discourage women from advancing to managerial positions in the Nigerian civil service. Therefore, the central research question is: Why are women noticeably underrepresented in managerial positions in the Nigerian Civil Service? This can be further broken down into:

How has gender inequality contributed to the underrepresentation of women in managerial position within Nigeria’s civil service?

Do family responsibilities have an effect on the underrepresentation of women in managerial position in the civil service?

How can women be more represented in Managerial positions within the Nigeria Civil Service?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

This study will examine the effect of gender inequalities on the underrepresentation of women in Nigeria’s civil service, its objectives are as follows;

To examine how gender inequality has contributed to the underrepresentation of women in Nigerian civil service

To examine the effect of family responsibilities on the underrepresentation of women in Nigerian civil service

To examine the ways in which women can be further represented in managerial positions in Nigerian civil service

1.4 Significance of the Study

This study is about the underrepresentation of women in top managerial position within the Nigerian civil service. The rationale for the study is as a result of assumptions and practices within the Nigerian society that men are superior to women leading to inequalities in the society. The study will show how the role of patriarchy within the Nigerian working system has brought about women subordination, discrimination and gender inequalities.

The result of the study will help to formulate effective strategies that will address the underrepresentation of women in Nigerian civil service, additionally; it will contribute to existing literatures on the importance of women in management in Nigeria and Africa at large.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction

This chapter is a review of related literatures on studies in the past surrounding the underrepresentation of women in top management positions. Past empirical studies have identified various barriers that hinder women from advancing in their careers within the Nigerian civil service. These barriers were discussed further in details in this section.

2.2 Gender Socialization; Historical Perspective of Nigerian Society

Society differentiates and predetermines human development in its entirety especially its members roles and responsibilities be it female or male, the execution of these roles are constructed socially via the socialization process (Onyeonoru, 2005).

Gender roles are distinct in Nigeria; the male child is given more priority in terms of education than the female child. When a female child is born into the society, her opportunities and possibilities are limited by societal cultures and norms notwithstanding the kind of attributes that is being displayed by the girl (Abiola, 2004; Nwezeh, 2009).

The male child in Nigeria is favoured by customs and traditions, which are culturally instilled in them since birth. They are groomed to take up positions of authority from their fathers while the female child is trained to be a home maker and submissive to men. In the past, educating the female child was considered a total waste as she would eventually be married and would be a “property” of her husband. To this effect the female child in Nigeria was not sent to school. With civilization and enlightenment in the nineteenth century, the female child is now reluctantly being sent to school. Even with this, male education was getting more priority than the female in most Nigerian families, although financial constraints did not help the plight to educate the female child. As a result of this, the opportunities for women to compete adequately with men did not exist in the Nigerian society, it was considered an aberration for women to contend with men for positions of authority and women who were qualified to be in managerial positions shy away from it so as not to incur societal wrath, they remained comfortable in lesser positions; apparently disadvantaged and without skills due to lack of education, they are left with less challenging work within the Nigerian society (White et al., 1992; Mathur-Helm, 2005; Olojede, 2009).

The pre-industrial economy in Africa was characterized by family economy, where husbands and fathers were served and were seen as the head and superior. During that time, work for women was mostly limited to their household chores, which also includes taking care of their husband, children, siblings and homes (Tilly and Scott, 1978, cited in Erickson, 1992). Those women who were considered rebellious wanted to work but they were limited by various factors. One of them was location, whether women lived in rural or urban areas determined the type of job they could get; other factors include their social class, age and marital status. Women from wealthy families usually did not work but managed their homes; on the other hand women from medium income families were required to contribute to the family income by assisting their husbands in the running of their farm or other businesses (Sharpe, 1998). Single women were involved in various trades at that time, some of them were found in male dominated trades such as blacksmithing but very few of them were seen in these trades. They were mostly found in female dominated trades such as buying and selling of goods or farm produce (Sharpe, 1998).

In the twentieth century, as Nigeria developed as a country, women were involved in a range of occupations outside their homes, many of which could be considered as managerial, although they were not regarded as managerial, rather as secretarial or administrative positions (Kiamba, 2008). They worked with their husbands or fathers in managing the family business but were regarded as subordinates; their managerial roles were concealed under their father or husband’s work (Powell 1993). Managerial positions were ascribed to men because managers who occupy those positions were seen as strong, authoritative and assertive. For a woman to occupy a managerial position meant that the belief of men being in leadership roles has been dishonoured, especially if the role involves overseeing the duties of men (Fagenson, 1993). It is important to acknowledge that since the beginning of civilization, women around the world including Nigeria have suffered various forms of inhumane treatment, which includes but not limited to oppression, subjugation, violence and degradation (Abiola, 2004; Nwezeh, 2009).

Omotola (2007) and Mathur-helm, (2005), opined that women are regarded as the weaker sex and due to this they are usually oppressed, violated, discriminated against and alienated in different forms which include socio-cultural, religious and economic beliefs. Fadeke et al., (2010), argued further that these cultural beliefs women are faced with are a reflection of the society and it begins from childhood when girls are socialized in particular traditional roles and prohibited from involving themselves with certain roles that are attributed to males. This socialization process eventually results in prejudice and glass ceiling which affects women later in their life when building their careers and thus hinder them from such positions as managers, directors, executives and so on (Fadeke et al., 2010)

A research by Fadeke et al., (2010), proved that the advancement of women into managerial positions is slower than that of men which has been attributed to a “purgatory effect” which is a condition that has limited women from attaining managerial positions which is evident in Nigeria. Fadeke et al., (2010), argued that Nigeria’s corporate world is dominated by men and women who want to ascend to top management positions have to break down the glass ceiling which in fact is difficult to break through. When they eventually break this mold and attain these managerial positions, they are discriminated against, marginalized and they are seen as just filling up the position not because they have the ability required for contributing positively when they attain such positions (Fadeke et al., 2010).

2.3 Barriers to Underrepresentation of Women in Managerial Positions
2.3.1 Glass Ceiling and Gender Discrimination

“The lack of women in the workplace in senior managerial positions is recognized as a problem, some of the great paradoxes of Africa’s persisting development crisis are continuing under-engagement of millions of potentially transformational female talent in managerial roles, and the systematic relegation of their educational and capacity development needs based on misguided traditional values and gender based prejudice” (Ibeh and Debrah, 2011 cited in Wallace and Smith, 2011, pp. 10).

Management as it is known in present times has been established since the late nineteenth century when the hierarchy of authority in organizations began to develop; there was the need for specializations in these organizations (Galambos and Pratt, 1988; cited in Fagenson, 1993). Modern management, as well as specialization in its peculiar form began to exist in Africa.

In Nigeria, glass ceiling has been one of the hindrances to the advancement of women in their careers, the issue of glass ceiling has been a bone of contention since colonial times and the problem has refused to abate (Kiamba, 2008).

The barrier that hinders women from gaining entrances into the labour market or by preventing them from attaining management positions can be described as “glass ceiling”; it is invisible and difficult to penetrate through thereby preventing individuals from moving upward in their careers (Tlasiss and Kauser, 2010)

Nigerian women have had to overcome various aspects of glass ceiling, which usually are in forms of discrimination, which is clearly defined by article 1 of the United Nations convention on the eradication of discrimination against women (CEDAW) as

” any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on the basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field” (www.unifem.org/cedaw30/about_cedaw/).

The history of women in Nigeria’s public administration shows immense diversity in the civil service. The increased presence and widespread of women in the civil service of Nigeria cannot be ignored. Yet, women in managerial positions are still uncommon within government institution in Nigeria. Although discrimination continues to exist as a limiting factor to women which prevents them from enjoying equal opportunities within the civil service (Robert, 2004)

Adeleke, (2003), continued that the inequality between men and women in Nigeria’s civil service has created gap between them socially, culturally and politically within the society. Adeleke, (2003), argued further that women are being deprived of their rights as compared to men especially when it relates to their careers. Though it is said that men and women have equal opportunities in the civil service, the men are more dominant in the government institution than women. Forms of discrimination arises in situation such as unfair recruitment processes, promotion and remuneration policies.

From the studies of Robert (2004), it is evident through his analysis that men are more represented than women in the Nigeria’s civil service; the data below clearly support these assertion:

Table A: Percentage of men and women in federal civil service.

Year Percentage of men Percentage of women

2001 71.5 28.5

2002 71.3 28.7

2003 69.3 30.7

2004 70.5 29.5

Source: WACOL, 2008 (cited in Fatile et al., 2011)

Oakley (2000) explains two rationales that are considered for the continuation of glass ceiling, which are socio-cultural issues and those related to organizational barriers. On the socio-cultural, several researches have explained the glass ceiling issues women are faced with at work. The studies explain traditional gender roles as one of the many reasons women face challenges at work. The society ascribes these roles to women, which can be classified as negative stereotypes to women, such as duties attributed to women, which expect them to care for the home and their family alone.

The effect of this on women is that they are not able to maintain a career; they shuttle between flexible working hours and work in poor pay jobs, in comparison with their male counterparts who are perceived to provide for the family and in so doing have access to robust financial incentives and salaries (Anker, 1997, cited in Okafor, et. al., 2011).

Hence, Krotz, (2006), argues that women tend to build their careers towards roles that the society accepts to be suitable for women and not what they desire or challenging jobs that they aspire to attain.

The Nigerian government took a notable action by including specific policies into the Nigerian constitution when they realized that it was challenging for women to gain entry into managerial position particularly in civil service organizations. This action revealed the government is in support of equality within the Nigerian society (Fadeke et al., 2010). The 1999 constitution of the Nigerian government in section 17 (1), states that;

“the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be based on the principles of freedom, equality and social Justice”, Section 14(3), further states that ” the State is enjoined to direct its policy towards ensuring that all citizens are not discriminated against on any grounds whatsoever, and should have the means of securing adequate means of livelihood as well as adequate opportunities to secure suitable employment, in addition, discrimination on grounds of ethnic group, place of origin, sex and religion or political opinion is highly prohibited”

From the above section of the constitution, by law, it can be deduced that women have equal rights with men in the Nigerian society and equal opportunities at work to attain the heights of their careers; women have a right to equal positions like manager and director as men. The Nigerian government also in 2006 introduced the National gender policy to ensure that these laws are duly obeyed. The aim of the National Gender Policy includes “to achieve minimum threshold of representation for women in order to promote equal opportunity in all areas of political, social and economic life of the country for women, as well as men” (NGP: 20, cited in Fadeke et al., 2010). The Federal government before the 1999 constitution did not have laws in place in support of women’s position in the society particularly in their careers to attain managerial positions but this passage of the law has brought about a new lease of life for career women (Taylor and Conradie, 1997, cited in Fadeke et al., 2010).

2.3.2 Nigerian Labour Market and Political System

The Nigerian Labour market is another element that shapes the careers of individual in the economy; careers are influenced by the size of the labour market, unemployment in the labour market, changing government and policies within the labour market. Research conducted by world fact book in 2010 shows that Nigeria has the largest labour market in West Africa with more than 47million workers. The economy is still experiencing scarcity of jobs as unemployment rose to 4.9 percent in 2007, a large percentage of the labour market consist of unskilled workers and can be grouped within the informal sector of the labour market. More specifically, Nigerian labour market consists of more men than women because it is a male dominated economy and to this effect, the gendering of the workplace is still prevalent. Although there are no written policies at the workplace that favours men, organizations are structured in a way that it favours men than women and any woman trying to venture into the workplace especially an occupation that is dominated by men is faced with a lot of challenges, this happens in reality (Mordi et al., 2010)

Employment Rates in Nigeria, within age group, 2008

Source ILO 2010, cited in Oyenjeli

From the figure above, it can be deduced that there is high level of inequality within Nigeria labour market. Men are more dominant in the labour force between the ages of 45-49 with a percentage of 99.2% compared to women. Women between ages 50-54 makeup the highest percentage among women (69.5%) in the labour market

The Nigerian political system also plays a role in the labour market because of changing governments and different labour policies introduced by the government into the labour market. Since independence, Nigeria has had to change power between the military and civilian government regimes, and a significant effect of this is that these policies introduced have not been sustained within the labour market because these policies are changed whenever there is a new government in power (Mordi et al., 2010)

2.3.3 Cultural Beliefs and Work-Life Balance

Several studies including that of Obi (2001), Adeleke, (2003) and Omotola (2007), have explored the challenges women are faced with while trying to attain managerial positions in an organization. Some of the challenges include cultural beliefs, unsupportive work environment, national restrictions, educational limitation and difficulty in balancing career and family. There is also the belief that women in top managerial positions are wayward. As a result of this belief women shy away from top ranking positions (Olojede, 2009).

George, Kuye and Onokala (2012), further argues that the global trend of about 1-5percent of women found in managerial position has also been revealed in Nigeria society; this is as a result of cultural beliefs and work life balance of women. In Nigeria, culturally women both at home and at work are not encouraged to take up positions of authority. George, Kuye and Onokala, (2012), Research in Cadbury Nigeria Plc reveals that male workers in the organization do not accept women managers as their superiors and this is not so for Cadbury Plc (UK), where the men are not particular about who manages them. He also observed that for women in the workplace to be promoted to managerial positions, they are usually harassed and intimidated by their superiors and those women who eventually attain these positions at work are seen to have attained the position on the basis of sex and not of merit. George, Kuye and Onokala, (2012), concluded that as culture remains an important part in the Nigeria society, it will be tough for women to get to management positions, cultural norms will continue to limit women in achieving top management positions eventually leading to more men representing at these positions.

The most important part for Nigerian women’s life is the family, according to the society, women are responsible for taking care of the home and balancing both work. The family life creates challenges for women who want to have a successful career; it does not only affect the women but it causes potential problems for the families and organizations too (Fadeke et al., 2010). Men are more interested in a work role more than women; it is the women that experience more challenges trying to balance both their work life and family life because the society expects women to take care of their household and family (Burke and Collins, 2001).

Women still have to make decisions between their career and family in ways that men do not. Women will have to choose between pursuing a career, getting married, having to raise the children and reaching the top of her career as a manager within the organization. Working with her male counterparts who are not making these choices creates barriers for women aspiring to be managers (Kiamba, 2008). For a woman who is married, her choice of career path may be in contrast to that of her husband. This is because even when she is qualified for a top managerial position, she may relent because she may not have the time needed to devote to her work as her attention is needed fully at home. Some organizations in Nigeria as part of their policies do not transfer or promote married women to certain positions so as not to cause domestic crisis within their families. Women with families would not like a transfer to another country or state in the same organization, longer hours of work will not be desirable to her and these result in hindering her from getting to top management positions (Akanbi and Salami, 2011).

Over the past years, balancing work for women has been an issue of concern as it reinforces the “glass ceiling” phenomenon making it difficult for women to break through the barriers (Fadeke et al., 2010). Women prefer careers that give them the opportunity to be able to carry out their responsibilities within the family. As more women gain access into management positions in the public world, balancing both work and family life becomes a real challenge because they have to deal with conflicting demands of their careers, caring for their children and other personal issues such as marriage demands (Marcinkus, Whelean-Berry and Gordon, 2007).

2.3.4 Stereotypes

Women who are managers are faced with various challenges and strongly hold negative stereotypes at the work place which differentiates them from their male colleagues. Studies have shown that female managers are described to be less confident and having poorer leadership abilities as compared to men who are also in managerial positions (Owen and Todor, 1993). Some of the assumptions that have been acknowledged as stereotypes that hinder women are that women put their family demands first above their occupational duties. They lose their interest in their duties at work because they have children to take care of; they only work for extra income to be able to support the family. They are also classified as being emotional which makes them lose the necessary will to run an organization because when criticized, they tend to take it more personally than professionally when compared to men; these makes them unsuitable for top managerial positions (Okafor et al., 2011).

Studies conducted by both Broveman et al., (1972) and Heilman et al., (1989) cited in Oakley (2000), conforms the existence of stereotypes on both sexes. Both studies see female managers as basically lacking self-confidence, below average, non analytical, inconsistent, unstable emotionally and poor leadership abilities in comparison to their male counterparts. Both studies also agree managers frequently associate desirable managerial traits with men and the opposite with women. Male were considered to be aggressive, independent, lacking emotion, objective, active, dominant, logical, self-confident and skilled in business. Women were stereotypically seen has displaying the opposite trait of males on all the competence related traits, which indicates that female traits are linked with incompetence. It therefore does not come as a surprise, the lack of female managers as a result of their perceived stereotypes. Consequently, successful corporate executive managers without regards to gender will most likely by choice defer to the traits associated with male stereotypes.

The next chapter reviews the methodology employed in conducting the research.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines the research method that was employed to uncover the underlying issues that accounted for the underrepresentation of women in managerial position in the Nigeria civil service. According to Bryman and Bell (2011, pp.39), “A research method is simply a technique for collecting data, it can involve a specific instrument, such as a self-completion questionnaire or a structured interview schedule, or participant observation whereby the researcher listens to and watches others”. Qualitative research method has its roots in social science; it is concerned about the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of people, it seeks to understand why people behave in certain ways (Mays and Pope, 2000). A qualitative methodology was employed using both primary and secondary data’s in gathering information and analyzing the study.

3.2 Research Design

The research design that was administered for the study is an explorative and descriptive approach which was employed within survey research design to observe, explore and describe the social phenomena in the context of this research. The main method of data collection was semi-structured in-depth interview technique. This was used because it is an exploratory study to determine the issues and challenges facing women managers in Nigeria and because it shows a clear picture of respondent position on the subject matter. This was made possible because open ended questions were adopted where respondents were allowed to answer the questions according to how they felt and their thinking. The reason why the face to face interview was employed was because Nigeria is still a developing country and to this effect, other telecommunication methods like emails through computer based study or telephone interviews would not be effective because they are not efficient systems of communication in Nigeria and this can slow down the process of carrying out the study as there was limited time to complete the research. Secondary research that includes journal articles, working papers, books and past reports from the Nigerian civil service was also used.

3.3 Research Philosophy

The nature of this research study is qualitative. Qualitative research is defined as “a form of systematic empirical inquiry into meaning” (Shank, 2002, pp.5, cited in Ospina, 2004), meaning that researchers following basic rules make inquiry through the world of experience, by attempting to interpret social phenomena in terms of the meaning people give to it (Ospina, 2004). Interpretivism is the epistemological foundation for which the researched is based. Epistemological issues “are concerned with the question of what is or should be regarded as acceptable knowledge in discipline” (Bryman and Bell, 2011, pp. 15). Interpretivism according to Bryman and Bell, (2011, pp.17) “is predicated upon the view that a strategy is required that respects the differences between people and the objects of natural sciences and therefore requires the social scientist to grasp the subjective meaning of social action”

Ontological position of this study is constructionism which “asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors” (Bryman and Bell, 2011, pp. 22). This means that social phenomena are brought about by social processes

“Freedom” has been an object of study and discussion since antiquity. The definition, extent and implications of the idea of human freedom have been discussed in disciplines ranging from the arts, humanities and even the sciences.

Freedom has been variously defined by many people. These definitions can be broadly classified into 2 categories for simplicity. [1]

External Freedoms

These include Legal and human rights that are conferred on human beings from the outside. These are circumstantial in nature. Their absence, misuse or withdrawal can be clearly seen and is usually protested against.

These include freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, Freedom from want, Freedom from fear, freedom of association, freedom of thought, etc.

Internal Freedoms

These are more Metaphysical in nature. Internal freedoms concern our inner mechanisms, thought- processes and the freedom to self-determination. These are less obviously visible, more complex and have far reaching consequences for our powers of decision making, judging accountability and responsibility.

It is these internal freedoms that are the subject of interest for students of psychology and for those interested in understanding human behavior.

The most contentious issue has been whether human beings can be free at all. Is Unbridled Human freedom a myth? Are we always constrained by internal and external forces that shape our ideas and beliefs or does each individual have some autonomy to make his/her own decisions? Generally speaking, the disparate views on this issue fall into three main categories [2]

The Deterministic View

The Libertarian View

The Compatibilist Approach

The first two approaches agree that both freedom and natural causality cannot exist simultaneously. However, they derive two opposite conclusions from this incompatibility. The deterministic approach asserts that there is no possibility of freedom. Thought, action, events are already decided and human choices are severely constrained by events beyond our control. The idea of freedom is hence an illusion.

The libertarian approach says the exact opposite. Inspired by modern, rationalist school of thought, it concludes that human beings have unlimited choices and are absolutely free to pick and choose, to think and to act, keeping in mind physical limitations. . These choices may be influenced by certain factors, but these decisions have the power to change the direction of natural events.

The third approach is therefore called the compatibilist position. Some actions are free, while others are reflexive. Freedom and free will is understood as a part of the workings of the human brain. A person is responsible for an action when this action results from a conscious intention. To be responsible for an action is not to be ultimately responsible for it, in the sense of also being responsible for all the events in the causal chains that led to the existence of the conscious intention that determined the action.

In this project, we will be taking the third position. We will attempt to show, by taking some examples relevant to our lives, that unbridled freedom is indeed a myth. Further, we propose that unbridled freedom is not an ideal to be cherished either. There are certain limits to the freedom that one person can enjoy, without trespassing on the freedoms of others or spreading chaos and disturbance in society. It is desirable to have some restrictions that enable us to live in society and differentiate us from animals.

The first restriction that human beings face in the exercise of unlimited freedom is the constraints put upon us by society. Human beings are social animals that have agreed to give up certain rights and freedoms in order to gain the benefits of living in society. This has been explained by various social theorists under the idea of the “Social Contract”. [1]

Living within society, human beings are influenced by three types of factors. [2]

The genetic factors

The way they are activated

Interaction between inner potential and outer surroundings

The first factor talks of our inheritance from society and parents. Both in terms of genetic material passed down to the next generation, as well as the collective social conscience, which is “a determinate system of ideas and beliefs which creates social likeness among all members of society” [3] .

The second factor consists of inner characteristics inherited from our parents as they are expressed in us. Some are recessive, some are dominant, but both types play a role in determining who we are.

The third factor brings in the importance of the interaction with society from birth, that moulds and shapes our personality in millions of imperceptible ways.

The third factor is considered to be the most relevant and potent since its influence begins the moment we are born and serves to shape and mould the ideas generated through the first and second factors.

Society is always present, both inside and outside us. It guides our behaviours, determines the range of our choices and influences our decision making process. Most of the time, we are unaware of this situation. Many times, we do not mind this intrusion.

“… because most of the time we ourselves desire just that which society expects of us. We want to obey the rules. We want the parts that society has assigned to us” [1]

This is evident in the way that advertisements [2] , for example shape our choices. Individuals are often attracted to products that they may not otherwise buy, need or use, purely on the basis of the way it is presented on the television, in the print media etc. The advertising and marketing industries try to appeal to this tendency- to seek the opinion of others, to do what everyone else is doing, to conform to social norms and standards- to their own advantage.

Another example of purely external factors influencing personal decisions is seen in the concept of opinion and exit polls. The Indian government has banned the airing of exit polls on television, until all phases of voting is over, due to the fear that expected results in one region may hamper the influence the voting patterns in other regions. Similarly, opinion polls can often become opinion-generating mechanisms.

Another factor that has been very effective in influencing thoughts, actions and behaviour has been religion. All over the world, various religions have encouraged people to think within preset frameworks. There are however, two sides to this coin.

The unifying potential of religion has been well researched by thinkers such as Emile Durkheim who has claimed that- “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden–beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community all those who adhere to them.” [3]

This positive view of religion is countered by Karl Marx who refers to religion as “opium for the masses” i.e. something that distracts them from alienation and hardship in this life, by promising leisure and comfort in the next, thereby serving the interests of the bourgeoisie.

As an intrinsic part of the society we live in, religion- whether we accept it or not- is an important factor that influences the early development of our personalities. Its morals, values and teachings are instilled in us, and even if later in life we choose to turn away, these collective values remain with us.

Another crucial institution that shapes us is the education system. The issue of freedom within the classroom and its importance in the learning process has been the subject matter of many debates. It is evident that unbridled freedom in a classroom, especially when the students are young or immature will only lead to chaos and confusion. The focus will be diffused since the authority of the teacher- who enforces discipline and concentration in the class will be lost. Also, the students, who are unaware of future benefits of studying certain difficult or complex subjects, will tend to avoid them altogether. As we have all experienced ourselves, unbridled freedom in the form of no attendance constraints usually leads to high levels of absenteeism.

However, it is also important to consider what would be the case in a class with absolutely no freedom at all. Where the teacher is the absolute dictator and students have no rights, and only one duty- to listen to the authoritarian teacher. Such a scenario cannot be beneficial to the overall growth of the students. Their creativity will be stifled. Not allowed to ask questions or think independently, their curious and questioning natures will be subsumed under the weight of conformity, mediocrity and obedience. Education then divorces itself from understanding and development of the personality. It reduces to merely rote learning and superficial information gathering. This will have consequences for their future where they will be unable to take any independent decisions, never having faced that prospect earlier.

As earlier, the most beneficial approach lies in the middle of these two extremes. Children must be given freedom within the classroom and within the education system. But how much authority should the teacher retain and how much he/she should leave the children to make their own decisions is a difficult question to answer.

A number of theories have been put forward by various authors in this regard. Pioneers in child developmental theory- Jean Piaget (1896-1980), and Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934), have powerfully influenced beliefs about interacting with children, how to set up learning environments, and expectations for children’s development. [1]

There are some similarities and differences between Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories and these differences influence how teachers struggle and negotiate the location of their control and the children’s freedom in child-centred classrooms. The key difference between Piaget’s cognitive- constructivist theory and Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory lies in the role each theory assigns to the individual child and the social context of play in a Child’s development. Although both approaches support the idea that individuals construct knowledge, Piaget and Vygotsky viewed nature (individual) and nurture (social context) as taking different roles in this process [2] .

From the Piagetian perspective, individuals construct a personal reality based on previous knowledge and new experiences. Knowing is therefore, an interaction between the environment and the individual. For Vygotsky, learning is an interactive and constructive activity, and both society and individuals play essential roles in learning. [1]

Both approaches emphasize the importance of social adaptation and social interaction in children’s learning, the difference comes in determining the direction of influence, that is, whether knowledge is constructed as a result of social interaction and then internalized (the Vygotskian view), or whether knowledge is constructed by the individual as a result of experience and then refined through testing in social situations (the Piagetian view) Moreover, both approaches locate learning within a social context, but each attributes different functions to that context. For Piaget, the importance of the social context is that it provides children with a means of testing the knowledge they had constructed. For Vygotsky, the social context is both the source and the cultural repository of the learning.

The classrooms guided by Piaget’s theory give children the greatest degree of freedom. Teachers set up a rich environment for children to explore by themselves. Teachers are observers. On the other hand the classroom applying Vygotsky’s theory seeks to find a balance between teacher-directed and child-initiated activities. Teachers assist children and give them challenges in order that children may attain the top level within their zone of proximal development.

Two other writers who have provided valuable insights about the tension between children’s autonomy and the teacher’s authority in classroom teaching are John Dewey (1859- 1952) and Maria Montessori (1870-1952). Both, Dewey’s Experience and Education (1998) and Montessori’s Absorbent Mind (1995) discuss many points about the relationship between children’s freedom and teachers’ roles in education. Although their ideas about education are widely considered to be child-centred, they hold divergent views about children’s freedom and the role of the teacher.

In Dewey’s Progressive Theory, democracy is the aim of schooling. The curriculum is child-centred and is rooted in the ideas of continuity and interaction in a social context. Learning is experiencing.

“Teachers and children decide together what experience is meaningful to each individual student’s current learning needs and later development. Moreover, the experience is always a transaction taking place between the individual and the environment.” [2]

Therefore, as children develop within a school that functions like a democratic society, they learn and develop the ability to function well in the larger democratic society. Dewey (1998) believed that children’s freedom should be constructed, that it is not simply a product of their free will. He made a distinction between freedom based entirely on free will (doing whatever one wants to do) and freedom of intelligence, which is constructed from purposes that are intrinsically worthwhile, through observation and exercise of judgment in real-life situations. [1]

Further, he believed that,

”Guidance given by the teacher to the exercise of the pupils’ intelligence is an aid to freedom, not a restriction upon it” [2]

Therefore, teachers should act as the representative and agent of the interests of the group as a whole, and should be responsible for each Child’s on-going growth with the community.

Moreover, Dewey indicated that the ideal aim of education is the creation of self-control. The mere removal of restriction or external control is no guarantee that children have self-control. [3]

Maria Montessori believed that children and their proper education is the key to building a new world. Education must develop the potential abilities of children, who (she believed) are endowed with unknown powers. The role of education is therefore, to offer an orderly environment and materials which children can explore, by themselves, in order to promote their development. Montessori’s educational philosophy is centred on the interaction between objects and the individual. The teacher acts as an observer to find a child’s inner spirit and offers an orderly environment in which children can develop and grow.

Montessori believed that the child has the power to teach herself. Children can adapt and have the ability to develop freely, which can become directly visible if their minds are not oppressed by adults who may limit the child’s ”inner work and weigh down his spirit” [4]

She indicated that child herself must become the centre of education and should be guided by her inward mind. Therefore, the teacher’s task is not to talk, but to prepare and arrange a series of motives that inspire children to develop without any need of direct instruction

However, Montessori did not ask teachers to completely abdicate authority. She believed that authority does not come from the ”adult’s dignity”, but from the help that parents or teachers are able to give to their children. Therefore, authority consists of teachers’ aim to help children construct their work, without posing a threat to the children’s minds or reconstructing the children’s work. [5]

Although Montessori suggested that teachers should refrain from either interfering with children as they are absorbed in their work or preventing children’s free expansion, she still believed that teachers should interrupt children if the children persistently annoy the others, because it means the children’s spirits or disciplines of development would unfold negatively. Therefore, the teachers should interrupt to break this negative development and guide children toward the ”right track”

These theories lead to 2 types of classrooms, with varying degrees of teacher control and children’s freedom. It would be generally expected that these ruminations on students’ freedom would lead to a low teacher control and high student freedom scenario. However, this is not the case.

Low Teacher’s control, High Student’s Freedom

Some people may assume that the progressive way of teaching should be located in this quadrant because they believe high teacher control (the application of teacher authority) may oppress children and cause unjust power relationships between teachers and children.

However, it has been seen that is impossible to help children attain educational goals without the teachers’ guidance.

Those who advocate this view must critically examine the following questions:

Does teacher control have to be contradictory to children’s freedom?

Does teacher control automatically oppress children’s freedom?

Does teacher control prohibit children’s learning initiatives? [1]

High Teacher’s control, High Student’s Freedom

Reflected by both Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories. A teacher may respect and value children’s unfolding development, but he/she must also set up the expectations and goals for learning and give some guidance to children. In this kind of interaction, teacher control and Children’s freedom are not thought of as opposite to one to another; they coexist and both are highly valued in the ”whole” process of teaching [2]

This process of education, that gives great degree of freedom to the student, yet locates a certain degree of guidance and control with the teacher has implications for the professional domain as well. When these students grow up and enter organizations, the degree of freedom they are used to exercising and the decision-making skills that have been instilled in them through the process acquire great significance. The degree of freedom that an organization gives to its employees is also an important factor.

The interaction between freedom given to employees within an organization and the degree of freedom the employees are accustomed to function under is very complex and gives rise to different types of behaviours.

For example, those who are brought up through a process that involves high degree of control by parents, teachers etc. may, on finding a low control environment within the organization, be unable to function and take independent decisions, or they may end up mis-using those freedoms.

Freedom within an organization has many meanings, and always involves the complex dynamics between individual freedom and the importance of meeting organizational/ professional targets. Some of these include:

Freedom to have flexible work hours to accommodate family and lifestyle, while still meeting organizational goals.

Freedom to come to leadership with new ideas and opposing viewpoints, while learning to trust people and letting go of absolute control.

Freedom to do things differently by leveraging personal strengths to achieve goals, while still maintaining a professional, formal attitude.

Freedom to leverage social media to communicate professionally and to help build brand awareness for your organization, while not devoting too much time to personal issues.

Freedom to celebrate great accomplishments and milestones, while at the same time, having the freedom to say (without judgment,), “I don’t know” or “I can’t handle any more” or “I made a mistake.”

Freedom to be compensated fairly, equitably, and even sometimes generously

There is no debate that these, and many more such freedoms within the workplace will unleash creativity, encourage an environment of innovation, lead to relaxed and more productive employees, increase employee retention, make jobs more interesting and inspire employees to perform better. But, like in the case of implementing freedom within the education system, here too, there needs to be a delicate balance between employee freedom and organizational support and guidance. To make this possible, one of the major factors is the top leadership and their management style.

Many people contend that this is exactly what makes companies like Google India, MakeMyTrip,Intel Technology, Marriott Hotels, NetApp India the top 5 places to work in (in India). Freedom can be planned. It is the result of a designing triad consisting of the planning agents’ assumptions, the planning system’s conditions and the opportunities and/or barriers which enhance or hinder the exercise of freedom. [1]

Depending upon the amount of freedom and flexibility that organizations give to employees, and the qualities and skills they expect in their employees, they can be classified under 3 broad categories [2] :

The industrial organization

The Industrial Economy required the mass scaling of production and distribution. It met the requirements for the design of systems for scale, and was successful in plugging workers in to execute their specialized tasks.

This type of organization is based on physical capital. Intellect, obedience and diligence are important employee characteristics. Employees have little or no decision-making freedom.

The information Organization

The information organization Information is used to uncover patterns, reduce the costs of production and consumption and find new solutions to vexing issues. Workers employ their intellect to solve problems relating to data.

This type of organization is based on similar employee characteristics as the industrial, but gives a greater degree of freedom to its employees.

The creative/learning organization [1]

The creative organization is based on ideas and values qualities like initiative, creativity and passion. These qualities are intrinsic to employees, and when given freedom, bloom to provide a competitive advantage to the company. These assets are not physical in nature like commodities; hence the organization needs to work on retaining its highly skilled employees.

Gary Hamel has given some great examples of companies that are innovating in terms of management to encourage these traits in their employees. W.L. Gore is one such example. It has made the list of Best Places to work for the past 25 years. The Great Place to Work organization noted these four aspects of W.L. Gore’s culture:

“People experience tremendous freedom at Gore: the freedom to talk with whomever they need or want to, the freedom to make comments and provide input, the freedom to bring who they are to work, and the freedom to make commitments.” [2]

To conclude, this paper tries to argue that there is no such thing as “unbridled freedom”. Human beings are essentially social animals and they are born within society. Society shapes and moulds human behaviour, which may also be influenced by certain intrinsic genetic predispositions of individuals.

However, Institutions like Religion, Education, the state, family, friends, etc. have a huge role to play in the way we develop into adults. These may be conducive to the development of a balanced personality. However, they may sometimes be oppressive and may deter us from reaching our full potential in terms of faculties like creativity, innovation, lateral thinking etc.

Further, unbridled freedom, even if it existed, is undesirable since it disconnects us from the social nature of our lives. Unbridled freedom can be destructive, chaotic and may in fact hamper the optimum developmental process, as was explained in the discussion on freedom within education earlier. The situation with high teacher control and high student freedom was found to be the best approach to bringing freedom within the classroom.

Finally, the degree of freedom we are used to exercising and functioning under has a significant impact in the professional scenario- both for the employee as well as the organization. Employees must learn to handle freedom with responsibility and accountability while organizations must work on loosening bureaucratic hierarchical controls and give more freedom to make decisions to their employees.