toptermpaper.com

Andersen & Taylor (2007) define class mobility as the movement between different classes. This type of mobility can either be downward or upward in nature. Social classes are cultural or economical arrangements of groups within a society. Class becomes a very crucial object that political scientists, sociologists, economists, social historians, and anthropologists use for their various analysis purposes. Within social sciences, the social class is usually talked over by considering social stratification. In the Western world, stratification particularly includes upper class, middle class, and lower class and each of the three classes can be further classified into occupational classes (Edgell, 1993). In a number of societies, particularly in the United States, the concept of class mobility is a very significant social idea, with her citizens considering that every individual has got a chance to climb up the social class ladder.

An individual’s social class can be determined by a number of factors for instance, occupation, education, wealth or access to money, and race. These are very crucial factors that place people within different social classes within any given society particularly the societies in the Western world. The factor such as race can bring about a help or a hindrance for class mobility depending on an individual’s race and the society in consideration, as well as culture, manners, and the family history. In some societies for example, an individual who has a lot of liquid money might be regarded as being in upper class, while in other societies, this individual might not be considered to belong to the upper class owing to other factors such as the individual’s occupation and family history. An example in this case is a pawnbroker who has done very well, but might not belong to the upper class in spite of having a lot of money like a famous banker, while the children of the pawnbroker might possibly join the upper class as they may develop most prestigious occupations (Andersen & Taylor, 2007).

As seen, most of the Western nations are generally divided into lower, middle, and upper class. Each of these classes has its own characteristic features which differentiates it from the other classes. The lower class is characteristic of laborers who earn low income as they acquired limited education, and this makes the individuals in the class to acquire only few opportunities for economic or educational progress. At times, a member of the lower class may have a lot of money just like the member in the topmost class, but still will be classified under lower class because the family background or the occupation that he or she is engaged in. The members within the middle class are seen to be economically stable having attained more educational opportunities. As well in the middle class, the individuals have got increased social opportunities due to the idea that their class status is elevated. The upper class forms the stratum the social structure with lowest population of individuals. This class constitutes individuals with well established social positions including increased prestige as well as better economic security (Saunders, 1990).

In most of the societies within the Western world, the goal of individuals within the lower and middle classes is the upward class mobility as they believe that higher social classes are more socially and economically secure. Achieving the class mobility can be done through various ways for instance; an individual who is attempting to attain class mobility can aggressively pursue social and educational opportunities while another individual can center on laying the groundwork so that the future generations of his or her family will find themselves in the highest social class stratum. An example in this case, is an individual in the lower or middle class, who works very hard to acquire college fees to ensure that his or her children have chances which would no be attained (Ferrante, 2007).

Within some societies, individuals experience downward class mobility as well. Downward class mobility becomes a great fear among many people who usually feel that their social ranks are unstable. Experiencing a radical change in fortunes may become an indication for a family which belongs to a higher class to fall down within the class stratification, usually when the changes persevere over many subsequent generations. Those individuals who experience downward class mobility are usually exposed to a good deal of prejudice from individuals within the former social stratum as well as the individuals within the social class in which they end up. With different generations in the world, social class mobility can either occur within or across the generation. The type of social class mobility that occurs within a generation is referred to as intra-generational mobility while the social class mobility that occurs across generations is called inter-generational mobility (Saunders, 1990).

Intra-generational mobility can be defined as the changes regarding social status within a single lifetime. This type of mobility occurs within a given generation. Intergenerational mobility can be defined as the changes regarding social status that happen from the parents’ generation to the generation of their children. Thus the intergenerational mobility occurs across a number of generations. The definitions are very crucial during the analysis concerning the manner in which social status change from a given time period to another, as well as whether the social status of parents can determine an individual’s own social status. In most case, sociologists usually center on the intergenerational mobility since this is the easiest in depicting changes across generations when compared to the intra-generational mobility. The sociologists use this information to determine if inequality within a given culture changes with time (Jr, 2009).

Intergenerational mobility is merit based as well as non-merit based. In this case, it is the ability and hard work which influences social mobility. Parents’ race, wealth, luck, and gender can also affect the intergenerational mobility. Intergenerational mobility focuses on how parents can influence their children’s social mobility. Quality education is very important since the children can obtain highest marks and therefore gain prestige. Parents can as well make significant connections with those people who belong to higher social classes so that their social network will become wider. These parents who form their children’s social capital tend to increase the social mobility of the children. Recent researchers have collected relevant data concerning the families’ economic mobility across generations. The researchers have considered the probability of attaining a given income distribution in relation to where the parents were socially positioned. According to the researchers, 42 percent of the children whose parents were in the lowest quintile end up in the bottom quintile; 23 percent of the children ended up in the second quintile; 19 percent of the children ended up in the middle quintile; 11 percent of them end up in the fourth quintile; and 6 percent ended up in the topmost quintile (Goldthorpe, 2006).

The social upward mobility becomes difficulty due to some given barriers. Education is a very important factor which can enhance or hinder upward mobility depending on how an individual has attained in it. Those individuals who achieve lowly in their academics do not usually continue with higher education such that they find themselves no where in the competitive world education wise during the time of searching for the prestigious white collar jobs. The lowly educated individuals engage themselves in the lowly paying jobs which are a characteristic of low class. Without taking a step in advancing the educational status, these individuals continue being in the lowest social class. Poverty is another factor which hinders social upward mobility, in that, the children inmost poor families do not develop enough in terms of psychological and behavioral development. Families also affect their children’s social mobility, in that; some families do not adopt strategies to support the children for instance, access to social, cultural, and financial capital as well as social networks of contact to access prestigious opportunities (Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

Factors like higher attainment in education enable individuals to move from lower social classes to the topmost class, since they can secure well paying jobs. Parents in well-off families who might be in the middle class, encourages their children to get into the topmost class as they ensure their children get sufficient psychological and behavioral development. Parents in some families adopt some strategies to support their children, for example access to social, cultural, and financial capital. The parents also have good social networks of contact which they use to access the most valued opportunities (Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

This essay will examine the significance of sociology and the importance of a good understanding of the society in which we live. This essay will also provide an understanding of what sociology is, and an insight into each perspective in relation to a particular concept and some of the social problems surrounding it. It will identify how an understanding of sociology is useful in helping social workers understand, evaluate and resolve the potential problems faced by their client groups, and will assess the importance of sociology in social work practice.

Sociology differs to psychology, in as much as psychology studies the individual and that individual’s reactions and involvement within society. Sociology concentrates its approach on a much wider level, looking at the bigger picture. Giddens (1989:18) reports that the study of sociology offers the individual an opportunity to detach oneself from preconceived ideas about social life, however it does pose specific problems, mainly because of the complex problems involved in subjecting our own behaviour to study. It is hard to be objective which you are directly involved in, and later on in the essay, it is apparent how this has influenced, and biased some perspectives.

Sociology developed as a science in the late 1700s. It was initially a way of attempting to understand the great changes happening in industry and society around that time, following a period of social and industrial revolutions throughout England and the transition from feudal England, into a more capitalist and industrialised society.

Although there are many definitions of sociology, there is no clear cut definition as to what it encompasses.

Macionis and Plummer (1997:4) say that the definition of sociology is the “systematic study of human society”, whilst “The study of human social behaviour, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society”

– is the definition taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sociology

We can therefore deduce that sociology is a study of looking at things from a wider angle. So, what psychologists may view as a personal tragedy to one person, when viewed from the wider angle, can provide an insight into imbalances in the equilibrium of society. For example, C Wright Mills (taken from Macionis and Plummer) wrote famously about the “Sociological Imagination”, which enables the individual to reflect upon the societal impact of what can be apparently individual events, such as divorce, and unemployment. Whilst divorce is a personal tragedy for the individual, the impact of it nationally becomes a social problem, given that Britain statistically has one of the highest divorce rates in Europe. So, sociology is about learning how to look at things with more than just knowledge or common sense, it is about being able to turn situations around and examine the impact on both the individual and the surrounding society.

To do this however, one must be able to identify what society actually is. What does it encompass? How many people does it take to make a society? Even if we assume that a society is, for example, a group of people with self perpetuating rules, living within a particular framework of social relationships, we still have to question to who’s rules are they are adhering, and to what extent is the framework of social relationship to be extended?

Classical sociologists had no problems in identifying what constitutes a society, as they assumed that society was something that could be investigated or analysed in a laboratory, such as with any other science. Classical sociology was in effect the “scientific” study of society. Whilst more modernist approaches such as Cree (as quoted in Cree:1997:276), have identified that today’s society is a much more mosaic and fragmented society, and realises that “much as we all have more than one identity, so we live and move in many different, and at times competing, societies”.

To enable them to study this, sociologists have identified many different perspectives on different sociological concepts.

A concept is an issue that is directly related to sociology or society, and as such includes issues such as the family, crime and deviance, the community, class, status, poverty, race and youth. All these concepts have a direct impact on society and so sociologists are interested in studying them. Each concept is often intrinsically linked to the remaining ones.

If we take as a simplistic example, a young black boy who has been caught stealing, he is from an impoverished background and is being brought up by his single parent mother. In this single example, a sociologist could choose to look at this case study from any or all of the above concepts. The family unit has broken down, leading the youth to commit acts of crime and deviance, possibly because the family’s standard of living has deteriorated, leading to a lowering in class and status, which in turn could have led to prejudice and isolation from the surrounding community.

A perspective however, is the actual viewpoint and theory which surrounds the explanation used to evaluate and identify society and social problems. For example, classical perspectives include Marxism, Interactionism, and Functionalism.

In the very simplest of definitions a Marxist perspective would examine a concept with its relativity to social class, and class conflict. Interactionists would be examining the meanings and interpretations of the study matter, and would focus on the individual. A Functionalist perspective, however, would examine the purpose and needs of the social structure surrounding the concept, and would be looking at the social system and sub systems.

These classical perspectives originated mainly from Western, heterosexual, middle class men, and highlight one of the many problems sociologists face, and that is distancing oneself from the matter which is being studied. The viewpoints of the classical sociologists appear to be from white, heterosexual men, FOR white, heterosexual men. These early classical attempts to study a society which is in itself a constantly changing and nebulous mass, has meant that new sociologists have had to emerge, bringing with them new, broader perspectives, and these are called contemporary sociologists.

Contemporary sociologists include views of society from perspectives such as Feminism, Anti Racism, Disablism, and the Gay Rights lobby, and the perspectives from which they write are fairly self explanatory, but Feminism will be discussed in more detail further on.

When examining one concept in detail, such as the family, and viewing it from each different perspective, we are provided with an insight on not only the historical background of the viewpoint from which it was written (eg – Marxism and Feminism were established in very different historical episodes), but it also enables us to lay this across different aspects of working practice in social work.

Therefore in order to operate in the social work profession efficiently, one needs to be able to look at the bigger picture, and put aside our own values and opinions of the family – i.e. all the differing family types etc, as it is hard to be objective about something with which you have direct experience of. We have all had experience of family, and so our expectations of the family life of our client groups will ultimately be influenced by this, much in the same way as sociologists will be influenced by the society in which they are part of,

To identify the family from differing perspectives, one must first reach an agreed definition as to what the family is in sociological terms, broadly speaking because if there is no agreed definitive answer as to what the family consists of, then each perspective may be constructing theories about what could fundamentally be very different social groups.

As a society we have stereo-typical ideas and ideologies of what a family “should” consist of and these are perpetuated through the media and advertising with images of the ideal family (i.e. husband, wife, 2 children, dog), and through humour, with television programmes such as 2.4 Children, My Family etc.

Macionis and Plummer (1997:438) suggest that the family “has been seen as a social institution that unites individuals into co-operative groups that oversee the bearing and raising of children.” Cree however, (2000:26) defines the family as a group of people bound together by blood and marriage ties, but not necessarily located in one geographical place.

When providing a definition, it has to adequately address the changing nature of family life in Britain throughout the last century. For example, using statistics from Giddens (1989: 181) over 20 per cent of dependent children now live in lone parent households. In addition to the rise in lone parent households, there have also been a significant increase in the emergence of differing family compositions..

It is easy to see that family structure and composition has changed greatly over the last century, and this could be due to the way that society adapts to accommodate social problems, for example, an increased number of lone parents, gay couples and sexual relationships outside of marriage etc. These were social problems during the 1900’s and earlier, and were immoral, which in the local communities at that time, could have been punishable by law, but today’s society has started to adapt and accept these changes, making something which was originally perceived as deviant into a social “norm”, and this will lead eventually into this behaviour becoming part of the social mores of our society. It is therefore safe to say, that in order for society to be maintained it has to accept the changing threats to values and adapt around the social problems it encounters.

Using statistics from Giddens (1989:176) we can see that the number of couples with dependent children has dropped significantly from 38% in 1961 to only 23% in 1998, whilst this signifies a decline in the amount of young married couples having children, it also highlights the fact that our society is also now increasing in age. This shows that the current population is likely to be comprised of adults without dependent children. In addition to this, the number of lone parents has risen dramatically from 2% in 1961 to 7% in 1998. Using figures from Macionis and Plummer (1997:447) which state that, “the numbers in adoption have sharply fallen. 6,000 in England in Wales in 1994, compared with 21,000 in 1971”, we can see how society has accommodated the issue of unmarried mothers. The number of one person households has also risen from 11% in 1961 to 28% in 1998, and this is probably due to the rise in divorcees having to find alternative accommodation following the breakdown of a marriage.

So, whilst we have identified what a family is, and an example of the social problems surrounding it, it is useful now to look at how each perspective views the family and its purpose and usefulness in society.

Looking at the functionalist perspective, who provide the most positive view of family life, it is essential to understand that functionalists view the family as the “basic social unit and the core institution of society” (Jorgensen et al:1997:72)

The functionalists see one of the integral familial contributions as social integration. They view the family’s main function as teaching the family members how to belong within the group (ie: society) around them. This function of the family stems from the fact that functionalists believe the family exists as the primary institution in any society, for the initial socialisation of children. In this respect any institution charged with this responsibility will play a large part in producing and maintaining cultural norms and values.

In addition to the socialisation function, they also believe the family plays a part in stabilising society. They believe the family reinforces values such as emotional and sexual stability, economic co-dependence etc. These regulations are an integral part of the society in which we live, and include moral boundaries, for example, such as incest. This is a purely human concept, and we are the only species which impose regulations on sexual interaction between family members. Our own society forbids the act of sexual relations between family members, but limits it to close relatives, such as those included in our extended family. In some societies however, it is permissible for siblings to marry. There are biological reasons why incest is not advised, however, the primary concerns are societal. Macionis and Plummer (1997) suggest that the reasons for this taboo are to minimise sexual competition within the family, it also forces people to marry outside of the family encouraging wider alliances to form, and it also protects kinship from falling into chaos. They suggest that as kinship defines people’s rights and obligations towards each other, forbidding reproduction between close relatives protects the family.

Another relevant example of the functionalist perspective is in the “institution” of marriage. For example, when an individual chooses to marry, they do so within the predetermined constraints of their individual society. In Britain for example, marriage partners are chosen at will, and marriage is based on personal choice and love. But in other societies, such as the Hindu religion, the couple have often not met before the marriage, which will have been arranged by the two families involved and is considered to be a “suitable union”.

So in this respect, the family is itself an institution in charge of maintaining the social equilibrium.

Talcott Parsons called these two features of the family Primary socialization and Personality stabilization. As quoted in Giddens (2000:175) “Parsons regarded the nuclear family as the unit best equipped to handle the demands of industrial society. In the “conventional family” one adult can work outside the home, while the second adult cares for the home and children.”

This has meant that Parsons’ view of the family is now seen as outdated, and critics have implied that the functionalist perspective reinforces the division of labour between men and women. Giddens (2000) however said this apparently sexist view could be explained primarily given the historical context in which Parsons was writing. He was writing immediately following the Second World War, which saw an immediate return of women to their traditional roles in the household, and men returning to their roles as sole breadwinners. However, I would dispute this, as upon reflection of Parson’s quote, he doesn’t actually specify gender, in his quote, he just reflects that one adult can work outside the home, therefore whilst he is outdated in his view that there are two parents, it could be perceived as forward thinking for being non gender specific..

The Functionalist perspective also negates the influence of other social institutions such as schools, the government etc and their important roles in the socialisation of children.

This perspective does not account for the breakdown of the traditional model of the family, and the fact that more children are now being raised outside of this. There is no real mention either of the incidents of abuse and violence, of which there is strong evidence to suggest that the family is in fact a very dysfunctional place in which to raise children, and this could be due to the fact that the sociologists writing on this perspective at the time were white, middle class me and not looking outside of the society they are a part of.

Moving on to the contemporary perspectives, the Feminists bring this to the forefront in their approaches to the family. The feminists believe that unequal power relationships exist within families. Not least importantly then, are the issues of domestic violence, marital rape, incest and sexual abuse. The feminist perspective does not perceive the family as a haven for love and support, but that issues such as incest and domestic violence provide a further opportunity for men to dominate and oppress women.

Feminism became influential in the 1970s and 1980’s and has continued to grow in strength and followers to this day. Before feminism, sociologists have been criticised for the male bias in their studies of society as a whole. From a feminist’s sociological viewpoint, women had previously always been viewed as appendages to men. Feminism has been concerned with the analysis of male/female relationships in terms of the relative significance of sex, class and patriarchy – ie; Male headed dominance

There are several different views within the feminist perspective, with as Lena Dominelli writes “a plurality of views, – liberal, radical, socialist, anti-racist and post-modernist – which can be held by both black and white feminists; for example, white radical feminism, black socialist feminism” (1997:97)

Neil Thompson (1993:53) writes that whilst there is no such thing as uniformed and consistent feminism, there are common themes and points of argument, they “all share a focus on the critique of patriarchy and the need to establish a fairer society in which women are no longer marginalised, alienated and pushed into secondary roles”. It also does not account for the fact that when women come out of the home, and enter the employment arena they are still being discriminated against, with low pay, maternity issues etc, which is perpetuating social problems.

Marxist feminism portrays the woman’s role in the family environment to that of the Proletariat, or exploited class, and the man’s role as that of the Bourgeoisie or exploiter. Seen from the Marxist feminist viewpoint, the woman is the loser in the inequal marriage partnership.

Marxist feminists believe that marriage is perpetuating the capitalist industry by prostituting the domestic services of the woman in return for financial security. What this means essentially is that by staying at home and looking after the children in an unpaid capacity, the woman is not only helping the man to work in the capitalist industry, but providing heirs to perpetuate the class division further. Thus, patriarchy is not simply a matter of biological difference, but is directly related to the economic base and the emphasis on comparing the woman’s role in the family to the exploitation of the capitalist class over the working class. According to Thompson(1993:56) this is one of the main weaknesses in the theory, as it does not explain how there is still continuation of male dominance in the non-capitalist societies

Liberal feminism has been evident since the early eighteenth century, and its main objective was to make it illegal to discriminate against, or use unequal treatment for women, and it was largely based on notions of free choice, empowering women to take control of their own lives. Liberal feminism is primarily concerned with issues of overt discrimination against women in all areas of social life, in particular, work education and the portrayal of women in the media, as well as arguing for legal protection and social rights. It argues that women are not inferior to men and should be allowed to compete equally in all aspects of life, especially education and work. It has been successful so far in using its main weapon (the legal system) in outlawing discriminatory behaviour towards women, and in establishing legislation to protect female workers in the UK and USA, such as equal pay etc. The main criticism of this perspective is that the women involved in the writing were middle class women, therefore the changes implemented were benefiting middle class women.

I understand that sociology can assist the social work practitioner in assessing situations from the wider picture and drawing on relevant perspectives in their own merit to help the client group involved in reaching a suitable resolution.

I therefore believe that an understanding of sociology can help social workers to develop a mind set which will provide the foundations for the commencement of good practice skills. I think that society modifies itself to accommodate social problems and that sociology itself has adapted to identify these, therefore, as sociology helps us to identify what the social problems are, it can help social workers to help the society in which they work.

TOTAL WORD COUNT = 3282

About eleven years ago on Tuesday April 20th, 1999 (anniversary of Hitler’s birthday) started out like any other day. Parent and children in a small Colorado town both went their separate ways to work and school, neither excessively concerned about the other or how their day would turn out but a couple hours later that would all change. On that day two seniors by the names of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went on a killing spree killing twelve students and one teacher. The seniors also injured 24 students directly and some that were trying to escape before taking the guns on themselves and ending their own lives. The killings created media frenzy regarding laws that had to do with gun control, how easy it was to access guns in the United States, and gun violence concerning kids (Larkin 13).

The massacre also created controversy and discussion on the nature of high school cliques, bullying, and also how the role of violent movies and video games affect a child’s mind. The event also changed the amount and degree of school security there was. The shooting also created a moral panic pointed at Goth culture, social outcasts of the school, violent music, how teens use the internet and the use of pharmaceutical anti-depressants by teenagers. Overall the shooting brought up many issues that needed to be discussed in our culture today so some kind of massacre like this would not happen again.

The biggest problem that could be accountable for these murders would be our culture today. Our culture today can be perceived by an outsider to be extremely violent especially in our media. The media everyday especially on the news shows violent crimes being committed; video games and films are also extremely violent. Video games in today’s society are ridiculous with the amount of violence that is shown. Games like Grand Theft Auto show deviant men killing cops, prostitutes and innocent civilians with a multiple array of weaponry. “If we are willing to pay for violent “entertainment” then we should expect our fantasies to infect our real lives. At some point violent talk becomes a public threat” (Schweitzberger). In this quote Schweitzberger talks about how these violent video games that children in America are watching will influence them in an extremely negative way to think it’s alright to commit some of the heinous crimes depicted in their video games (Larkin 28).

Probably the biggest issue brought up by the shooting was gun control. “The two by-products of that whole tragedy were violence in entertainment, and gun control. And how perfect that that was the two things that we were going to talk about with the upcoming election. And also, then we forgot about Monica Lewinsky and we forgot about, uh, the President was shooting bombs overseas, yet I’m a bad guy because I, well I sing some rock-and-roll songs, and who’s a bigger influence, the President or Marilyn Manson? I’d like to think me, but I’m going to go with the President” (Manson Marilyn). Manson talks about in this quote how society blamed him for the Columbine shooting because he is seen as a very deviant figure and because the two boys listened to his music. Manson explains how there is much more violence then we seem to think there is. He thinks America just sees the straight forward violence like in his music but there not seeing what the president who is supposed to be America’s idol is doing since on that day that the Columbine shooting occurred more bombs were dropped by the United States on Kosovo than ever before (Bowling for Columbine).

The people in the small town in Colorado wanted to know why kids had such an easy access to guns and other weapons. Why was it so easy for under aged teens to get their hands on them? People wondered why this happened where in just a town over in Littleton, Colorado a person opening a bank account at the local branch received a free handgun just for opening an account. They didn’t receive a free ugly bag that was splattered with the name of the bank like most banks giver their customers for opening an account but a free killing machine just for signing a few papers and depositing a few dollars. The main sociological perspective being upheld here is children were seeing firearms as more of an accessory then a weapon that was capable of mass destruction. Whether we want to admit it or not our country loves violence. There are constant gun rallies where people preach about how good they feel about owning a firearm (Kass 87).

Only two weeks after the shooting at Columbine the NRA hosted a gun rally in Littleton, Colorado just fifteen minutes away from the actual high school where the shootings had taken place. The sad part was even after the people of Columbine asked for the rally to be cancelled since everyone was still morning over the tragic loss of thirteen people their request was denied by the NRA. Instead the rally took place and a mass amount of people still attended. What does this say about our culture? That praising ones gun is more important than respect or the fact that violent crimes are just looked at not that big of deal these days since it happens everywhere. America’s society whether we want to believe or not is a very violent society filled with crime and mayhem (Kass 117).

“I am here today because my son Daniel would want me to be here today. If my son Daniel was not one of the victims, he would be here with me today. Something is wrong in this country when a child can grab a gun, grab a gun so easily, and shoot a bullet into the middle of a child’s face, as my son experienced. Something is wrong. But the time has come to come to understand that a Tech-9 semi-automatic -bullet weapon like that, that killed my son, is not used to kill deer. It has no useful purpose. It is time to address this problem” (father of Columbine victim). In this quote the father of one of the victims makes a very good point. Why do American homes have guns that usually aren’t used for hunting? There is no need for them yet 1 in every 3 homes in America owns some kind of firearm. In our culture we feel this sense of fear especially after 911 where we feel like we need to be prepared in case someone breaks into our home or bombs us or some other ridiculous reason to have a gun. It seems like our society lives in a state of fear all the time. Since 911 home security systems have shot through the roof along with the amount of firearms purchased. Sales in both home security systems and firearms were said to double since 911 (Bowling for Columbine).

Columbine created a culture shock among the country. Everything about the event such as the age of the students, the weapons being used and the violence that two young individuals could cause was shocking to our society. The culture shocked brought up all the media and gun issues previously mentioned. If these boys were looked at before the shooting they should have already been labeled as extremely deviant figures. Before the shooting the boys in their creative writing class wrote stories about killing animals and murdering people. The teachers did not catch until after that the names of these animals and people were most of the names of the kids who they killed in the shooting (Innes 221).

Another sign should have been a website that the boys created revealing Nazi memorabilia as well as violent images most of which was even directed towards their own classmates. In our culture there are ten values that the U.S. has. The ten include: equal opportunity, achievement and success, material comfort, activity and work, practicality and efficiency, progress, science, democracy and free enterprise, freedom, and racism and group superiority. The first nine of these key values neither boy had, however they did feel racism towards many of their classmates. On their website they specifically targeted African Americans as an inferior race. Some of the main values they didn’t have were “achievement and success” because they constantly felt they were the lowest on the social hierarchy in their high school and they felt that they did not have any “equal opportunities” as their classmates. The boys constantly felt that they were at a disadvantage to their fellow students. The boys were constantly bullied and ridiculed throughout their high school career and throughout the four years they were overly fed up with the concept (Kendall 113).

Society had a complete lack of social control over the boys. The boys did their own thing and were complete deviants of society. They had no values in their society. In the “basement tapes” that were found after the killings both boys go into great detail about how much there going to enjoy killing students at the school along with detailed accounts of killing animals in their area. When asking the students of how they viewed the two boys they replied with similar answers “outcasts,” “losers,” and “nobodies.” Ethnocentrism is the practice of judging another culture by the standards of their own. The students felt that because they were different and not like them that they had the right to judge them (Innes 71).

Deviance is the recognized violation of a social norm. The boys in the Columbine shooting could be said to be very deviant members of our society because of all the social norms that they broke. “Like biological theories, psychological explanations of deviance focus on abnormality in the individual personality. Some personality traits are inherited, but most psychologists think that personality is shaped primarily by social experience. Deviance, then, is viewed as the result of “unsuccessful” socialization” (Macionis, John). In this quote from a sociology book it basically explains how the boys become deviant in their society. The bad social experiences that these boys had in high school or just being made fun of and ridiculed day in and day out has caused them to act out in their society in a very negative way (Vandenburgh 31).

Durkheim created a theory that explained the function of deviance in the structural function analysis. Durkheim basically stated that there is nothing abnormal about deviance but rather it is a necessity in life to show us right from wrong. Durkheim came up with four basic rules of this analysis. The first one was deviance affirms cultural values and norms. Durkheim said that there can’t be evil without good and justice without crime. In the Columbine shooting it taught our society that the killers even though were not put to justice were wrong in what they did. They should have talked to a counselor about what was happening instead of acting in a way that they did. The second rule to the analysis is Responding to deviance classifies moral boundaries. When society defines individuals as deviant like in Columbine with the two killers it shows people right from wrong. In this case it is wrong to kill people just because they were mean or unjust to you. The right way to handle this situation would have been to talk to someone about their problems like a psychiatrist who could of helped them get over their bad high school experiences (Emile-Durkheim.com).

The third rule of Durkheim’s functional analysis of deviance is responding to deviance brings people together. This rule relates probably the most to Columbine because after the Columbine shootings people really came together to discuss what was really wrong in our school systems. Schools decided they needed to look for more signs of deviant people and keep a closer eye on them as well as get better security for their schools so something like this shooting won’t happen again at another school. People also came together and discussed how much violence was I our society and it kind of made everyone realize that society needs to stop letting their children watch these graphic images as well as monitor what their children were watching on the internet. This leads into Durkheim’s final rule about deviance which is deviance encourages social change. After Columbine there was a lot of change made. Schools were becoming safer and more schools were hiring more guidance counselors to talk and help students about how they were feeling. Gun control was also improved upon. After Columbine, Colorado passed a law stating that all firearms must have a safety placed on them and also stash them away from children (Emile-Durkheim.com).

The labeling theory also had a huge impact on why these boys killed. The labeling theory refers to data that individuals become deviant when either a deviant label is placed on them or they adopt the label by exhibiting the behaviors, actions, and attitudes associated with the label. The labeling theory basically states that people become deviant when that identity of the label they are given is forced upon them. The person being labeled feels trapped within that label and that’s when people that are labeled act out. In Columbine the boys felt that there was no way out of the labels that people put upon them so they decided to act out against the students who labeled them. The process of re-casting someone’s actions from the past in the aspect of a present identity is known as retrospective labeling. In Columbine Eric Harris and Dylan Kelbold were both re-cast after the terrible shooting took place. Much of their previous behavior that led up to the shootings had been relooked upon as deviant which they were labeled as after the shooting (Encyclopedia.com).

Another crucial part of the labeling theory is the idea of a stigma. A stigma is a powerfully negative label that greatly changes a person’s self concept and social identity. Since high school is such an impressionable part of someone’s life the boys could have felt that since they weren’t “cool” in high school that there never going to be “cool” and always be “losers.” Eric Harris could also be described as medically deviant because he was actually on medication that was “mind altering.” Harris in the tapes the boys made before shooting up the school talked about how he had stopped taking his medication to let the rage build up inside of him so it would be easier to kill all his fellow students easily. Since Harris had been harassed his entire high school career he had a lot of anger built up inside of him and the fact that he wasn’t taking his prescribed medication didn’t help much (Encyclopedia.com).

Both boys had nothing to lose they thought. They thought that if they just kept living their lives day in and day out that they would just keep being ridiculed relentlessly and with no end in sight of this misery stopping the boys thought up a plan to end it all. The boys have never felt in control of other people n their entire lives. They were always looked down upon in school and in the community so they knew by holding the school hostage they would finally become in control for once. “Individuals who feel they have little to lose by deviance are likely to become rule breakers” (Hirschi 17). In Hirschi’s Control Theory he outlines 4 basic beliefs that if someone lacks they are able to easily become deviant. No surprise that either of the boys had any from stopping them.

Hirschi’s first belief was attachment because strong social attachments encourage conformity. Both of the boys had no social attachments to anyone but themselves. Both of their families were considered to take part in domestic violence and even as kids they were treated horribly by their parents and family members. Both boys felt alone in the world with no one to turn too. The second belief was opportunity because the greater opportunity a person has in their life makes the idea of deviance vanish. Both boys were part of very low-income families and had terrible grades in school. They knew that any kind of post secondary education was not in their future. They felt that they would be stuck in their small Colorado town for forever. The third belief was involvement because participating in such activities as holding a job or playing on a sports team would give a person less time to engage or think about deviant activities. The boys never played sports or ever even tried to get jobs. Student from the high school would say they would just go home and hang out in Harris’s basement until the next time they had to go to school and even then most of the time they never showed up. Hirschi’s final belief was belief because having a strong belief in morality and respect will make a person not want to commit deviant acts. In the videos left behind that were made before the murder called the “basement tapes” the boys were both talking about killing and torturing animals for practice on what they were going to do to their classmates. Clearly both boys had no moral values or respect for anyone or anything (Hirschi 87-93).

The deviance that the boys had can also concern their values of power. Deviant people that we might consider “crazy” are not as bad as they are powerless. Take the boys for example, at their high school they were seen as nobodies and were complete social outcasts/ the boys looked at themselves as powerless because they were never seen as anybody. Even at home their family lives were the opposite of normal since both households were victims of domestic violence. So after coming home from an awful day at school they would once again be ridiculed. The boys then started thinking of the ideas on how to get revenge on their classmates. The boys wanted power because they never had it so they feel by taking everyone at their school hostage they can regain that power that they had lost after all these years of social torture (Vandenburgh 111).

Overall the shootings at Columbine high school will go down as the one of the most horrific events to ever occur in American history. Over twenty people lost their lives that day and all this death really amounted to society opening up its eyes and seeing how media and the government influence us. The event really opened our eyes to gun control and the amount of violence that is taking place in our society. It made everyone see just how influential America’s love affair with firearms and violence can be. It only took two young outcast teenagers who decided they wanted to shoot and kill several of their classmates.

India’s growth story has been incredible. The stock markets are doing well. Corporate India is optimistic about India being able to sustain the current growth rate for a considerable period of time. Indian companies are making their presence felt through cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Services and manufacturing sectors are booming. Growth in agriculture may be sluggish as compared to the other sectors, it growing nonetheless. Urban India believes that India is going to surpass the United States of America in a span of fifteen years. However, fundamental problems like malnutrition and corruption still plague our country. But the urban, educated, middle class are not affected by malnutrition and have learnt to live with corruption.

There is one problem besides corruption and malnutrition; which is prevalent across all sections of the society and all of them all guilty participants in making this problem a widespread one. The urban, educated, middle class; despite being ‘educated’, do not seem to realise the long term effects of their actions. This problem, if unchecked, has the potential to apply the brakes on India’s growth. The birth of a boy child is celebrated, while the birth of a girl child is, well; tolerated. And sometimes, the girl child is killed even before she is born.

Sex ratio is the number females in a geographic region per 1000 males. Most developed economies of the world (except China) have healthy sex ratios, with more number of females than males 1. A sex ratio 952 females per 1000 males is considered healthy. The national average as per the 2001 census is 933. Delhi has a modest 915 according estimates in the year 2009 2. As per the 2001 census, Rajasthan averages 922, while Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh average 964 and 978 respectively. Kerala being the most literate state also has the healthiest sex ratio of 1058 per 1000 males 3. However states like Punjab has a dismal sex ratio of 795 per 1000 males, which is alarming 4. The state of Maharashtra too is a cause for concern. With more working women being visible in Maharashtra, there is a misconception that Maharashtra is better off, but facts state otherwise. The juvenile sex ratio is 869 girls to 1000 boys, as on March 2010 11. If India has to continue on the growth path, the burgeoning menace of female foeticide cannot be ignored. But is the common man on the road concerned? No. Why? For one, the common man believes that it is not his problem; but of the feminists, the NGOs, the government, and so on. For another, he believes that the problem is societal, not personal; and hence it cannot affect him. (The common man I am talking about is a reference to the numerous people I have met so far in my life. Gender imbalance is the least of their problems.)

Is the problem societal? Crime against women is on the rise and the increasing imbalance between males and females will aggravate it 5. A survey conducted by Jagori, based in Delhi concluded that women face harassment in public places on a continuous basis 6. Since most of the cases of harassment go unreported, the awareness of the magnitude of the menace is abysmally low. An article written by Kalpana Sharma, “No girls please, we’re Indian,” (The Hindu, 29 August 2004) calls this problem an epidemic with huge social costs associated with it. My understanding of the articles I have referred to is that gender imbalance would lead to an increase in restlessness among men. Women would become easy targets to vent their frustration.

Is the problem personal? We Indians have developed a very wrong mindset. Unless a problem affects us personally, we do not seem to bother. Should women care? Women craving for sons, who have never faced harassment should realise that even they can be vulnerable. Should men care? States like Punjab and Haryana are facing a very grave situation. Due to their heavily skewed sex ratios, there are not enough brides for the grooms within the community. A study notes that 20% men may remain unmarried 6. Another study notes that marriage has beneficial effects on health and survival, with men reaping maximum benefits. Therefore, men run the risk of shorter life expectancy 7.

Why is that we do not want daughters? Daughters have always been considered as paraya dhan. Parents consider having a daughter as an expense, a luxury they cannot afford. Taking care of her, educating her, and marrying her off to a suitor, all require huge sums of money. Any property she inherits or assets that she creates go the family she marries into. Families who own large pieces of land have owned such lands for generations. Such families would always want their first child to be male for the purpose of inheritance and keeping the land within the family. Even today marrying off a daughter is considered the biggest responsibility a parent can possibly have. Fears for her sexual safety and security make parents to marry off their daughter as early as possible.

Why is that we want sons? The answer is dowry. Though the practice of dowry is made illegal in 1961, it is an open secret that the practice is prevalent even in 2010. We have men in the south proudly telling each other that they have a ‘market value’ in the marriage market 9. There are men among the rural folk who consider getting married simply to rake in dowry and use it to fund their businesses. Dowry in today’s world has taken many convenient forms like a fully furnished apartment, high-end electronics, a four-wheeled vehicle, and huge sums of money. The trend of son preference cuts across socio-economic factors like caste and economic status 6. As a result, dowry related harassment is rising. Other than financial concerns, there are other benefits in having sons. India is a patrilineal society. Sons continue the family lineage (gotra), while daughters lose their gotra of birth and join the lineage of their husbands. This essentially means that sons are the only legitimate descendants in the system. Therefore, sons are a source of prestige for a family.

As a consequence of these deep seated norms, girl children under the age of 5 face severe neglect in terms of nutrition, immunisation, and clothing. They also face discrimination with regard to schooling. Sometimes female infants are killed within a few days of their birth. With the advent of technology, the trend of sex selective abortion or female foeticide has risen to unprecedented levels. Thirty years ago, these methods were not known. The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act (PNDT) Act prohibits doctors and clinics from using pre-natal diagnostic techniques, such as scans, to determine the sex of a foetus. First offenders would face a penalty of up to three years of imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 and repeat offenders would risk a five-year imprisonment and a 50,000 fine. The act also prohibits any advertising for diagnosis facilities. The act notwithstanding, the awareness of sex selective abortions were popularised with the mushrooming of unregistered, illegal, small clinics by advertising the ‘benefits’ of sex selective abortions through messages like “It is better to pay a small amount today for a sex-selective abortion than a larger amount later for your daughter’s dowry.” The government, on its own, has not been effective in enforcing the act. The government has a myopic take on the issue. Since this issue cannot be treated as a plank to garner votes, the long term after effects of sustained gender imbalances on demography are not being considered seriously 10.

All hope is not lost. Many NGOs have launched sting operations, such as luring doctors into revealing the sex of a foetus. While often receiving wide publicity, these initiatives are proving somewhat less effective for legal reasons, as proof of criminal wrongdoing is often difficult to establish. But they nonetheless have had an unmistakeable impact on clinic operators in some areas, who have come to realise that the Act can be implemented by non-official entities. Other than stings, NGOs have been also been instrumental in spreading awareness through campaigns like Save our daughters, Laadli 1 million signature campaign, FADA movement by Deepalaya, Jatha campaign by Jagruti, and recently, the programme Santulan by the Divya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan, to name a few. Actress Gul Panag has taken up the cause in Chandigarh and has partnered with a city based NGO called Samsher Singh Foundation to fight female foeticide 8.

Notwithstanding these initiatives, at a personal level, we must spread awareness of the issue. A growing India not only needs to debate on fiscal deficit and current account deficits but also on the daughter deficit. The issue needs to be talked about more often to make it relevant all the time. Changing the mindsets of a billion people will not happen overnight. The youth and newly wed couples need to be sensitised about the issue. I advocate certain fundamental changes in the way we think to bring about the change. The urban, educated, middle class can be targeted first with these ideas. After there is a considerable change in the mindset of the middle class, these ideas can be trickled down to the grassroots.

The primary problems of lineage, inheritance, and girls being treated as paraya dhan need to be addressed. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 gives women equal rights of inheritance of land and property. This empowers the women economically and treats daughters as equal financial providers. Second, sons are no more providing for the parents during their old age. Sons are moving out of their ancestral homes, are staying away from their parents and are starting families of their own. Parents of sons are also not assured of constant personal care from their sons in their old age. Now in such a context, it does not matter if the parents have sons or daughters: they are going to stay away anyway due to a variety of reasons and they will be playing roughly equal roles when their parents need them. Third, the concept of a patrilineal society needs to be done away with. The very notion that a daughter would be part of another family after marriage should be erased. Daughters, not just sons, can also be considered as legitimate descendants. The children of the daughter need not be thought of as children of another family. In the United States of America, a child can take the surname of either parent. Though it is not a norm here in India, the government is not stopping us from doing so. Now with respect to dowry, young men need to be sensitised about the issue. They need to be told that the fact that they are proud to have a ‘market value’ is detestable. They need to be taught that it is unethical to think of dowry as an opportunity for instant money. Traditionally, parents of the girl perform her wedding and bear all the expenses. This has to change. Parents of the boy should also shoulder the burden of performing the wedding and share the expenses with the parents of the girl; it is after all the wedding of their son, what is the shame in bearing the expenses of their own son’s wedding? Better still, the boy and the girl should be made accountable for the expenses incurred. It their own wedding, why make their parents shoulder the entire responsibility for the expenditure? The fundamental assumptions which would make these changes work are that the urban, educated middle class are liberal in their mindsets, love their sons and daughters roughly equally, and have inflated egos. By hitting on their egos, by enquiring about their capability to fund their own son’s wedding, these changes can be driven home.

It would too naive to think that by making these changes, we would quickly achieve a healthier sex ratio. These changes are easier said than done, because they are too radical. Even the urban, educated, middle class would find it difficult to digest and assimilate these changes because the existing norms have been around for centuries. Small successes should be celebrated and propagated. It would take years for these changes to provide material results. Eventually, when these changes produce results, one cannot rest because these changes will still have to trickle down among the rural and poorer sections of the society. For India to be an economic superpower, all sections of the society should have a healthy sex ratio within their communities. It is a long and arduous journey ahead.

(I have quoted references for most of the facts, results of a survey or study, and certain opinions by authors like Banashri Savanoor and Kalpana Sharma stated in this article. Everything else is either a culmination of my readings on the subject or purely my personal opinion. I shared my ideas on this subject with my colleagues where I worked and they appreciated them. Their feedback was that these ideas are logical, but making it practical would be very difficult.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Delhi-sex-ratio-takes-a-nose-dive/articleshow/6555979.cms

http://www.iloveindia.com/population-of-india/sex-ratio.html

http://www.e-pao.net/GP.asp?src=20..280810.aug10

http://legalserviceindia.com/article/l292-Female-Foeticide.html

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-120929-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

http://www.economist.com/node/16789152

http://www.bollywoodworld.com/bollywood-news/gul-panag-to-fight-against-female-foeticide-110519.html

I have drawn such a conclusion from my personal experience. I hail from Hyderbad, and it is common knowledge that certain communities like the Reddys, and the Gouds are known for their exorbitant dowries. The talk of a ‘market value’ for men started during my college days. It was one of the most discussed topics in most circles. When I graduated and started working in Mumbai, there was a small Telugu community within the workplace, and I was shocked to hear the term ‘market value’, again; among older men. The very notion of a human being, man or woman; being treated like a commodity enrages me. I have been reading up on this topic from quite a long time and has become close to my heart. That is why I have chosen this topic.

My views on the bias against the girl child and the PNDT are a culmination of my readings on the subject. Facts and advertisements for the clinics have been taken from PC-PNDT Handbook for the public, http://pndt.gov.in/index2.asp?slid=6HYPERLINK “http://pndt.gov.in/index2.asp?slid=6&sublinkid=58?&HYPERLINK “http://pndt.gov.in/index2.asp?slid=6&sublinkid=58?sublinkid=58 . The views on the government are entirely personal.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/as-law-crawls-maharashtra-sex-ratio-drops-more/649580/1

Socio-anthropologists hold the opinion that people think, feel and act in certain ways based on the environment in which they have grown. The environment in this context could be inferred as the community that has influence their make-up or identity. In recent times, public debates in the media by politicians, journalists, experts and other stakeholders have focused on what is or constitute being British. These debates have sharply bordered on socio-religious identities, and raised questions such as: Does religious beliefs supersede community bonding? To what extent is ones’ loyalty to the community in which one lives?. Other debates have been on

“profiling and condemnation of racially motivated violence and harassment, a hand wringing debate on institutional racism following the publication in 1999 of the Macpherson Report into the death of Stephen Lawrence” (Amin, 2002).

Government policies and legislatives on equal opportunity to highlight awareness of sense of community, presuppose that the very fabric of the concept of community is weakened and threatened in our contemporary Britain.

Community is “A body of people having common rights, privileges, or interests, or living in the same place under the same laws and regulations” (http://www.brainyquote.com/words/co/community146100.html) The meaning of the word ‘Community’ has changed over the years. Smith (2001)explores the theory of community in the article entitled Community and highlighted on why the attention on social capital and community may be important.

“the use of the term community has remained to some extent associated with the hope and the wish of reviving once more the closer, warmer, more harmonious type of bonds between people vaguely attributed to past ages’ (Elias 1974, quoted by Hoggett 1997: 5).”

People lived in groups sharing faith, religion and other social norms during pre industrialization era. Community was redefined after this when people became workers in industries. They were many studies about community in the middle of the 20th century leading a deeper analysis of the term.

The free Dictionary however defines individualism as “a belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence”. This definition highlights on the word ‘belief’ – anything held as true. Thus in this context the individuals opinion is held in high esteem and supplants that of any others. Hofstede (1991) in his cultural dimensions describes individualism as pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Hofstede scaled Britain on high individualism index of 89, and that people thinks in terms of ‘I’ and not ‘We’.

Researchers found that Britain was the most individualistic society in the world – one that valued the self over the group more than any other country.(Richard A, 2009) According to the Kwintessential website certain traits are common to countries that have high individualism.

“personal goals and achievement are strived for, it is acceptable to pursue individual goals at the expense of others, ‘individualism’ is encouraged whether it be personality, clothes or music tastes and finally the right of the individual reign supreme; thus laws to protect choices and freedom of speech.” (http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/intercultural/individualism.html)

A recent report for the Children’s Society highlights the above facts.

“Leading experts today identify excessive individualism as the greatest threat to our children. In a landmark report on A Good Childhood, commissioned by The Children’s Society and published by Penguin, they show that children’s lives have become more difficult than in the past, and they trace this to excessive individualism.”

(http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/whats_happening/media_office/latest_news/14758_news.html)

Other organisations like Joseph Rowntree Foundation have express the fear over the changes that are taking place in Britain. They have classified excessive individualism as a social evil.

“The JRF’s recent public consultation revealed a strong sense of unease about some of the changes shaping British society. This Viewpoint continues the discussion about modern ‘social evils’ on the theme of ‘inequality’. Chris Creegan argues that until we can reconcile the problems of excessive individualism, consumerism and greed at the heart of contemporary society, life opportunities will continue to be lost, limited and wasted.” (Creegan C, 2008)

To enable all different groups to get on well in all communities, community cohesion should take place. A cohesive community is one that affords the people in the community knowledge of their rights and responsibilities. People from different backgrounds in this community should have similar opportunities. They must also trust their local institutions like the police and the courts. They should believe that the local council will offer fair services to all in the community and not for instance place all new immigrants looking for accommodation from social landlords into areas that are deprived and unwanted by the rest of the community.

The community must recognize the contributions of both new arrivals and those already settled and not be intimidated by the change it brings. A typical example is the arrival of the Polish immigrants. Some people in Britain could not recognize the skills, experience and knowledge they brought to the nation but rather were fearful that they had taken jobs from the British. Also, that there are positive relationships between people of different backgrounds at school, work and home. According to Ted Cantle “Community cohesion aˆ¦ isaˆ¦micro-communitiesaˆ¦mesh into an integrated whole. These divided communities would need to develop common goals and a shared vision” (Home Office, 2001b: 70). In his recommendations, Cantle draws on the importance and the need for Social networks and social capital, social order and social control, social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities. Worley (2005) also demonstrates how the concept of ‘community’ is vital to the community cohesion, and suggests that whilst the concept of ‘community’ is highly ambiguous, it has continuing significance in New Labour policymaking.

Excessive Individualism is concerned with each one for him/herself and God for us all and therefore undermines the sense of community cohesion in Britain. People have become increasingly self-reliant. Families are not so extended anymore but reliant on one, two or the most three people. People are not in contact so much with their relatives and tend to rely on their immediate family only. Family homes are acquired to accommodate the immediate family and not the extended family. People hire child minder, nannies and do not rely so much on their relative anymore. Everyone aspires to be rich or amass wealth that will meet his and her families needs. Some researchers have even blamed the recession on individualism.

” From the public consultation we did last year, there was a strong sense that the decline of community has corresponded with a rise in individualism. Participants suggested that people increasingly look after their own individual or family interests without considering the needs of society or the community.” (Urwin J, 2008)

People are no more interested in what the community achieves but what they the individuals can achieve. Even industries encourage people to be individualist by offering DIY packages which take attention from tradesmen to the individual. Thus a sense of togetherness is non existent.

If the advent of industrialization has promoted individualism, then what about information age. Computerization, in terms of games development such Wii, Playstation and Xbox 360 are all means and mediums that does not encourage people to go out and socialize in the community, rather it encourages people to engage with themselves. Online shopping has brought the benefit of purchasing items from the comfort of our homes; however, this goes a long way to kill social interaction. Most social activities are now targeted at the individual in his home. People have become ‘lazy’ at forming relationships with others especially those who live in urban areas.

The East end of London was once a upon a time described as ‘dark in the night and dark in day’ dark in the day meaning it was not lit up by the middle class’s Christianity. That has diminished in today’s Britain leaving little bulbs of religion here and there making religion or faith very individualistic.And yet the old east end is often held up as the epitome of ‘community’. People’s values vary and individual behaviour has become very personal and can’t be corrected by community as before. You can’t correct other people’s children without being murdered or abused. Everyone keeps themselves to themselves and it’s hard to get to know your neighbours. There are some very sweeping generalizations in these preceding statements – they referencing or at least phrased with greater nuance. This is what happened in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford when communities lived in different areas went to different schools and had little to do with each other.

“Whilst the physical segregation of housing estates and inner city areas came as no surprise, the team was particularly struck by the depth of polarisation of our towns and cities. The extent to which these physical divisions were compounded by so many other aspects of our daily lives, was very evident. Separate educational arrangements, community and voluntary bodies, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks, means that many communities operate on the basis of a series of parallel lives.” (Independent Review Team, 2001; 9)

People’s inability to relate to others goes a long way to affect community cohesion. It creates fear, tensions and misunderstanding which is what was experienced in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham.

“Fears about the overwhelming and negative effect of diversity on social cohesion and national identity have been expressed by journalists and policy makers alike. For example, David Goodhart, the editor of The Prospect, targeted his February 2004 article at the detrimental impact of ethnic diversity in modern Britain on the sense of community and solidarity among citizens, and on the viability of the British welfare state (Goodhart 2004), while Trevor Philips, Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, reiterated this argument by stressing the need for strengthening common values and “core Britishness” (Baldwin and Rozenberg 2004).” (http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Politics/papers/2005/NLetki_social%20capital%20and%20diversity_final.pdf) This paragraph is all a quote – authors citing other authors. It needs some link to your argument – pulling out those elements that directly bear on it.

Having said all of the above, community cohesion issues are multifaceted and function differently in specific areas. “There are many parts to building community cohesion, from tackling inequalities to developing people’s understanding and tolerance of others.”

(http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2627)

Excessive individualism is not the only factor that works against community cohesion. There are other factors like integration which needs to happen for new residents and existing residents to understand and accept one another. In the Cantle report the issue of intergration came up and the comments were as follows:

“The other problematic issue is that of levels of integration/segregation. Again there is a perception within the established white community that minority communities do not do enough to integrate into what they see as British culture or society, instead forming a separate community (a view which seems at odds with the observed “white flight” when such integration is attempted). Yet to an extent segregation will always occur through choice- whether naturally gravitating towards people who share your views or seeking minority-specific facilities such as places of worship or particular shops and services that would not be financially viable in a more dispersed community- and this is not necessarily a cause for concern. The Cantle Independant Review team notes:”

(Wntrmute 2003)

A cohesive community must also have the ability to create opportunities to bring people together, confront myths and intolerance so that people in the community can realise their full potential. Every area is unique and will therefore face different challenges. Britain has a rich diversity in towns, cities, urban and picturesque villages. Community cohesion must be able to meet the differing needs of its residents before cohesion can be promoted.

For community cohesion to function well there needs to a sense of safety. People must feel safe and welcome. There should be jobs so that establish residents do not start to blame new residents of taking their jobs.

“Social trends have also influenced the experience of poverty within England. For example, unemployment figures are roughly comparable with those of the 1970s, but changes in social structure (more single home owners or single parent families) mean that a greater number of homes lack a source of income. The UK is the only EU country in which households with children are more likely than households without children to include no one with a job. This is attributed to the high proportion of UK lone parents without a job. (from the Social Inclusion National Action Plan)” (Wntrmute 2003)

Lack of jobs in certain communities in Britain has created a gap of have and half not in communities. Priorities should be given to regenerating run down areas in the community to promote community cohesion. If run down areas are not regenerated residents will start to become bitter and it will create tensions in the community. This will also attract businesses to the area which will in turn impact on the community.

The provision of affordable housing will also help promote community cohesion. Housing is recognised as a major determinant of the shape of communities (Independent Review Team, 2001; Home Office, 2001) In communities like Slough where there has been a large in flux of immigrants, there are accusations that local residents are being passed over in social housing. Also, when there is housing, communities do not break up and move away looking for housing elsewhere. In recent times, we have seen young people move away from villages because properties there are too expensive. Residents in the community should also be provided with the opportunities for training for jobs. This will boost confidence and enhance job seeking opportunities.

There should be good transport links in the community. This should put the community on the map. Make people get to places quickly and conveniently. Give access to shops and amenities. There should be good environmental improvement which will enhance communities. An insert of cultural and leisure facilities should aid the promotion of a cohesive community. Cultural and community centres which promote belonging.

Britain is now made up of people from different backgrounds and for them to get on well together community cohesion must happen. This will however, be difficult if excessive individualism is prevalent. Having said that, community cohesion cannot be undermined by excessive individualism alone other factors like housing, poverty, race etc are contributing factors.

.
.

‘Persuasion is where a deliberate attempt is made to change people’s attitudes and is concerned with the cognitive process involved in how that change is bought about’ (Petty and Cacioppo 1981:190). In terms of social psychological research, do we know all that there is to know about persuasion? Can we use it to control manipulation? As people are likely to be exposed to some form of persuasion in everyday life, it is easy to overlook how our opinions can be influenced by external forces. Persuasive techniques are evident throughout society in areas such as: politics, advertising, media, religion and education. Psychological research can be used effectively by these institutions in order to change the attitude of the public. For example, this is evident in the transition from the use of behavioural techniques in advertising, to modern day usage of attractive communicators in society (Atkinson 1984). Psychological exploration of persuasion techniques formally began at the beginning of the 20th century where research has originated from two schools of thought; the traditional approach and the social psychological critique. The traditional approach believes that persuasion must be studied scientifically whereas critiques claim that there is no objective truth (Stainton Rogers 2003). This essay will outline the findings of these approaches and use them to demonstrate how the secrets of persuasion are becoming increasingly exposed.

This ‘science of persuasion’ was adopted by Traditional psychologists who believe that persuasion should be studied using scientific methodologies (Billig 1996:81). Their nomothetic approach aims to uncover trends amongst variables from which they can create laws of persuasion (Billig 1996). Arguably it was early Greek philosophers such as Protagoras and Aristotle, who first provided an insight into the secrets of persuasion. However, many argue that these insights are irrelevant as they did not know what we know now (Billig 1996). Petty, Ostrom and Brock (1981) claim that ‘although the first set of principles governing the art of persuasion was recorded in the fourth century B.C., it was not until the present century that attitude change was investigated experimentally’ (Billig 1996:94). On the other hand, Bryant (1965) claims that ‘though modern psychology is very different from that of the Greeks, and doubtless more scientific, modern enlightenment has produced no new method of analysing an audience which can replace Aristotle’s’ (Billig 1996,:94). If persuasion is to be studied from a scientific stand point, we can consider Kuhn’s notion of a ‘normal science’. He states that knowledge is not accumulated like building blocks; old blocks are simply replaced by new ones. This would suggest that any findings on persuasion by Greek philosophers have been ‘replaced’ by knowledge of modern social psychologists. Does this mean that ‘old’ knowledge concerning secrets of persuasion no longer holds any relevance? Many Traditional Psychologists would say yes however, Billig argues otherwise (Billig 1996).

Aronson (1976) claims that ‘although Aristotle first asserted some of the basic principles of social influence and persuasion around 350 B.C., it wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that those principles were put to experimental tests by Carl Hovland and his associates’. (Billig 1996:94). This is argued to be the earliest influential research on uncovering the secrets of persuasion. Hovland (1949) and his colleagues served as chief psychologists for the U.S. War Department during World War II and carried out a scientific study on persuasion which placed focus of soldier morale. He presented a one-sided text which he gave to group A claiming that they were going to win the war. Then gave a two-sided text which including doubts such as geographical difficulties, death etc. to group B. They found that one sided arguments were more persuasive only when personal beliefs were not taken into account (Myers 1983). By failing to use comparable control groups, prior intelligence could not be measured however, it had a significant effect on his findings. Hovland (1949) argued that the addition of variables would lose simplicity, however he did recognise the vitality for more complex results. This prompted him and his colleagues to reflect on their research after the war, and focus on aspects of communication and processes of persuasion which increased the likelihood that a message would be persuasive (Myers 1983). Traditional critiques would dismiss Hovland’s research for being too infused with subjectivity due to the historic context within which his study was carried out (Stainton Rogers 2003). However, the fact that the concept of ‘intelligence’ was an exception to his one-sided rule of persuasion, agrees with Billig’s argument that there will always be infinite exceptions to laws. Quintilian’s findings would support this as he claimed that there were no such things as rigid rules of persuasion. He claimed that there is no guarantee that strategies that worked in the past will work again in new contexts (Billig 1996:92). Although this suggests that there are not one set of persuasive rules to be discovered, it can still be argued that Hovland’s research was pivotal as it set a benchmark, from which more research stemmed, on understanding the secrets of persuasion.

Michael Billig (1996) considers himself to be an ‘antiquarian psychologist’ meaning that he highlights the significance of a neglected history of rhetoric to modern social psychology (Billig 1996:2). He argues against contemporary social psychology and believes that psychologists should refer back to the findings of ancient Greek philosophers in order to understand the concept of persuasion. He claims that the classical studies of Aristotle and Protagorous in particular, provide valuable knowledge about secrets of persuasion (Billig 1996). For example, Aristotle spoke about the importance of ethos, this was later reinforced by Hovland and his team who discovered the significance of the source of the message and the acceptance of the audience. Billig’s focus on specific historical knowledge has been criticised as being a ‘schemata of collection’ (Billig 1996:3). However, this may not be negative. The fact that he has sifted through historical findings and extracted those he believed to have relevance to today, is arguably more beneficial to modern social psychologists. We can learn from Billig’s support of early findings that there are alternative ways of understanding a persuasive argument. Unlike Atkinson’s notion that physical and lexical factors hold importance, Billig believes in looking fundamentally at the arguments themselves (Billig 1996). In terms of persuasion, this may uncover the messages that are trying to be conveyed and affect the way that we might allow an argument to influence us. Billig’s rhetorical approach has been said to be ‘key to the discursive turn in the social sciences’ as his faith in historical knowledge has led to key developments in modern social psychology (Billig 1996:330).

Roman critics of oratory; Cicero and Quintilian, arguably provided a very memorable insight in history towards persuasion and rhetoric. Their influence in judicial and political speaking arguably held historical significance in uncovering the secrets of persuasion. (Billig 1996). However, it could also be disputed that they lacked any modern technology to analyse how particular tricks worked (Atkinson 1984). Atkinson carried out an ideographic study on political speeches. He focused on form and how features of rhetoric cause an audience to applaud during a political speech. His ethnomethodological study provided observation on a dependent variable in a real context as opposed to the Traditional scientific methods (Stainton Rogers 2003). Critiques argue that these techniques remain context dependent, e.g. appearance of source, intelligence of audience etc. (Myers 1983). With the rapid growth of the media in today’s society, the public are becoming increasingly exposed to politics. Atkinson’s findings have been highly influential in speech writing and have produced guidelines from which politicians and producers can use his secrets to form the material which is exposed to the public (Atkinson 1984). Arguably politicians may exploit his techniques of manipulation and subsequently the public are becoming more cynical as they become more conscious that they are targets of persuasion. This could be seen to have positive effects on persuasion, as we are being increasingly exposed to the secrets of persuasion, this is an inevitable need to increase the levels of sophistication in techniques of persuasion. Orators will be required to use more subtle techniques as they face increasingly cynical audiences (Atkinson 1984). From this point of view, Atkinson’s findings have posed threat to techniques of persuasion predominantly used in politics and advertising, such as 3-part contingencies (Gettysburg’s address 1863) and contrasting pairs (Churchill’s speech 1940), but at the same time he has encouraged development. Therefore it can be argued that his study has uncovered secrets of persuasion regularly used by two institutions which have major persuasive powers over society.

With reference to both the traditional and critical approaches to social psychology, it must be considered whether the concept of persuasion can now be fully understood. It could be argued that making comparisons between the works of ancient Greek philosophers and modern social psychologists shows the progress in uncovering rules and guidelines to manipulation. However, prior to Hovland’s study, there is a distinctive gap in history where the study of persuasion suffered neglect. This could suggest that there are many historical secrets which are yet to be discovered. In today’s media dominated society, the study of persuasion holds an increased relevance. Although research has uncovered many rules of persuasion, there is almost a certainty that many remain undiscovered. It is only once these secrets are uncovered, that attitudinal change can fully occur in an increasingly cynical society.

The traditional family, also known as a nuclear family, dominates the society before the World War II. It is a social unit consisting of a pair of married couple in opposite gender and the children they born living together in a single place (Hughes and Fergusson, 2004, p.47). However, a modern family is difficult to be defined because there are diverse forms of family consisting, for example, single parent family and divorced family, they may consisting a pair of couple in same gender or a single parent who had divorced with their partners. Conservatives can be defined as an ideology of that the structure or the form of family should be remain unchanged and conserved (Hughes and Fergusson, 2004, p60); while feminism is a thinking started from the 1960s of equality which against the traditional UK family and the conservatives.

Firstly, the gender roles had been change in the recent decades because of the war and had been affect the UK family structure. Before the World War II, men were recognized as the breadwinner and the women should responsible for the house and the children (Hughes and Fergusson, 2004, p.44). The statement shows that the general role of men were to work and were to connect with the external world for supporting the finance of the house and their partners, also they owned the authority for deciding and controlling; while women should stay indoor for serving the needs of husband and the elderly parents, also taking care and rising up children. The turning point is, during the war, men needed to fight in the frontline and left out from their work. Consequently, women needed to bear the workload not only in the military industry for the weapons used in the war but also the general posts in the society, even in the government. This show the gender roles started to be change and an ideology of “women can also work” and gender equality had been raise up due to this situation, which is an example of feminism. Women started to fight for economic independent and work outside by setting up organizations, for example Government Equalities Offices (2007) which responsible for leading and giving advice for forms of equality including gender equality, and demonstrating, the structure of the UK family had been change, women not only stay indoors but also go to work, not depending on men. Also, the responsibility of taking care children and elderly parents of women can interfere with paid employment and giving financial transfer respectively, (Harper, 2004) this allows more time and less housing burden to women for work, women are not necessary for staying in the house, the value of women responsibility also changed.

Secondly, the attitude of marriage had been change, the ideology of “marriage is for life” changed to late-marrying and divorcing. Office for National Statistic (2010) reported that, the number of marriage in the UK keep decreasing from 1950s, while the number of divorce and lone parents with dependent children in the UK keep increasing (ibid, 2012). In addition, number of co-habitation in UK was increase rapidly from the 1980s. (ibid, 2011) Furthermore, the sexual relation changed in the society, sex outside was now become more acceptable than in the golden age. For example, “Births outside marriage become a third of all births by the early 1990s” (Halsey, 1995). This illustrates that the attitude to marriage in the UK is not as important and necessary, compared to the golden age. Couples can easily divorce or remarriage and can keep not marrying by co-habitation which all these are affecting the fertility, childcare and child development, also the structure of the family (Harper, 2004). The thinking of the human right had been raise up: both men and women can divorce if they want and say out their wants, the example of feminism. It is not a must that a family should consist of married couples and children, but the form they want to have.

Finally, same-sex couples are recognised from the last decade but it is not a case in the golden age. In 2004 (BBC News), a law about civil partnership had been legislated, it opened the way of same-sex marriage and civil partnership no matter gay or lesbian marriage. Also, there is a first history of two men can be named as parents on a child’s birth certificate in April 2010. These politic activities changed the form and the structure of the UK family: it is not a must that parents in a family should be in opposite gender but in a same sex, same-sex couples had been given a chance to get the same right with married couples under the bill. According the report from the Office for National Statistics (2011), although majority of the British think same-sex relationship is always wrong in the 1990s, it totally changed after the bill had been legislated. This shows the ideology of feminism had changed the attitude of marriage: people have the right to choose who they loved with no gender barriers. Furthermore, the welfare, for example education, was provided to both men and women. Before the war, the role of housewife was taken by women because they could not receive education, this limited the chance of women for working outside due to they had no “knowledge”. According to the report from Office for National Statistics (2008), more men received education in the age of sixteenth to eighteenth than women in 1985. But there was a change, there was the same number of the gender receiving education in 1997 and there are more women enjoy education welfare than men in the recent decades. This shows the change of value and the example of feminism: both men and women can enjoy the welfare provided by the government, and widened the chance of women work outside, which is a cause of changing in the family.

However, there is still continuity in the family. Firstly, although women had the independence of their own economy and the right to go for work, men is still the head and has the main authority in the house; women are still responsible to the house works. A national survey done by Harris in 1984 (cited in Halsey, 1995) shows that, half of the adult proportion agreed that “The man in the house should be the main breadwinner, and the woman should be mainly responsible for looking after the home and children, even she works”. In addition, according to survey done by Office for National Statistic (2011), the proportions of part-time employees of women were significantly higher than the number of the men. These supported that although there is seems a change in the gender role, men are still dominating the house and the main responsibility of women did not change significantly in the UK family, they still emphasis on the house, and the shows the concept of conservatives.

Secondly, although there are diverse forms of family consisting in the UK, families are an important institution in society. No matter there are nuclear family; single parent family; or divorced family, and the existence of the family is still important and it is conserved due to the thinking of conservatives. Furthermore, although same-sex couple had been introducing in the family, the role of them are still being not change: maintain the stability in the house and support their life. These have not been change and being conserved.

To conclude this essay, the conservatives and feminism are the reason of bringing continuity and changes respectively, these ideology have brought the continuity and changes to the UK family. Families are necessary for ordering the stability of the society no matter the time after the war or as peace as now. Although the nuclear family had been weakened, it still dominates the structure of the family and plays an important role in the society. Changes are necessary and important, but it must change in a natural and slowly way, otherwise it will bring chaos to the society and cannot reach the aim of stabling to UK. The society, on the second hand, should conserve the important thinking and cultural, but could not have absolutely no changes in the society, or the society may not get any improvement.

More sentences about ‘this is because of the thinking of feminism’ (Explanation)

Introduction and present scenario:

Violence is the scourge of our society, but we can make a difference. We must educate ourselves about its influence and impact on our lives. Please feel free to write or call Probe Ministries for more information on this topic. And then take time to apply the principles developed here to make a difference in your home and community. You can help stem the tide of violence in our society. The heavy exposure to televised violence is one of the causes of aggressive behavior, crime and violence in society. Television violence affects youngsters of all ages, of both genders, at all socioeconomic levels and all levels of intelligence.

Growing up used to be less traumatic just a few decades ago. Children back then worried about such things as a flat tire on their Schwann’s and hoped that their teacher wouldn’t give too much homework.

How life has changed. A 1994 poll found more than half the children questioned said they were afraid of violent crime against them or a family member. Are these kids just paranoid, or is there a real problem?

Well, it turns out this is not some irrational fear based upon a false perception of danger. Life has indeed become more violent and more dangerous for children. Consider the following statistics: One in six youths between the ages of 10 and 17 has seen or knows someone who has been shot. The estimated number of child abuse victims increased 40 percent between 1985 and 1991. Children under 18 were 244 percent more likely to be killed by guns in 1993 than they were in 1986. Violent crime has increased by more than 560 percent since 1960.

The innocence of childhood has been replaced by the very real threat of violence. Kids in school try to avoid fights in the hall, walk home in fear, and sometimes sleep in bathtubs in order to protect themselves from stray bullets fired during drive-by shootings. Even families living in so-called “safe” neighborhoods are concerned. They may feel safe today, but there is always a reminder that violence can intrude at any moment. A child’s exposure to violence is pervasive. Children see violence in their schools, their neighborhoods, and their homes. The daily news is rife with reports of child molestations and abductions. War in foreign lands along with daily reports of murder, rape, and robberies also heighten a child’s perception of potential violence.

Television in the home is the greatest source of visual violence for children. The average child watches 8,000 televised murders and 100,000 acts of violence before finishing elementary school. That number more than doubles by the time he or she reaches age 18. And the latest scourge is MTV. Teenagers listen to more than 10,000 hours of rock music, and this impact is intensified as they spend countless hours in front of MTV watching violent and sensual images that go far beyond the images shown on commercial television. It’s a scary world, and children are exposed to more violence than any generation in recent memory. An article inNewsweekmagazine concluded: “It gets dark early in the Midwest this time of year. Long before many parents are home from work, the shadows creep up the walls and gather in the corners, while on the carpet a little figure sprawls in the glow emanating from an anchorman’s tan. There’s been a murder in the Loop, a fire in a nightclub, an indictment of another priest. Red and white lights swirl in urgent pinwheels as the ambulances howl down the dark streets. And one more crime that never gets reported, because there’s no one to arrest. Who killed childhood? We all did.”

“As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”

Violence has always been a part of the human condition because of our sin nature (Rom. 3:23). But modern families are exposed to even more violence than previous generations because of the media. Any night of the week, the average viewer can see levels of violence approaching and even exceeding the Roman Gladiator games.

Does this have an effect? Certainly it does. The Bible teaches that “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he”. What we view and what we think about affects our actions.

Defenders of television programs say that isn’t true. They contend that televised imagery doesn’t make people violent nor does it make people callous to suffering. But if televised imagery doesn’t affect human behavior, then the TV networks should refund billions of advertising dollars to TV sponsors.

In essence, TV executives are talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they try to convince advertisers that a 30-second commercial can influence consumer behavior. On the other hand, they deny that a one-hour program wrapped around the commercials can influence social behavior. So, how violent is the media? And what impact does media have on members of our family? First, we will look at violence in the movies, and then we’ll take up the issue of violence on television. Who would have imagined just a few years ago that the top grossing films would be replete with blood, gore, and violence? No wonder some film critics now say that the most violent place on earth is the Hollywood set.

Violence has always been a part of movie-making, but until recently, really violent movies were only seen by the fringe of mass culture. Violence now has gone mainstream. Bloody films are being watched by more than just punk rockers. Family station wagons and vans pull up to movie theaters showing R-rated slasher films. And middle America watches these same programs a few months later on cable TV or on video. Many of the movies seen at home wouldn’t have been shown in theaters 10-20 years ago.

Movie violence these days is louder, bloodier, and more anatomically precise than ever before. When a bad guy was shot in a black-and-white Western, the most we saw was a puff of smoke and a few drops of fake blood. Now the sights, sounds, and special effects often jar us more than the real thing. Slow motion, pyrotechnics, and a penchant for leaving nothing to the imagination all conspire to make movies and TV shows more gruesome than ever. Children especially confront an increasingly violent world with few limits. As concerned parents and citizens we must do what we can to reduce the level of violence in our society through the wise use of discernment and public policy. We need to set limits both in our homes and in the community.

Does Media Violence Really Influence Human Behavior?

Children’s greatest exposure to violence comes from television. TV shows, movies edited for television, and video games expose young children to a level of violence unimaginable just a few years ago. The average child watches 8,000 televised murders and 100,000 acts of violence before finishing elementary school. That number more than doubles by the time he or she reaches age 18. The violent content of TV includes more than just the 22 minute programs sent down by the networks. At a very young age, children are seeing a level of violence and mayhem that in the past may have only been witnessed by a few police officers and military personnel. TV brings hitting, kicking, stabbings, shootings, and dismemberment right into homes on a daily basis. The impact on behavior is predictable. Two prominent Surgeon General reports in the last two decades link violence on television and aggressive behavior in children and teenagers. In addition, the National Institute of Mental Health issued a 94-page report entitled, “Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties.” They found “overwhelming” scientific evidence that “excessive” violence on television spills over into the playground and the streets. In one five-year study of 732 children, “several kinds of aggression– conflicts with parents, fighting and delinquency–were all positively correlated with the total amount of television viewing.”

Long-term studies are even more disturbing. University of Illinois psychologist Leonard Eron studied children at age eight and then again at eighteen. He found that television habits established at the age of eight influenced aggressive behavior through childhood and adolescent years. The more violent the programs preferred by boys in the third grade, the more aggressive their behavior, both at that time and ten years later. He therefore concluded that “the effect of television violence on aggression is cumulative.Violent images on television and in the movies do contribute to greater violence in society. Sociological studies along with common sense dictate that we do something to reduce the violence in the media before it further damages society.

Some Suggestions for Dealing with Violence in the Media

Christians must address this issue of violence in our society. Here are a number of specific suggestions for dealing with violence.

Learn about the impact of violence in our society. Share this material with your pastor, elders, deacons, and church members. Help them understand how important this issue is to them and their community.
Create a safe environment. Families live in the midst of violence. We must make our homes safe for our families. A child should feel that his or her world is safe. Providing care and protection are obvious first steps. But parents must also establish limits, provide emotional security, and teach values and virtue in the home.
Watch TV with children. Obviously we should limit the amount of TV our children watch. But when they watch television, we should try to watch it with them. We can encourage discussion with children during the programs. The plots and actions of the programs provides a natural context for discussion and teach important principles about relationships and violence. The discussion could focus on how cartoon characters or TV actors could solve their problems without resorting to violence. TV often ignores the consequences of violence.
Teach vigilance without hysteria. By talking about the dangers in society, some parents have instilled fear–even terror– in their children. We need to balance our discussions with them and not make them hysterical. Kids have been known to become hysterical if a car comes down their street or if someone looks at them.

The Salvation Army is an organization that provides services to people all over the world. The Salvation Army exists to share the love of Jesus Christ, meet human needs, and be a transforming influence in the communities of our world (Salvation Army Canada 2010). These services included emergency response for people affected by disasters. The Army organization was started by a husband and wife team by the names of William and Catherine Booth in England, back in 1865.Though is it known for charitable the Army supports organizations such as community and family services, camps, youth services, homeless and addiction services etc. The Salvation is interconnected when it comes to helping people from all over the globe. In many the Army is here to fight social problems. Poverty is a problems that exists through three of analysis which are the Micro level for the Salvation Army in a community, Mid level for our cities and Provinces and Canada in general and on the Macro level for Haiti an in comparison to the entire world .This essay will explain the three levels and how it all shares a common demeanour on poverty but on a different scale depending on where you live in the world especially when it comes to standard of living around the world.

Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not having access to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom (The World Bank Group 2010).Society is filled with many problems that exist and the Salvation Army is there to limit some of these problems by the support it gives through its organizations. These problems are small at times but its impact affects people who depend on the services. The Army does a lot of good in communities from a micro level.

Though every city has its problems the Salvation Army on the micro level provides services for the communities in ways such as shelters for the homeless during the winter time. The Army provides food banks for those unfortunate to provide a quality meal for their families. At times it’s hard to make ends meet and the Salvation Army is there to lend a helping hand and to make sure that people who are less fortunate benefits from their services. Poverty is major issue that we face throughout the world but to have an impact on changing our communities we need to come up solution that will bring down poverty which is on the rise in our communities. In many ways the services the Army provides is helping in the reduction of social problems that our communities face. We see poverty on every corner of Toronto, most noticeable the homelessness on our streets is a major problem. Services such the Salvation Army is needed because it shows the lack of support in our government not doing enough to help combat the social problems we face on the micro level. In order to make a change we must start of in our community and then evolve from the there. Poverty is taking its toll on society and in our communities; it affects most notably our Aboriginal communities. The lack of government support and community engagement is mostly what is keeping us from conquering poverty in our neighbourhoods. We must all take part in lending support to those in need of it. The Army is a services that is at the forefront in leading the way to solving this problem. If everyone takes an initiative to do a small part in contributing to volunteering, charitable donations and what not poverty can be eliminated from our cities. Because to progress into helping others we must fix the problems we face in our neighbourhoods and our communities in order for us to progress forward.

Poverty is a reality in Canada today. Despite having one of the highest standards of living among all the developed nations, and despite being voted numerous times in recent years by the United Nations as the best country in the world in which to live, experts agree that poverty is prevalent in Canada today(Streets Level Consulting 2010). On the Mid level the reason for poverty in our major cities is that there is not enough government involvement in preventing people for poverty. A good example is in our Native communities where you find people living in abstract poverty. On many First Nations reserves in Canada, people are deal with problems that challenges there sources to a much more prosperous community. High rates of infant mortality, substandard housing, few social services, and low life expectancy create conditions closer to those found in third world countries. This is sad in the sense that with all the resources and opportunities Canada has to offer still our government is failing to provide the proper source of living for some of its citizens. Poverty is also a major problem in the sense that without proper resources and funding to help our poor communities it creates a wave of crime in most part of our cities in Canada. This is prevalent in our urban minority areas, which has an increase in violence and drug abuse. Toronto as we all know is the backbone for Canada’s economy, it is the city that brings in most revenue to our country, but yet with all that money the government is unable to clean up the crime and poverty that surrounds the city. We as nation and our government need to take charge and bring a solution to this problem. The more awareness and attention that we bring to this problem will ultimately have a great influence and impact in cleaning up poverty in our major cities. There are more food banks than McDonalds restaurants in our provinces and cities but yet 1 in 5 children live in poverty in Canada (Canada`s Women Health Network 2010).The gap in wealth between rich and poor is growing dramatically in Canada. To live in poverty in Canada is to be at much greater risk of poor health, violence and a shorter lifespan.

Poverty is a global disaster. This is a proven fact on a Macro level when you take in perspective all the problems that are facing third world countries. A good example of a country that is struggling with poverty is Haiti. A look at Haiti can help us understand poverty because most people in the world live in relative poverty. Haiti today is habitually classified as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Approximately 80% of Haiti’s population lives in extreme poverty and the average living per day for a person is one dollar (Haitisurf 2010). Most Haitians live in rural areas or very small, often remote, villages. They live without access to electricity or even clean water. Over half the adult population is illiterate due mostly to the lack of access to education and books and the need for children to work from very young ages. Those who live in the cities fair no better. In fact, 65% of Haitian children will never finish elementary school and 80% won’t ever attend high school (Free Articles 2010).

Learning about the poverty situation in Haiti helps us in understanding poverty, since most of the world has a big problem concerning this topic. Employment in Haiti is limited and without a job people are unable to earn income and support their families. The catastrophic earthquake damaged most of the country and farm lands, which makes things now even more difficult for crops to grow. People were suffering before the earthquake and now matters have worsened. Infrastructures are all broken down making it very difficult to house and shelter people. This is problematic because it is essentially is not just a Haitian problem but the worlds. Poverty affects nearly three quarters of the world and it’s about time world leaders and government officials get on the issue. There are too many resources in this world that can feed and take care of everyone, if leaders are willing to implement solutions and ideas to help combat it. Haiti should be an example to the entire world that poverty is a major problem that needs to be solved. People should not have to suffer to get the basic necessities in life whether you live in Afghanistan or London, overall it should be a right not a privilege.

Poverty is not just a poor person’s problem but societies, because if a community or a place is suffering it affects all the people that live there. There needs to be more done to prevent and help solve this problem. Even with social programs such as welfare and housing it is not enough to help citizens in our cities. This is because people are force to live on a small income that is not enough to support their families, but also the minimum wage in our country is not enough for people to raise families on. This is been an issue for many years and now with the recent recession that hit the economy the standard of living has decrease because people are not getting employment and overall the cost of living has increased. So this is very difficult for people to survive when the cost of living is up and no employment to support people to bring home income. This overall comes back to the lack of support from our government which needs to do more in fighting for its people when it comes to a social issue as big as poverty. The majority of the people in the world are struggling with bad living conditions; this is because our society and governments has put the needs, concern, and proper living of its citizens aside for unnecessary agendas that are in no way helping people. The money used to fund unnecessary wars and make missiles can help feed and educate people. If the world can contain this problem, everyone living in it can have a better tomorrow and a future.

At the forefront of Steele’s analysis is a stereotype threat, a particular kind of identity contingency. He speculates that stereotype threat embodies a standard human predicament, not as explicit as discrimination but powerful enough to constrain behavior simply by putting a threat in the air. It is a widespread phenomenon, truly universal, found in any given society, wherein any potential identity group can become subject to it. It can be applied to any situation to which stereotype is relevant. Thus, it follows members of the stereotyped group into these situations as a balloon over their heads (Steele, 5). Author asserts that it is hard to eradicate stereotype threats, though the pressure they impose on individuals can be eased. Allegedly, stereotype threat is an intrinsic part of human interrelations, a “tool” used by individuals, driven by a basic instinct of competition. Unlike discrimination in its gross forms, stereotype threats are, presumably, formed and nurtured subconsciously to benefit or confer privileges on to one social group, competing for opportunity and decent life, at the expense of the other groups.

Steele presents several experiments conducted to demonstrate how stereotype threat indirectly affects behavior and interferes with physical or intellectual performance. Experiments he refers to, namely the Michigan Athletic Aptitude Test and the one done at Princeton University, clearly show that the pressure stereotype threat poses is distracting enough to lead to individual’s failure in particular task. In nutshell, the task in experiment measured the very trait, ability and skill the group was stereotyped as lacking. The very knowledge of the negative stereotype’s relevance in the given situation made the assessed group fear that frustration on the task could be misinterpreted and seen as confirming the stereotype. Hence, any deviation in performance, whether mental or physical, or a false move could cause an individual to be reduced to the stereotype and treated accordingly. Steele admits that it is a challenging task to prove that something abstract like stereotype threat can have a substantial effect on the individual’s behavior. Nonetheless, the research and experiments he undertakes endorse his hypothesis of stereotype threat’s detrimental effect on individual performance. His research focus raises a number of thought-provoking questions about the ways stereotypes affect our intellectual functioning, stress reactions, the tension that can exist between different groups and explores strategies that alleviate these effects and thereby help solve societal problems (Steele 13).

The aim of the research is to prove the importance of identity contingencies and of “understanding identity threat to personal and societal progress” (Steele 15). Steele comes up with several general patterns of findings. The first is that contingencies tied to social identities have their role in shaping individual lives. The second suggests that identity threats and the negative impact they have on our functioning contribute to society’s most important social problems, thus undermining social integrity. Third is a general process by which stereotype threats interfere with a broad range of human functioning. Finally, they offer a set of feasible things, sort of solutions, which can alleviate effects of the identity threats.

The correlation between identity contingency and intellectual performance, in particular academic, preoccupies Steele throughout his research. He tries to shed light on the issue of academic underperformance of students from underrepresented backgrounds. The problem he believes has repercussions at a nationwide level. He perceives it as a “core American struggle”, wherein institutions try to integrate themselves racially, ethnically, class-wise (Steele, 17). In his attempt to reveal what factors account for persistent academic struggles of minority students Steele uses a concept know as “observer’s – actor’s perspective”. Steele as a researcher is inclined to take the observer’s stance, though looks at the problem from the latter’s view. The actor’s perspective emphasizes student’s characteristics, his “intellectual luggage”, aspirations, values, skills, expectations and so forth. He assets that the actor’s perspective can be equally essential in explaining underperformance since the observer’s perspective alone can not provide the full picture of the problem. His research appeals to E. Jones and R. Nisbett concept of the difference between those two perspectives. They argued that the observer’s perspective is subject to bias because it stresses the things we can see, that is actor’s traits and characteristics. But it deemphasizes things which fall out of the observer’s literal and mental visual field, namely circumstances the actor responds to and the environment he has to adapt to. Steel believes that the actor’s perspective can offer a plausible explanation of the link between identity contingency and intellectual performance. The feedback he receives from minority students supports his view. Students noted the university environment, wherein their social status was subtly accentuated, social life which was organized by race, ethnicity, social class, and rather racially homogeneous teaching staff and faculty. As a result, their social networks were organized by race. They were also puzzled by the fact that minority styles, interests and preferences were marginalized on campus (Steele 19).

Steele conducts an experiment to prove that academic achievement problem of minority students is not entirely due to skill and ability deficits. He contends that external factors and social and psychological aspects of academic experience can be powerful enough to directly or indirectly impair intellectual performance. Hence, the environment and status of a student can be an actual component of ability. Steele comes up with stigmatization idea. An idea that a devalued social status can cause underperformance. It is perceived as a plausible alternative explanation in contrast to an idea that underperformance of particular social or gender groups is rooted in some biological differences of those groups. Experiment aims to answer whether or not stigma impaired intellectual performance. If so, then what exactly does stigma do to people that affects intellectual performance? Are some groups more susceptible to the effect than others? What can be done to reduce it? It analyzes the gap between women’s and men’s grades in advanced math and English classes. The core of the experiment is to see whether results of the test taken under stigmatizing or potentially stigmatizing conditions substantially differ from results of test held under nonstigmatizing conditions. The striking finding of the experiment is that women, with equally strong math skills, did worse on a math test than men, though it was not the case in English test. Two conflicting explanations arise. The first, known as genetic explanation, finds the prerequisites for disparities in intellectual performance at the biological level. The other explanation was that frustration during the test makes societal stereotype of women’s poor math capacity come to mind and be seen as relevant to them personally. The pressure not to confirm the cultural stereotype undermines the performance of women in that particular experiment. It is a “colar” of stigma which comes into play, a factor which interferes with intellectual functioning (Steele 37).

What can be inferred from Steele’s findings is that stigma pressure has negative effect on the intellectual performance. It diverts individual’s mental resources from performance onto frustration.

Thus, performance can be dramatically improved by eliminating frustration and threat of stereotype confirmation. Nonetheless, Steele asserts, stereotype threats and stigma pressure can neither entirely explain these findings, nor have universal applications. The research done by Steele has important implications for higher education. Universities’ policy on inclusion and diversity should incorporate an idea of identity contingency and raise awareness of stereotype threat in academic environment. There is no doubt in the quality and virtues of universities’ policies on diversity and inclusion. The question is whether they are implemented effectively, whether universities de jure committed to diversity de facto foster an open and pluralistic academic environment.

He claims that social segregation and evident class divisions are a matter of fact at the university. More than half of the university’ students are graduates of prestigious private schools such as Eton and Westminster. They represent political elite and aristocracy. 10 out of 17 United Kingdom’s prime-ministers graduated from Oxford University over the last century. Allegedly, the whole academic process and social life is organized to serve the interest of the privileged class. He argues that the policy of diversity was gradually imposed onto the university. It had to allocate quotas for public school graduates, overseas applicants an so forth because it was forced to respond to formalities of changing reality, a reality that was becoming progressively plural. The mission of the university, though, has undergone a little change. It reproduces political and business elite. No matter how hard he tried to impress privileged classes academically and in social life, imitating their manners, dress code, using Latin in his speech, his racial identity was seen as a barrier to social integration. Paradoxically, he became accepted into privileged circles when started selling crack to Blue Bloods. An intelligent Russian student with sophisticated manners did not fit English elite’s stereotype of post-Soviet immigrant living in Birmingham. They needed to see a rude, unscrupulous guy using abusive language in Russian. They wanted him to confirm their stereotype and that they are right in identity assessments. He gave them what they needed, hoping to nurture acquaintance contacts among elites.

The fact that universities predominantly underestimate the importance of diversity and inclusion and treat stereotype threats as something abstract, thus not serious, is upsetting.