toptermpaper.com

THE DIVISION IN HOUSEHOLD LABOUR BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN
CONTENTS (JUMP TO)

Abstract

Introduction

Literature Review

Household Labour Defined

The Gender Gap

Research Methods

Analysis Methods

Historic Housework Gender Divisions

Global Housework Gender Divisions

Reasons for Gender Gap

Methodology

Findings

Recommendations

Conclusion

References

ABSTRACT

This study considers the gender gap in performance of household labour and its change over time, particularly in the last fifty years. Methods that others have used to research and analyse household labour, historic and multi-cultural gender divisions, reasons for the current and historic gender gap from a sociological perspective. This research then determines the most effective methods of data gathering and analysis and examines several studies over the last fifty years to conclude that the gender gap in household work is actually shrinking, albeit more slightly than some contend due to societal changes. Proposals for overcoming the disparity in household labour performance are assessed from a variety of published literature. Conclusions are drawn regarding the most likely factors affecting changes to the gender gap, namely changes in gender identities from a societal standpoint. Recommendations for further research and actions to further redu ce the housework disparity conclude the study.

INTRODUCTION

Almost all research conducted in the past one hundred years has overwhelmingly and consistently supported a disparity between the household labour performed by women and men, with women typically outperforming men both in terms of more distasteful tasks and number of hours by significant margins. Since the beginning of the women’s movement in the 1960s, however, some inroads have been made regarding closing the gap between male and female performance. These must be weighed in light of overall changes in societal expectations and practise of household labour, but do show a trend towards greater egalitarianism in housework performance.

This research begins with a thorough consideration of published literature regarding gender division of household labour and how such studies have been conducted and analysed, with reference to historic and multi-cultural gender divisions and sociological reasons for the persistent gender gap in housework performance. A survey of secondary research using the most accurate and informative data gathering methods is then conducted to determine whether the gender gap is indeed closing and if so, why, or whether broader societal and technological changes are merely affecting the performance of housework in general.

The study concludes with recommendations for further research and suggestions from both others and the author regarding ways of moving towards a more egalitarian division of household labour performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW

As it applies directly or indirectly to almost everyone, much research and study has been performed regarding housework, the perceptions of those who perform it, and the assignment of household labour tasks within the home or family. This literature review provides a brief survey of some of these studies. An overview of the gender gap will be followed by six broad areas of consideration. First, the various methods by which housework study is conducted will be examined, as claims of inaccuracy are rampant for certain research methods. Similar consideration of different ways of analysing and interpreting this data follows. An overview of historic housework assignment, with particular focus on gender divisions and Britain, includes information stretching back several hundred years but concentrates on the previous century through the present, when statistical analysis and similar data began to be generated. Views of housework and gender division of tasks in other countries allow for a more holistic consideration of the topic. Finally, reasons for the gap between performance of household labour between men and women are from various studies are presented, with a number of researchers assertions of ways to overcome such disparity.

Household Labour Defined

In any study of household labour, also referred to as simply housework in this research, it is first beneficial to define what is meant by or included in the term. Some studies, for example, include only inside household tasks such as cleaning and cooking, excluding outside work such as gardening and exterior home repairs. Some studies include childcare as a household task; others place it in a separate category or do not include it. Lee and Waite (2005) note some research is based on a more restricted definition of housework, limited to physical tasks such as cleaning, cooking and laundry, whilst some include intangible components of household management, such as providing advice or encouragement, or planning and managing household tasks.

For the purpose of this study all non-employment household tasks will be included, grouped broadly into inside and outside tasks, primarily because gender divisions often fall along these categorical divisions. Inside tasks are those performed inside the home, whilst tasks performed outside (yard work, taking out rubbish) fall in the latter category. In addition, based on the work of Coltrane (2000), tasks may be alternatively be considered from the standpoint of routine or occasional as another, and also typical, gender division. Coltrane (2000) defines routine tasks as the most time-consuming and most frequently performed, with little allowance for flexibility in task scheduling. Typical routine tasks include cooking, cleaning, shopping, and laundry. Occasional tasks, in comparison, are not as time-consuming on a daily basis and hence require less frequent performance, allowing more flexibility and discretion in when they are performed. Yard maintenance, home repairs (interior or exterior), and paying bills are typical occasional tasks.

Childcare will be considered in a separate category, although part of the overall household labour workload. This type of grouping is supported by many researchers such as Oakley (1981), Brines (1994), Press and Townsley (1998) and Alenezi and Walden (2004), who include childcare in household labour but place it in a separate category. Child rearing activities, such as bathing, disciplining, and the like may also be separated from recreational activities involving children, such as taking a child to the park or on an outing. In addition, Bianchi et al (2000) note that childcare is also an activity typically done in conjunction with other tasks, such as minding children whilst cooking or cleaning, or helping with homework whilst folding laundry. This is a further consideration when defining time spent and proportional contribution to household functioning.

For the purposes of this study, therefore, all tasks involved in the establishment and maintenance of a household, including care for the persons of the household, are considered household labour or housework. Divisions within this household labour are made when specified, typically due to existing or to highlight gender differences between categories.

The Gender Gap

Current and recent historical culture in Britain and similar Western nations reveals a disparity in the performance of household tasks between women and men. Termed the ‘Gender Gap,’ this difference in housework reflects a much higher proportion of typical tasks performed by women than by men, even in dual-earner situations. Whilst there are other factors contributing to difference in allocation of household work, such as education, culture, and social class, Oakley (1974, 1981), Orbuch and Eyster (1997), Coltrane (2000), Lee (2002), Davis and Greenstein (2004), and Lee and Waite (2005) and many others have determined that gender plays a major role in task and work disparity, and this will be examined more fully under “Reasons for the Gender Gap” later in this literature review. General explanation of the gap itself is provided in this section of this study.

Baxter (2001), after considering a number of studies regarding housework and gender, concludes “women do a much larger proportion of child care and routine indoor housework tasks than men, regardless of marital status” (19). This is supported by similar reviews of literature by Berk (1985), Ross (1987), Becker (1991), Ferree (1991), Brines (1993), Greenstein (1996), Orbuch and Eyster (1997), Coltrane (2000), Lee (2002), Davis and Greenstein (2004), and Lee and Waite (2005). The number of hours women spend has been declining over time, from over sixty hours per week prior to 1970, as reported by Oakley (1974) and others, to less than twenty in current reports such as Lee and Waite (2005), with men’s hours moving from less than three to nearly ten in some research. However, a substantial gap between men and women’s contributions to household labour still exists, as documented by Lee (2002), Rivieres-pigeon, Saurel-Cubi zolles and Romito (2002), Alvarez and Miles (2003), Davis and Greenstein (2004), Alenezi and Walden (2004), Leonard (2004), Lee and Waite (2005). A gender gap between the types of household tasks performed also remains prevalent, with men performing more outdoor housework activities and fewer routine, inside tasks or childcare activities. Men are also more likely to describe their activities as enjoyable, such as playing with children or yard work, whilst women’s participation in activities they describe as enjoyable, such as baking and decorating, have decreased with fewer hours devoted to household work. Baxter (2001) concludes that in all reviewed studies “the differences are quite stark” (19). “Wives spend substantially more time than their husbands on family work, even though women do less and men do slightly more now than 20 years ago” (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer & Robinson 2000, 192).

It was initially expected that with the growth of the women’s movement the gender gap would disappear. For example, Leonard (2004) reports “a number of UK studies optimistically predicted that women’s entry to paid work outside the household would be accompanied by men’s increased participation in unpaid work within the household” (73). Unfortunately, research in the UK and elsewhere continues to “demonstrate the resilience of traditional gender roles within the household irrespective of women’s labour market status” (Leonard 2004, 73). This research will later examine the narrowing of this gender gap and the reasons behind both its continued existence and gradual lessening.

Research Methods

When comparing secondary data, it is important to consider the methods implemented in data collection. In direct relation to this study, for example, Lee and Waite (2005) amongst others found “conclusions about the size of the gender gap in housework depend substantially on who provides the information about time spent on housework, what information that person is asked to provide, and how housework is defined” (334). Shelton and John (1996) and Coltrane (2000) list typical methods of data collection regarding household labour distribution and performance include interviews, surveys, time-diaries, and most recently electronic recording methods. Lee and Waite (2005) explain that interviews and surveys typically ask respondents to estimate the number of hours and type of tasks they or their spouses spend performing housework tasks. Time-diary studies ask respondents to report all their daily activities, usually within the day be ing tracked or by the next day at the latest.

It is not surprising, therefore, that differences in time of reporting lead to differences in accuracy. Becker (1991), Lee and Waite (2005) and others have all found that interviews and surveys, which require respondents to both recall and estimate contributions and tasks, are highly inaccurate. Time-diaries, which require respondents to document how they spend their time daily or throughout the day, are significantly more accurate, as supported by Becker (1991), Bianchi et al (2000), and Lee and Waite (2005). For example, Bianchi et al (2000) reports a typical difference of fifteen hours per week reported by men and women regarding women’s household labour, and a typical difference of nearly four hours in reporting of men’s contribution. Similarly, Press and Townsley (1998) report that, on average, husbands estimated spending approximately eighteen hours per week on household tasks, whilst wives estimated their husbands contribution at just under thirteen hours per week, a statistically significant difference.

In comparing data from electronic data recording versus data from similar populations collected by survey, Lee and Waite (2005) concluded “wives make accurate estimates of husbands’ time on housework, whereas husbands overestimate their own time” (333). They additionally found some evidence that both wives and husbands may substantially overestimate the amount of time wives spend on housework. For example, Lee and Waite (2005) found wives’ responses to survey questions regarding hours spent on housework estimated twenty-six hours per week of household work, but measurement of the same individuals via an electronic data recording system (ESM) resulted in an average of only fifteen hours per week. In all, the differences between survey measures and ESM [electronic data recording] time-use measures are statistically significant and-for some estimates-quite substantial” (333).

Further, broader consideration of types of tasks within household labour resulted in greater hours of contribution on the part of men, but made little difference in the weekly housework hours of women. For example, Lee (2004) found that whilst in one study both types of childcare activities were counted equally towards housework contribution, husbands’ time “tended to involve recreational activities rather than those tasks that constitute the daily grind of child rearing,” which were left to women (254). Baxter (2001) similarly found that men participated in housework primarily on weekends, and tended to perform occasional tasks such as yard work; women performed housework tasks throughout the week and weekend, being responsible for almost all routine tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and laundry.

Analysis Methods

Research is equally divergent in the methods of analysis employed to interpret data regarding gender divisions in household labour. Some methods , such as commonly used empirical models, focus solely on time allocation and the variables contributing to allocation decisions. Bargaining models, time allocation models, and the household production model are three of the more common of these types of analysis methods.

Mahoney (1995) describes various bargaining theories, which contend that since women earn less, they have less power in the household and are therefore relegated to performing the majority of housework tasks. For example, Alvarez and Miles (2003) found women with university degrees, and hence greater earning power, have reduced housework time. Alenezi & Walden (2004) note, however, that the inverse is true for husbands. The more educated a man is, the more likely he is to contribute a greater number of hours to housework. Bargaining models in general, however, as summarized by Alenezi and Walden (2004) all present consumption and labour supply within the family based on some form of bargaining between family members based on each member’s earning potential and similar characteristics. This type of analysis generally categorises the various attributes, market wage, and similar for family members and uses such categorisation to evaluate gender divisio n of household labour.

Time allocation models, in contrast, contend that individual contribution to household tasks is based on available time. Each family member individually determines contribution to the household based on market wages, leisure activities, and family consumption. Bittman et al (2001) notes that these analysis methods, however, do explain in part the differences in the effects of certain variables, such as education level, on men and women within a household. As Alenezi and Walden (2004) describe, time allocation theories are difficult to use as a basis of empirical research, as they depend on individual decision versus measurable inputs. This form of analysis typically begins with the labour division and works back into variables, rather than documenting variables and then considering activity, as is typical of bargaining theories.

Becker (1991) presents the most often used method of analysis for time allocation of household labour, the household production model. This analysis method divides the household consumption of goods into those that are market-produced and those that are household-produced, and measures household utility and the gender division of household tasks, as described by Alenezi and Walden (2004) as “a function of the consumption of market-produced goods, household-produced goods, and leisure time of the husband and wife”(83). Bryant (1990) describes how households “spend” their two major resources, money and time. In certain circumstances, a household might spend more money to save time, such as by using outside cleaners or eating take out food. In other circumstances, the family may chose to spend time, painting a room themselves rather than hiring the painting out, for example. A lenezi and Walden (2004) conclude “households make decisions about using time working for pay, working on household tasks, like child-rearing and meal preparation, or for enjoyment (leisure)” (81).

Berk (1985) criticises the household production model as making undocumented assumptions about joint production, preferences, and estimation of the shadow price of housework, but it remains one of the few empirical analysis methods that factors in a large number of variables and takes into consideration complexity and diversity within and between households. As Alenezi and Walden (2004) assert, the household production model “still remains the standard for analyzing household time allocation due to its ability to account for many complex relationships in household decision-making” (86).

Some researchers such as Bittman et al (2001) and Alvarez and Miles (2003) contend, however, that empirical analysis methods such as those described above place too much emphasis on economic variables in general, and therefore explain only a limited share of the inequality in housework performance. As Oakley (1981) and Becker (1991) describe, gender division in household labour can also be considered from a more sociological approach. Becker (1991) affords that sociological theoretical models offer a wide and divergent variety of explanations for the unequal division of housework tasks along gender lines, but all provide relevant areas of consideration. For example, Alenezi & Walden (2004) contend, “differences between husbands’ and wives’ housework time, spousal age, educational attainment, and number of children by age should be highlighted” (101).

Given the difficulty in practise of considering the wide number of variables that could play into gender division of household labour, however, many studies choose to concentrate on the societal and sociological implications of one or two of what the individual researchers consider to be the most important or effectual inputs. As such, many studies have considered the impact of education levels, presence of children, age, social class, race, and value beliefs as determinants of household labour allocation.

One of the most often considered variables is gender identity. As Oakley (1981) describes, men and women are instructed in what their particular society considers appropriate gender roles and actions from an early age. As such, women in Britain are typically raised to believe that housework is their responsibility, and therefore perform the bulk of household tasks. In this analysis, which will be described in greater detail later in this study in the section presenting reasons for the gender gap, researchers examine the development of gender identity, then its impact on household labour allocation, and further investigate impacts of changes in gender roles across society on household functioning.

Historic Housework Gender Divisions

Oakley (1974) provides a thorough and insightful study of historic gender divisions of household labour in Europe, concentrating on Britain. Prior to the nineteenth century, women were typically employed in the family business, as were the rest of family members. This business was housed within the home, and all members of the family might perform a given household task. Fathers were considerably more involved in child rearing, and tasks such as cleaning and cooking were not divided along gender lines. Women were often equal partners in business with their husbands, could be afforded guild membership on their own standing, inherited their husband’s trade privileges upon his death (versus them passing to a son), and “were not prevented from entering any occupation by reason of their sex” (31). As such, Oakley (1974) describes women as always occupying the role of productive worker, earning a market wage and enjoying ful l market employment participation.

In the 1800s, Oakley (1974) describes the gradual displacement of vocation from the home to the factory. Women followed their traditional work out of the home and into the factories through the middle of the century. In fact, men, women, and children often worked side-by-side in various factory endeavours, just as they had in home-based vocational activity. However, this societal movement of employment from home to factory meant multiple family members were no longer physically present within the household to perform housework tasks or render childcare for small children. By the 1840s, societal pressure began on women to remain at home to render these services, and a simultaneous and not surprising belief became popular that women were naturally domestic and the appropriate carers for children. Male factory workers also began to ask for limits on child and female labour, ostensibly for the women and children’s own protection. By the end of the 1880s, the traditio nal role of women had shifted to the keeper of the home and rearer of children, whilst men had assumed sole provider role and worker outside the home.

In the early 1900s through the Second World War, women were typically employed outside the home until marriage, at which time they left paid employment and assumed responsibility for housework tasks. Most women lived with their families until their marriage, and assisted their own mothers with work in that household but were not primarily responsible. After the war, women typically worked until their first child was expected, and often returned to paid work after their children left home. However, the notion of housework as a women’s responsibility was already culturally entrenched, and continued regardless of her employment status. This was supported by various legislative measures. For example, both Ireland and Britain had ‘marriage bars,’ which legally excluded married women from working in public service or administration. Leonard (2004) notes that in Ireland, “up until 1973, women had to leave paid employment in the public sector upon getting mar ried” (74).

This sole responsibility for household management was not a light one, either in terms of hours or tasks. Summarising a number of studies conducted in Britain, France, and the United States from the 1920s through the 1970s, Oakley (1974) reports that average hours of housework performed by women consistently ranks over sixty hours per week, with women in urban areas often averaging over seventy hours per week of labour. As of the early 1970s, Oakley (1974) reports a British study found eighty-five per cent of all women between the ages of sixteen and sixty-four were housewives, “they carried the responsibility for running the household in which they lived,” and “nine out of ten women who were not employed were housewives, so were seven out of ten of those with a job outside the home” (6). She concludes that housework is therefore clearly women’s major occupation.

Important conclusions from historical data related to gender division of household tasks are that the notion of housewifery as a “natural” condition of women is a recent one, and not supported in previous centuries. Although various ethological, anthropological, and sociological “proofs” have been offered for a woman’s role as primarily wife and mother, Oakley (1981) demonstrates that these are not supported either historically or cross-culturally. She further contends that both housework allocation and “the impact of childbirth on the roles of parents in clearly a cultural construct,” and as such should be an area given consideration as needing change, rather than held as a biological absolute.

Global Housework Gender Divisions

Indeed, when considering gender division of housework cross-culturally, many assumptions regarding appropriate gender roles breakdown, particularly when considering cultures outside the capitalist Western model. Using data from the International Social Justice Project, Davis and Greenstein (2004) describe the division of housework tasks in married couple households across twelve nations: four Western nations (Great Britain, the United States, Germany, and The Netherlands), seven former Soviet nations (Russia, Slovenia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary), and one Asian nation (Japan). Of note, as some data is historic, it divided East and West Germany, which the researchers took into account in analysis.

Oakley (1974) quotes Lenin as writing, “No nation can be free when half the population is enslaved in the kitchen” (222). Not surprisingly, some of the former Soviet countries in Davis and Greenstein’s (2004) research evidenced the smallest gender gap in household labour. In Russia, for example, sixty-seven per cent of men and sixty per cent of women feel that housework is equally divided, with less than ten per cent of women or men allocating such work always to the wife. Interestingly, research exampled by Davis and Greenstein (2004) in post-Soviet Russia stated that fewer Russians believed they had egalitarian marriages in 1995 than in 1989, a demonstration of perception and practise change accompanying dramatic societal reforms. Such results reinforce the concept of gender divisions in household labour being culturally rather than biologically based.

In a similar example, whilst Estonian households had traditionally divided household labour along gender lines prior to Communism, at the close of the Soviet era Davis and Greenstein (2004) report they had moved significantly toward shared housework, with over forty per cent of households reporting equal contributions. “Estonian women’s attitudes reflected a desire for personal efficacy rather than a complete focus on their husbands’ demands” (Davis and Greenstein 2004, 1263). Considering gender patterns over time, Davis and Greenstein (2004) reported several other research studies found “Czech women’s and men’s time spent on household work is becoming more similar, mainly because of the changing employment patterns of Czech women,” and “Czech households were more egalitarian in their division of labour than were Hungarian and Polish households” (1262). Poland was typical of half the f ormer Soviet nations and all Western nations in the study, with Polish women performing the majority of the housework regardless of their education or employment status, men’s housework contributions increasing with their education levels, and the most egalitarian division of housework responsibly in couples where both spouses are employed and have high levels of education.

British, Dutch, and German women all were substantially more responsible for household labour than their former-Soviet counterparts, with over sixty-five per cent of households reporting household labour as primarily or always a duty of the wife, and twenty-five per cent or less reporting an equal distribution of work. Davis and Greenstein (2004) found Dutch women experienced the greatest disparity, with over seventy per cent of men and eighty per cent of women reporting housework as primarily or always the responsibility of the wife. Gender allocation of housework in the Netherlands is most affected by the presence of young children and the husband’s economic resources, with education also being a relevant variable. For example, the higher the education level of the couple together, the greater the husbands’ contribution to household work; when the wife has slightly more education than her husband, the husband performs more housework; but when she h as a significantly more education than he, there is no increase in his household contributions.

Similar studies in Spain, Ireland and Germany reinforce cultural differences, even amongst European nations. In a study of dual-earner couples in Spain, Alvarez and Miles (2003) found persistent gender inequality of similar per cents to the Davis and Greenstein overview. In addition, education levels of the man were found to effect division of household labour, whilst the woman’s education and earning power had little effect. The researchers concluded, “habitual patterns of gender-differentiated activity at home are mainly the result of gender identities” (240). Alvarez and Miles (2003) find opinion polls demonstrating a clear trend in Spanish attitudes towards egalitarian gender division of labor, more so amongst younger respondents. However, similar to their findings in most developed countries Alvarez and Miles (2003) report that behaviour has changed much less than attitude and as much as two thirds of the total housework is perfo rmed by women, particularly the more repetitive or physically demanding work.

Leonard (2004) reports that in the past two centuries, Irish society “has placed a great deal of emphasis on women’s role as mothers, “ with the 1937 Irish Constitution specifically referencing “the special contribution to Irish society of women ‘within the home’” (74). Cooke (2004) uses the German SocioEconomic Panel to explore the division of domestic labour in Germany, finding “East German men report that they contribute a significantly greater percentage of household time than West German men” (1251). Also of note in the German study, men’s increased share of housework also increases the likelihood of divorce in childless couples, leading Cooke (2004) to conclude that within German society “childless couples with fewer gendered family roles (given the absence of mother and father roles) are more stable when they have more traditional gendered displays in the remaining domestic areas.

Using data from the International Social Justice Project previously mentioned, Davis and Greenstein (2004) found support for bargaining power models in the United States, which had the greatest equality of distribution of household labour of any of the Western nations studied. US households were much more influenced by the wife’s participation in the workforce, with husbands performing at least half the housework twice as often in dual-earner families than in families where only the husband was employed outside the home. The wife’s income level had little effect on divisio

INTRODUCTION

The society is made of numerous individuals who need to co-ordinate their activities so as to ensure a harmonious co-existence for the benefit of each other. We are dependent on others and require a certain degree of co-ordination to ensure the stability of any organization. [1] Production takes place due to the synchronization of the efforts of humans with nature and other humans. The concept of ‘Division of Labour’ flows from this notion. Division of labour can be defined as a method or approach adopted for the completion of a complex task by dividing it into simpler tasks assigned to certain specific individuals, classes, ages, groups etc. [2] This is done for optimizing the resources, increasing productivity and income. It is a kind of virtuous circle, [3] a reciprocatory exchange [4] which increases the wealth-creating capacity of society. [5]

A division of labour by gender within both paid and unpaid work and between them exists in almost all societies, although the nature of the specialized work done by women and men differs substantially by place, time, and in some cases, over the life cycle. Adam Smith’s concept of dividing labour to enhance production in his famous book ‘Wealth of Nations’ is rooted in the economy of the society and is purely an economic concept. The fact that co-ordination or interdependence between members, groups or classes creates a social connection, relating one to another in the society affects the twin structures of society and economy.

It is no denying that the primary aim of using such a method is increasing economic growth but, since people contribute to this growth also, when such a growth affects the society at large, it falls within the realm of sociology and sociological problems. Since division of labour is central to the functioning of such a concept in reality, it is important to understand the basis for such a division or specialization. The basis of such a classification can be age, skill, area, class, gender etc.

This project would essentially deal with gender as the reason for such a division in labour. Such divisions are not new and have been in practice in the society for thousands of years. Society has had and will have certain set notions of what is appropriate work for men and women. [6]

With progress and development such classifications have witnessed change in the society and found expression in the law, but there is a prevalence of prejudice, discrimination and unfair treatment seen in an entire class. The present level of participation of women, their status of employment is pitiful. Esther Boserup [7] emphasizes that the division of labour within the family is assigned by age and sex, and this distribution varies across regions and cultures.

This project tries to understand the concept of gender division of labour, its effect on the society. The present rate of participation of women in India in various labour markets, reasons for the degree of participation, the influence of such unfair division on the law that governs the country. Certain important cases that have benefited women or disadvantaged them also certain remedial measures for greater participation of the supposedly ‘weaker sex’ have also been discussed. In doing so there is equal importance attached to the social and the legal facets of the theory.

2. GENDER DIVISION OF LABOUR IN FEMINIST ECONOMIC SENSE

Gender division of labour, also known as sexual division of labour, refers to the way that people are divided according to what is appropriate work for men and women. [8] The gender division of labour is derived from social perceptions about what is ‘natural’ for a particular sex to do as an occupation. Naturally, such divisions are bound to a particular society such as the gendered division of labour can be seen in the primacy of women engaged in informal employment, and caring for children, or in the numbers of men who sit on the boards of the world’s largest corporations.

In the early days only 50% of white women were employed. 80%-90% of waitering, housekeeping and nursing, and over 50% of music instructors were women. [9] Feminist economics essentially tries to enhance economic analysis by simply removing the science of its unwarranted male biases [10] . Thus its function is two fold, firstly that of countering untruths and secondly to produce truer accounts of data to balance the unfair social relations [11] . This definition is particularly important as it provides a definite context in case of gender division of labour.

Thus, an approach in feminist economic sense adopted to study the concept by enabling justifiable information regarding the power differences between women and men, to understand the influence of such constraints in labour markets, to try and expel certain myths relating to the capacity of women to work and thereby modify social relations between men and women.

2.1 Statement of Problem – Past and the Present

Traditionally, it was never considered appropriate for women to work outside of their homes for wages. One may talk of the society’s progress and development but there has been a disheartening improvement or change of attitude when it comes to women and their right to equal opportunities to work in urban or rural areas. There is a close nexus between the present state of employment of women and the status occupied by them in the past. It is a matter of fact that at the present day, women are exploring working opportunities beyond those of home-based wage work, temporary or part time work [12] , but due to the hostile attitude that the society adopts towards working women, they are forced to do work that is menial as well poorly paid with inhuman conditions of work. Thus, the future is quite debilitated by the conditions and practices of today which is a direct result of the past discriminatory practices and behaviour towards women who aspire to work and be economically independent.

The kind of work that is most likely to be offered to women who enter the labour market could be classified as jobs which are temporary in nature or suffer from a short shelf life, like the construction jobs which are on a contract basis, thereby creating an income that is unstable or irregular. Due to the weak bargaining power of women in the labour market as compared to that of men, working conditions are non-negotiable and are solely dictated by the employers who have no concern for their social or monetary security. Also these jobs are not covered by the labour legislations and at the same time have no familial or societal support. [13] The tragic result is that women are exploited both at work and at home with little or no economic or legal protection.

Essentially the concept of employment encompasses within itself two important elements, that of income and work. Looking at the first aspect, women have forever been accorded the status of a ‘home maker’, more plainly they have been assigned the role of wife and mother [14] , which has no economic benefits attached to it. The reason for this is that there have been water tight compartments for the work that can be done by a man and that which must be done by a woman. Such categorization is based on the notion that women are capable of doing work which is primarily related to the concept of nurturance i.e. to take care, be affectionate and loving which apparently cannot be measured by its monetary value. The other jobs that are taken by women can vary from that of construction work, politics, administration, media etc. Focusing on the unorganized sector which consists of small workshops and petty production which is labour-intensive [15] , we can infer that there is a stark disparity between the incomes of men and women doing the same work.

In India women’s labour force participation rates are comparatively low and according to 1991 census 22.69 % women are in the labour force (organized and unorganized sector) as against 51.52% men. [16]

2.2 Reasons Attributed for the Poor Participation of Female Labour

Economic and Socio-Cultural factors determine the level of female participation especially in an agrarian economy like India [17] . One of the most obvious and important causes for the current level of participation of women in the labour market would be poverty. “Economic status of a household is an important factor that affects the female participation in the economic activity.” [18] If the economic backing of a household is meager or insufficient, the women are forced to seek employment to meet the family needs. [19] Thus the economic deprivation [20] pressures them to accept hazardous jobs, which have long working hours, low pay and no security. An extension to the argument is that when the economic status of the household is sound, then the need for women to work and be economically independent as against relying on the earnings of men are not felt and therefore there is absence of the need to encourage women to work.

The cultural tradition of female seclusion is a major restricting factor on women’s labour force participation. [21] Attitudes of the society changes from one geographical region to another, thus the cultural attitude towards women working naturally affects the status and position given to them. Thus in a region where outdoor participation of women is vehemently discouraged, there is a shockingly low rate of contribution such as in the states of Sikkim and Punjab the participation of women in the former is 52.74% and in the latter an insignificant 6.78%. In reality the wife or mother has to undertake the entire burden of household responsibilities more often than not single handedly. It is only human that her efforts would not be diverted to contributing to production outside the home.

Dr. Radhakrishnan had once observed that by educating a man we educate only one person but while educating a woman we educate an entire family [22] . But the problem lies in the fact that despite innumerable initiatives the literacy rate among women is miserable. In rural India, if we were to study the distribution of female labour force by education the percentage of female labourers who are illiterate is 88.10 and a mere 1.21 percent have passed secondary. The situation is not very different in urban areas as well where there happen to be 58.71 percent who are illiterate and only 17.68 percent who have passed secondary. [23] There is need for technical knowledge in the organized sector, and the lack of education or limited educational qualifications would only lead to the complete sidelining of women in those fields. Apart from the fact that work done by women is marginalized and undervalued in the society it is also underpaid.

According to the Tsuchigane and Dodge [24] index of discrimination, sex discrimination in employment consists of three categories – income, occupational and participation discrimination. [25] So long as women earn less than men for the same work, income discrimination exists. If women primarily are inducted into low paying jobs than in high paying jobs, occupational segregation or occupational discrimination exists. Since the rate of participation of women is much lesser than that of men, participation discrimination exists.

Thus, one can safely infer from the above mentioned causes and conditions of women with respect to work, that the biased division of labour on the basis of gender is a social reality which affects the lives of a large section of the society.

3. GENDER DIVISION OF LABOUR AND ITS EXPRESSION IN THE LAW
3.1 Constitutional Provisions

The framers of the Constitution while drafting the Constitution did realize the need for a society where gender equality prevails. There are various articles in the Constitution of India which aim at achieving an egalitarian society, though the actual implementation is a distinct matter that quite nullifies the aim of the framers. The related provisions can further be divided into rights that are enforceable and objectives which direct the State in its governance. The rights mentioned in the Constitution are as follows:

Article 14

Article 14 or the Right to Equality ensures that the State shall not deny to any person equality or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. In essence equals would be treated equally and unequal unequally. The principle of gender equality is ingrained in this all Article. [26] Thus, equal pay for the equal work done by either male or female employees has to be remunerated equally. In the case of Uttrakhand Mahila Kalyan Parishad and Others v. State of U.P. [27] the Supreme Court held that under the constitutional arrangement, there can be no situation entertained whereby, there is differential treatment meted out to male and female employee’s in the educational department when they are doing the same job; also there can be no rational explanation given to the preferential treatment given to male employees when promotional avenues are allocated. The Court directed the State to create equal pay scales.

Article 15 (1), 15(3)

Article 15 states that there shall not be any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of only religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. While Article 14 ensures equality to everyone, Article 15 concerns itself with citizens alone. But Article 15 (1) does not prohibit the State from making any special provision for women and children as per clause 3 of Article 15. There have been a host of cases that do not get reported, where discrimination was done solely on the basis of gender. In most of such cases the action of the State was violative of Article 15 and was asked to be struck down. An appropriate example would be the case of Omana Oomen v. Fact Ltd [28] , the petitioners, who were post-graduates in Chemistry were selected as attendant operators in a chemical plant to undergo training. The male trainees were also simultaneously appointed, some of whom left the training. The remaining male employees were absorbed as technicians before the completion of the training period, on the basis of an internal examination. The Kerala High Court held that the denial of opportunity to the female employees merely due to their sex is in contravention to Article 15 and therefore struck down the unfavourable recruitment.

Article 16 (1), (2), (4)

This is by far the most important provision with respect to this project since it talks of rights of employment of the people. Article 16(1) ensures that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause 2 explains that no citizen shall be discriminated in respect to any employment or office under the State on grounds of sex, religion, place of birth etc. Clause 4 also states that there can be positive provisions made by the State to accommodate the interests of the weaker sections of the society. Therefore, this Article does not create a right to employment but the right to equal treatment in State employment. In the case of State of Kerala v. K. Kunihipacky [29] , the promotion of a female teacher had been questioned by the male professor who claimed he was more senior in experience. Despite the fact that the college was a women’s college, the Court directed the Government to reconsider the promotion stating that once an appointment has been made, seniority must be given preference. Such a decision by the Court was much criticized simply because the Court appeared to have upheld convention, the existing social preferences and thereby discrimination. The judiciary cannot choose professional qualifications and efficiency at its convenience. If the same claim would have been made by a female teacher, the entire case would suddenly seem different.

Article 39

Apart from other things, it embodies three important directives for the State with regard to wage and employment policies in India. It states that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. It guarantees equal pay for equal work for both men and women and the health and safety of the employees.

3.2 Labour Legislations

The labour legislation for women in India is rooted in the Indian Constitution and is guided by the International Labour Organisation conventions such as the convention on Discrimination (employment and occupation), workers with family responsibility and the convention on equal remuneration. [30] The basic objective is to prevent the exploitation of women.

The present Director-General of the International Labour Organization, Juan Somavia stated that, “the primary goal of the ILO today is to promote opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work together, in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity.” [31] In working towards this goal, the organization in its conventions seeks to promote employment creation, strengthen fundamental principles and rights at work – worker’s rights, improve social protection, and promote social dialogue as well as provide relevant information, training and technical assistance [32] .

At present, the ILO’s work is organized into four sectors or groups: (1) Standards and fundamental principles and rights at work; (2) Employment; (3) Social Protection; and (4) Social Dialogue. The labour legislations can be divided into three categories.

Firstly, there are those legislations that have been drafted exclusively for women such as the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 or the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.

Secondly, the Acts that is sex-neutral [33] but contain certain special provisions for women, for example the Factories Act of 1948, the Plantation Labour (Amendment) Act, 1981 and The Mines Act of 1952.

The third and the final category are legislations which are neither meant especially for women nor do they have any clauses in them for women. Examples of these would be the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Contract Labour Act 1972 and the Beedi and Cigar workers Act, 1966.

All these legislations make claims to achieve gender equality and put women at the same level as men, but there are inherent flaws in them which defeat their original purpose. The most obvious example of this would be the:

Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

This Act provides for prevention of discrimination on the ground of sex by ensuring their contributions are valued equally. Section 2(h) of the Act defines the term work of either being ‘same’ or ‘of similar nature’. This is the deciding factor for the successful pursuit of the claim to equal wages. According to this there have been certain views made whereby a lower grade women employee gets paid lesser. In the field of agriculture there are certain women specific tasks and these get termed as ‘light work’ which naturally gets paid a lower amount of remuneration. In essence the law first makes certain categories of work knowingly that those in the lower rung would mostly be performed by women.

A landmark judgment under this controversial provision that highlights the weakness of the clause ‘equal pay’ for ‘same or similar work’ was the case of Air India v. Nargish Meerza [34] . The air hostesses of Air India claimed that they were being discriminated against assistant flight pursers who did the same kind of work on the flight. But these men had better service conditions for retirement, better recruitment facilities etc. The air hostesses complained that the practices were in contravention to the Equal Remuneration Act. Sadly the Supreme Court, the apex body which claims to administer justice while granting some marginal concessions like raising the age of retirement for the air hostesses and few pregnancy related issues, upheld other discriminatory conditions of service.

4. CONCLUSION

After having understood the importance of the theory of division of labour and its expression in the law, the researcher feels that there is a low female participation rate in the country. The orthodox attitude of the society towards women is the primary cause for such pathetic levels of participation. Married women are forced to stay at home, the set notions of ‘women’s work’ is narrowly defined and does not have any monetary value.

It is essential to realize that women’s economic empowerment is absolutely essential for raising their status in society since the two concepts that of women empowerment and economic independence are so closely interwoven. When work done by women is uncounted for, it is unpaid. [35] When the society thinks and undervalues her work she has no option but to bow down to the pressures. Sometimes due to economic hardships she is forced to work. Factors such as job-security, working conditions etc are not given any importance. Though the law has certain provisions to ensure safety from exploitation, women in the unorganized sector are regularly denied their salaries, sexually harassed, improperly laid off etc.

In conclusion the researcher has some suggestions that could possibly increase the level of participation of women. Firstly, society must respect women and the fact that they can work. Every woman must get paid wages for the work she does. If she chooses to do the same work as fellow men, then she must get paid equally. Due consideration must be given to the already existing status of women and therefore there must be special accommodations to induce more and more women to work, pregnancy leave being a suitable example.

This paper provides a review on ‘Review Paper: Erikson, R (2005) why emotion work matters: Gender and the division of household labour’. The paper is examined in the light of recent academic discussions about the social scientific problems that emotions pose when examined in specific context. Erikson explains why biological sex remains the primary predictor of behavioural emotional patterns between men and women. Empirical research was conducted over 335 men and women sample base.

Erikson considers that socio-emotional behaviour has been an essential characteristic of married life since the mid twentieth century. Furthermore, those women have had the bulk of the burden of performing the household work even when working full-time and looking after the family. This relationship between household labour allocations has helped in identifying gender identity. Despite advances in social science theory it is considered that little research has been accomplished in understanding the emotional behaviour in the gender division of household labour. Erikson put forward the view that ‘the division of household labour varies according to culturally based contradictions of gender’ (Erikson 2005)

Recent research in the area of stress has demonstrated different emotional responses from the parents. Particular focus has been placed upon the emotions of depression and anxiety. Anger is considered to be a highly social emotion and can manifest itself between those individuals who do not have enough personal space or share limited resources. As the division of household labour is mostly unequal i.e. the women perform most of the household duties and look after the children; women as such are more prone to emotions of frustration and anger. This in turn can lead towards depression where there is a feeling of injustice, lack of support and a sense of isolation. The emotions increase where the male partner does not assume an equitable share of the burden of responsibility. (Jan E. Stets 2007)

Socioemotional behaviour in marriage

Erikson pointed out that the duties of women, in performing household tasks and looking after the children, was historically looked at as a female obligation in looking after and loving their husbands. It was Daniels in 1987 that made the first claim that women were not recognized for these additional duties and performance of domestic chores and as such reduced both their status in society and sense of personal identity. This in turn leads to invalidation of the female contribution and perpetuates the concept of gender inequality.

Erikson stated that ‘the idea that husbands and wives may have to work at caring and intimacy, contradicts what many believe about love and marriage’. The concept of expressing empathy, caring and listening to another’s point of view represents emotional response of the greatest magnitude. The relationships between spouses behaviour is a complex one. This is particularly so in the formative years of marital partnerships. The husband’s socio-emotive behaviour has a powerful impact on the working of a marital relationship. Research has indicated that a negative response from the husband produces dissatisfaction from the wife; this in turn increases the negativity of the husband and creates a sort of vicious circle. Hence early in the marriage the emotional behavioural characteristics of each partner have to be re-examined in order to sustain a longer term marital relationship. Very often the marital well-being of wives was linked to the wives understanding of their husbands. (Hinde 1997)

ALLOCATION OF FAMILY WORK

Although historically the female has remained the primary allocator of family work performance; reflecting the way in which the tasks are allocated and the conceptualisation of self-identity. Times are changing and a far more relative resource model is becoming adopted. This looking much more towards satisfaction of economic conditions. The spouse who brings more resources to the marital relationship has increased bargaining power and as such is able to ‘buy out’ of the marital household responsibilities. As women are now taking on more influential and dominant roles at work this no longer always skews in the favour of the male. Hence more people who are performing external paid work roles have less time to spend on domestic chores. Recent studies have shown that women tend to have greater resilience than men and continue to perform the majority of the household tasks. In some regards this empowers women feeling a greater sense of responsibility towards their family.

Erikson commented that those ‘Researchers using gender construction theory propose that the gendered allocation of household labour persists because it signals the extent to which husbands and wives have constructed gender appropriately..’ (Erikson 2005). Construction theory really examines gender in terms of social relations and not as the characteristics of individuals. As such it does not rest upon a stable biological platform but rather produced through social construction. Gender construction is therefore built into every aspect of social life in society i.e. family, politics, religion etc. This generates certain expectations in both male and female roles; this in turn has created role reversals that have reflected a change of values in society. (Potuchek 1997)

MALE DOMINANCE IN GENDER RELATIONS – WOMEN IN RESEARCH

Within the general claims to male dominance in social theory, three challenges have emerged (i) the criticism against that of female knowledge and its’ inability to demonstrate adequate work that illustrates scientific or unbiased knowledge. This resulted in feminists coming under scrutiny in order to demonstrate abilities to rationalise knowledge, perform verification, subjectivity and freedom from political bias. Secondly, how different influences shaped women’s lives. Examples cited included that of “cultural divisions, social divisions and power relations” (Caroline RamazanoClu 2002). The danger here is one of stereotyping and simply branding women as one gender that provides a uniform result. The third challenge intertwines that of knowledge and gender whereby in essence women are taken for granted. Since 1993 this has caused feminists to re-evaluate the position and rewrite much of the subject matter.

In 1993 Sandra Harding provided insight into the difference between that of Method, Methodology and Epistemology. She equated Epistemology to that of a theory of knowledge with the objective of answering specific questions. Further, that there are two distinct epistemologies namely that of a ‘Feminist empiricism’ and a ‘Feminist Standpoint’. The empirical part is that where a response is provided to bias and traditional responses. Whereas, standpoint refers to a specific feminist opinion founded upon an explanation of knowledge. In order to understand and complete a feminist standpoint the reader needs to become more involved with the “intellectual and political struggles that a women’s experience is built upon.” (Stanley 1990).

Historically the most common expression of female action has been associated with that of liberation and the emancipation of women. This has ranged from the concept of radical insistence, to clarifying the purpose of research and ultimately to transformation in terms of political action. It was Maria Mies that proposed feminist research should be consistent with the overall political goals and aspirations of women. Hence, there needs to be a full integration of social and political; action appropriate to the emancipation of women. (Mary Margaret Fonow 1991).

MODERN REFLECTIONS ON MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS

Marriage is considered a social contract, primarily because the issues that are involved extend beyond the concerns of purely the particular individuals. The children of the married couples are the future generations of which the whole society depends. In essence, the termination of the marriage contract is either a legal consideration or by death. In more modern marriages parties often seek legal contract terms that protect their financial assets i.e. in the event of separation or divorce. These are often referred to as ‘premarital or prenuptial agreements’. This type of arrangement is it’s often more common amongst wealthy or affluent couples, and second marriages. (Sheridan, 2010)

Modern society poses numerous challenges upon a successful marriage. One of the most demanding is that of financial hardship. That might be brought on by a job loss or physical illness, leaving one’s spouse to cope with the problem. This is often the situation where marital communications breakdown, when in fact it is the most important time for working as a team and communicating with one another. Another important issue is the loss of self-image, where either weight gain or loss occurs. [The concept of obesity or anorexic] this can lead to bouts of depression and subsequent illness. Another factor is dealing with family relationships, and this is particularly trying in new marriages. The concept of dealing with intervention and demands by in-laws, and having to deal with expectations that posed a strain on the marriage. The concept of long-term illness, disability or major illness can impose a tremendous strain on the spouse who is working and equally having to look after their partner. (Long, 2007)

CONCLUSIONS

In general terms the challenges in marriage relate to living and existing. The most import and aspect on survival in marriage is the ability to work as a team and communicate with one another. In this way, you’re able to support one another and cope with most situations. There is also the concept of trust and care between partners and betrayal of such can be very hard to recover.

1555

Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar and came into being on November 15, 2000. The new state Jharkhand stands for – the land of forest, the name given to the forest highland of Chotanagpur plateau. The land comprises eastern corner of Vindhya mountain series and has distinct cultural identity and abundant natural resources. The state also envelops significant social and political history in its lap. Jharkhand is a medium-sized state in terms of population. The state has three distinct geographical and cultural regions namely- Chotanagpur, Santhal Pargana, Singhbhum.

According to 2001 census the total population of the state is 2.69 crore, with an average annual exponential growth rate of 2.1%. About 28% of the state population is tribal and 12% belongs to schedule caste. At the beginning of the century 60% of the total population of the region was tribal. Jharkhand is possibly India’s richest state in mineral resources. The state is quite rich in natural resources including forest that cover about 30% of the total land area. Jharkhand has the potential to develop as the most financially viable State in the whole country owing to its mineral-based resources and the available industrial infrastructure. The estimated rural population is 2,09,22,731 i.e. about 77.75% and urban population is 59,86,697 i.e. 22.25%. Thus, the state continues to be predominantly rural. Population density per sq. km is 338. The state’s economy is poorly developed, irrigation network is poor and therefore drought is a periodic threat. The state of Jharkhand has an area of 79,714 sq. km. and a population of 26.9 million. There are 24 districts, 211 blocks and 32615 villages.

Gender inequity is a major human right concern in India. It cuts across all other forms of discrimination and represents an added bias denying women the freedom to choose the means for their development and growth. Despite Government’s increasing concern and endeavour to promote gender equity, the disparities have grown vast and a resulting outcome in the poor socio-economic condition of women. In the context of Jharkhand there exists a major difference in the child sex ratio and life expectancy at birth of the state. An analysis of the census data also reflects the fact that the mortality rates are higher which is indicative of poor health services available to the masses in general.

Social status of Jharkhand women like any other community of India is realized on the traditional patriarchal form which since ages has succeeded in having a control over different areas of women lives. Their role is exclusively defined in terms of household management and matrimonial duties. They are subjected to expectation that they replenish the race by bearing children. For majority of them, life itself has been a long hurdle race, both within and outside the family. Women in Jharkhand are not very different from women elsewhere in the country in terms of discrimination and disadvantages. There are a number of common characteristics, which the women of Jharkhand share with their counterparts, mainly their level of literacy and education, doing unpaid work, low participation in the work force, very little property rights and even discrimination within the family. The Gender Profile for the state of Jharkhand is aimed at presenting a holistic picture of the socio economic condition of the women in this tribal state. It is an attempt to bring into focus various issues affecting the lives of women, their social standing, their economic condition and the inhibiting factors.

In this section, the status of women in the state of Jharkhand is assessed based on a selected set of gender development indicators. The variables considered for the analysis are indicative of demographic, educational, health-related, socio-cultural and economic status of women.

Sex Ratio

The sex ratio of the state is 941. Comparatively better sex ratio has been in the district of Koderma where sex ratio has been registered as 1001. The sex ratio is declining in an alarming rate. But the sex ratio among tribals is higher as compared to general population. The rural area’s sex ratio is better than in the urban areas. The sex ratio is tilted in favour of men perhaps due to poor health and nutritional status of women, lack of awareness, low social/economic status rural to urban male migration due to economic motive.

Figure 1.1: Sex ratio comparison between Jharkhand & India

Source: Census of India 2001

Infant Mortality Rate

The state ranks 8th in Infant Mortality and 14th in child mortality ranked 14th according to NFHS 2. Jharkhand shows high infant and child (under 5) mortality, which is strongly associated with high fertility of women and specifically frequent pregnancy. There are substantial variations in the infant and child mortality locationally. Children born to women of rural low income, illiterate adolescent mother are at a disadvantage than the privileged one.

During the five years preceding the survey, the infant mortality rate was 54 (deaths of infants per 1,000 live births), much lower than the infant mortality rate of 78 in Bihar. The child mortality rate in Jharkhand was 25.In all, among 1,000 children born, 78 die before reaching age five. 1 in 19 children die in the first year of life, and 1 in 13 die before reaching age five.

Fertility Rates

Total fertility rate (for the past 3 years): 2.76

Mean number of children ever born to women 40-49: 4.83

Median age at first birth among women age 20-49: 19.0

Percent of births of order 3 and above 53: 7

Mean ideal number of children 4: 3.1

Percent of women with 2 living children wanting another child: 48.4

At current fertility levels, NFHS-2 estimated that women in Jharkhand will have an average of 2.8 children each throughout their childbearing years. One-quarter of births in both Jharkhand and Bihar take place within 24 months of the previous birth. Efforts to lower fertility might usefully focus on groups within the population that have higher fertility than average. In Jharkhand, illiterate women, women from households with a low or medium standard of living, women from scheduled castes or other backward classes (OBC), and Muslim women have much higher fertility than other women. A more striking feature is the substantial level of childbearing among young women. The median age at first childbirth is 19 years, which is the same as in Bihar. Women age 15-19 account for 17 percent of total fertility. Family planning programmes focusing on women in this age group could make a significant impact on maternal and child health as well as reducing overall fertility in the state.

Maternal Health

Reproductive health of women is another matter of concern, which impacts their condition. Her role of replenishing the race by child bearing puts her health at risk.

43.1 % of tribal women did not receive any antenatal check-up.

38.7 % did not receive tetanus toxoid injections.

Only 48.6% were given iron and folic acid tablets.

90.2% of tribal pregnant women delivered at home.

65.7% of all deliveries were attended by traditional birth attendants

Haemorrhage and Anaemia together constitute almost 50% of maternal mortality cases and are of serious health concern. Particularly in the state of Jharkhand anaemia is of serious concern due to poor food intake and absence of dietary diversification. Dependence on seasonal cropping pattern and inadequate food intake by women especially during pregnancy causes anaemia and it is a major concern in this tribal state.

Table 1.1: Anaemia in Jharkhand
Malnutrition

Based on international standards, 54 percent of children under age three years are underweight, 49 percent are stunted, and 25 percent are wasted. In Bihar, the percentages of underweight, stunted, and wasted children are 54, 55 and 20, respectively. In Jharkhand, under-nutrition is higher in rural areas than in urban areas and is particularly high among children from disadvantaged socioeconomic groups such as children from schedule tribes, children of less educated mothers, and children from households with a low standard of living. The percentage of underweight children is about the same for girls as for boys, but girls are somewhat more likely to be stunted while boys are somewhat more likely to be wasted. More than four out of five children age 6.35 months are anaemic, including a large majority of children in every subgroup of the population.

AIDS/HIV

Although the spread of HIV/AIDS is a major concern in India, nearly 9 out of 10 women in Jharkhand (85 percent) have not heard of AIDS, compared with 60 percent for India as a whole. In fact, knowledge of AIDS is lower in Jharkhand than in any other state except Bihar. Awareness of AIDS is particularly low among women in rural areas and among women who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Among women who have heard of AIDS, 83 percent received information about the disease from television and 49 percent from radio. Among women who have heard of AIDS, however, one-half (49 percent) do not know of any way to avoid infection.

Education

Education is one of the important factors that influences the health status is education (especially women education). Education is one of the important factors for the growth and development of the country. It has been observed that education to some extent compensates the effects of poverty on health irrespective of the availability of the health facilities. Moreover, In India, conspicuous gender disparities exist in education, especially with regard to enrolment at the primary, upper-primary and higher levels of school education. From the preliminary field survey it is observed that literacy rate especially among women is very poor in the surveyed areas. Social attitudes, poor access to school, and family-oriented roles and responsibilities of the females are responsible for this disparity.

Table 1.2: Literacy Rates
Literacy rates as per 2001 census

Rank

Persons

Male literacy rate

State

Literacy rate

34

Jharkhand

53.56

63.83

Source: 2001 Census

Jharkhand along with Bihar has the lowest female literacy rate of 39.98 %. More males are literate than women (67.94% compared with 39.38%). Variation in literacy of male and female is evident. Girls are still deprived of primary education, due to several factors such as inaccessibility of primary education, household duties, early marriage, early child bearing, gender bias associated drudgery, other socio-cultural factors such as parents perception, that education is more beneficial for sons. A large proportion of school age girls remain outside the school system due to important factors explained largely by low access of females to education system in the traditional value system play a greater premium on male than the female. Since resources are scarce, parents decide to send male children to school in preference to female. Acute poverty has proved to be a barrier to girl’s education.

Table 1.3: Literacy rate of women
Female Literacy and Gender Gaps

Literacy is the first step towards formal education. It refers to the ability to read and write. Female literacy has been improving over the years. The proportion of women who are literate has increased by 15 per cent over the last decade from 39 per cent in 1991 to 54 per cent in 2001. Jharkhand remain one of the worst states in terms of women’s literacy, despite some improvements over the decade. While the low literacy rate may be explained by a range of factors such as non-availability of schools, teachers, equipment and infrastructure, which affect both sexes, it is social attitudes and perceptions that attach lower preference to girls.

Table 1.4: No. & percentage of Literates

Particulars

No. of literates

% of literates

Male

7,759,966

67.94%

Female

4,291,211

39.38%

Total

11,970,177

54.03%

Source: Survey data/District reports
Table 1.5: Educational Profile in the context of gender

Total population of boys (6-14 age group)

29,23,544

Total population of girls (6-14 age group)

27,57,304

Total Boys Enrolment (6-14) in Govt and aided schools

19,96,156

Total Girls Enrolment (6-14) in Govt and aided schools

15,95,947

Total Boys Enrolment (6-11) in EGS centre

3,04,494

Total Girls Enrolment (6-14) in EGS centre

2,90,271

Index of gender equity (State average)

91.51

Source: Survey data/District reports
Female Work Participation Rate and the Gender Gap in participation

Women are still at the lower end of the labour market in pay and authority. They typically occupy lower-paid and lower status jobs. Women’s unemployment rate is higher than that of men and far more women than men work in the informal sector. In organized sector the number of women is significantly small even if they have the benefit of education and skills. The total % of workers (main and marginal) is 37.64% where the representation of women being 26.40% and that of males being 48.21%.These figures indicate a comparatively lower work participation of women with regard to men.

The female work participation rate (FWPR) is measured by calculating the proportion of female main plus marginal workers among the female population. Standard definitions of economic activity indicate low rates of FWPR. At the all-India level, only 30 per cent of women are defined as workers, main or marginal. Jharkhand occupies 14th position in FWPR with a score of 35.1 and 11th rank in Gender gap in participation with a score of 30.1 among 28 states. This shows that there is a medium level of women’s labour participation in community-based organisation of subsistence production as the values are close to the Indian average. Only 31.7% of the women have been employed in any form in past 12 months. More than 90% of this employment has been in the unorganized sector mainly comprising of agriculture and daily wages.

Table 1.6: Statistics on working status of women
Source : Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2128,dated on 08.12.2009.
Table 1.7: Average Daily Earnings
Average Daily Earnings of Men, Women and Children belonging to
Rural Labour Households in Agricultural Occupations
(Other Backward Classes) in Jharkhand
(1999-2000 and 2004-2005)
(In Rs.)
State
Men
Women
Children
1999-
2004-05 (P)
1999-
2004-05 (P)
1999-
2004-05 (P)
2000
Total
Cash
Kind
2000
Total
Cash
Kind
2000
Total
Cash

Jharkhand

34.61

41.48

35.97

5.51

30.82

34.77

30.87

3.9

34.4

11.57

7.08

India
40.93
49.64
44.03
5.61
28.42
33.63
29.7
3.93
22.72
31.7
29.19
Source : Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2128,dated on 08.12.2009.

7.1% of seats are held by women in Parliament as per the data of Ministry of Panchayati raj, 2008. 34.8% of women in the age group of 15-49 years have experienced physical or sexual violence in Jharkhand. Till now no assembly elections had taken place in the state.

Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM)

The GEM scores for India estimated by UNDP are a very low 0.228 (UNDP HDR 1998). Using the indicators listed above is more relevant for India and although it yields GEM scores that are more than double (0.497) of those estimated by UNDP, the values attained still reflect the existence of sharp disparities in gender empowerment. GEM scores are formed of three composite indices, Index of ‘Political Participation & Decision-making Power’ (PI), Index of ‘Economic Participation and Decision-making Power’ (EI) and Index of ‘Power over Economic Resources’ (PoERI). The state has a GEM index value of 0.435 in 2006 which rose from a value of 0.278 in 1996. Based on this it has been ranked 26 out of all states and union territories. The state achieved large gains on GEM scores by 0.132 and improved their ranks on GEM by 6 positions each over the decade.

Table 1.8: HDI, GDI and GEM Scores and Ranks for Jharkhand in 2006

Particulars

HDI Score

HDI Rank

GDI Score

GDI Rank

GEM Score

GEM Rank

Jharkhand

0.574

29

0.558

29

0.535

26

India

0.605

–

0.590

–

0.497

–
Source: wcd.nic.in
Violence against women

Marital cruelty, dowry murders, child abuse, incest and battering are some of the common forms of violence that women face in the family. The community metes out rape, sexual harassment, eve-teasing, trafficking and sexual discrimination to the women. Custodial violence and institutional deprivations are two forms of violence meted out by the state.

Witchcraft: – In the tribal belt of Jharkhand the incidence of witchcraft is very common. In a majority of the cases, it is found the real motive of the killers was to grab property or to settle personal scores with the victim family. In order to garner support for their nefarious activities, villagers particularly influential people brand female member of a particular family as a witch so that they could get the support of their co-villagers in hounding out or killing the victim’s family. The villagers believe that the women branded as witch are responsible for the illness, death and drought.

SECTION II

“Indigenous societies in India are showing an increasing tendency towards growing inequality in gender relations. This is more pronounced in societies that have integrated with mainstream Indian society.”

Women’s land rights have been on the policy agenda in India for at least the last 20 years. Yet not much has happened on the ground. Why have not women mobilised to claim rights to land? What have been the limits to collective action by women around land rights? Firstly, the socially embedded nature of land as a resource and the mutuality and interdependence between men and women in the productive use of land needs to be recognised. Consequently, more than gender identities, it is other cross-cutting identities of ethnicity, education, kinship relations and marital status that both motivate women to stake their claims to land as well as oppose the claims of other women and men. Secondly, women’s land claims seem to have a chance of becoming effective only if they have some male support, hence rather than aligning with other women, those who are serious in their claims seek to build alliances with men, particularly those able to influence the argument in their favour. Just as amongst women, there is considerable evidence to show that men also adopt different subject-positions depending on their own experience and context. Finally, by attempting to present women’s land claims as a gender issue, not only is it found that women are unwilling to mobilise around this issue, but there is also an enhanced resistance from men.

Women without independent resources are highly vulnerable to poverty and destitution in case of desertion, divorce, or widowhood. Women’s access to even a small plot can be a critical element in a diversified livelihood system, and can significantly improve women’s and the family’s welfare, even if the plot is not large enough to provide full family subsistence. Endowing women with land would empower them economically as well as strengthen their ability to challenge social and political gender inequities.

Current Scenario in Jharkhand

The good traditional practices like Tabenjom which was practiced in past has now evaporated from the society. The traditional practices gave some benefits to married as well as unmarried women in behaviour but had no rights to the women but now due to changing factors these practices have vanished leaving women badly affected and turned to destitute Tribal women now demand for joint pattas in their husband’s property. At many places the last settlement was done in 1911, then in 1935 and lastly in 1964-65. Since then the settlement has not taken place but now groups demand for settlement in the name of both men and women.

Women are the most badly affected due to displacement, mining, migration and development leaving the women having no right over land and resource rights. Now women have been raising voices for their rights over land and resources.

Historical perspective

In Jharkhand, historically tribal society was a collective society residing in the proximity of woods and forest. They had their own periphery within which their social, cultural and political system ran smoothly. Men and women had equal responsibility towards the family and society and played equal roles.

The land was then into a collective system, where a territory was defined and the control over the territory by the village self governance system such as Manki Munda of Ho tribes, Majhi parha of santhal and Parha panchayats of Munda. Not only these but other tribes like Oraon, Birhor and Paharia have their own administrative system which was unique in nature. This was the oral tradition and was functional on certain believes and myths. The women enjoyed equal opportunity and played role of village head in the administrative system.

Through Permanent Settlement Act of 1793, tectonic changes were brought into this traditional administrative system by the British. This Act heavily undermined the traditions and customs of the tribal’s communities. It introduced fixed land revenue independent of local terrain and climatic conditions (contrary to the Mughal land revenue system); introduced Zamindars to collect it and “ghatwals” to maintain law and order. The peasant tribals were turned into tenant farmers and deprived of the land title including other rights and privileges enjoyed during the Mughal period.

But, on contrary Britishers introduce patta system or “Khatiyans” (land title deed) in Jharkhand. The communalism is replaces by individualism. Common property became private. Here, came the introduction of the strong patriarchy by writing the names of the male members in the patta or “Khatiyan”. The entry of the women name was restricted. This was more so done by the Britishers in order to create a dispute within the tribal family. This was the start of disintegration of the women in the traditional governance system. Now days there are hardly any women as village head.

The struggle for the land did not stop in the tribal belt. Migrants from the adjoining states treacherously usurped the local land by using the warm hospitality of the tribals to their advantage. The tribals had welcomed them as the guest but they were ignorant of their motives, consequently many lands were taken illegally by these migrants who came to settle in the new area. Some of the early migrants got land from the Zamindars.

The motives of the migrants were so intense that they lured the tribal girls to get married with them. Many tribals girls got married which had resulted in wide spread torture for land. This created anger among the tribal communities and strengthen them towards being more patriarch. Newly, infested thought just ignored the women entitlement to land. This also had its repercussions in the traditional system and participation of women in administrative system almost stopped. Though there were other factors for the loss of traditional system in tribal belt but presence of women became negligible. Even the traditional practice of “Tamenjom” in Santhal tribe where a daughter is given the share of family land, did not practiced in large. The tribal communities like Munda, Ho and Oraon totally ignored the right of women over the family land.

The role of the women was reduced to “care taker” of ancestral land but there was no entitlement with their names. The single unmarried women got the land of their father as the caretaker but not as owner. Similarly, the role of the widower became more prominent as caretaker until only her sons got through the land rights. Still today the practice is same and tribal women’s right to land is not in mindset of tribal men or even women.

There was lot of resistance from the tribal men when asked about giving land to women. This is more so because there have being much of struggle of land by the tribals in past and still it is present today. The term ‘Dikus” has being attached to all the invaders whether to be outsiders or multinational companies who are reaching to grab the tribal land for their profit. In such a situation how can tribal men think to give a share to women? This issue of land struggle of tribals with corporate or multinational companies was attached with women being betrayed through marriage for land in the past.

One thing that was ignorant from the past happening was that men were also being part in the loosing of land to outsiders which was never narrated in large. They through their easy going and wrong habits gave many lands to others. They even encourage having marrying a non tribals but they could not tolerate a tribal women marrying a non tribal.

The land for the urban tribal women also emerged from same history which restricted the share to daughter creating differences as land right to women does not exist for tribal girls. Even the property right to daughter by the Indian law did not fit to the traditional laws in tribal society.

The land reforms under the Forest Department had also resulted in loss of the tribal lands. Neither the recent Forest Right Act of 2006 was introduced properly at grass root. This Act was functional on in 2008 but there was no distribution of patta. This Act had benefited the women by joint names in patta in neighboring states like Orissa and Chattisgarh. Unfortunately, in Jharkhand it is still in the struggling phase to implement properly but joint names in patta is still a long way.

This was not at all in the mindset of tribal men that women are strong enough to deal with all situations. They have seen the women participating strongly for land struggle right from the colonial days to present day against the multinational companies. But, when comes land right to women they are silent and narrates traditional values and norms.

Some advocacy was done on right to land to women by many organization and activists but due to the reluctance by the tribal political leaders it did not worked. The other alternative are being worked such as introduction of names of the wives in the “Khatian” (land deed) but still the organization and activists are struggling in this matter.

There are changing patterns in the tribal society were the acceptance of the daughter are getting reduce this will more so weakens the right to land to women. Hence, mass awareness is needed among the tribal society starting from the traditional groups to urban habitats. Only then can right to land for tribal women be accepted.

Factors influencing gender differentiated land rights

The lack of enforcement of land laws and regulations hampers women’s rights to land.

The land holdings of both spouses are summed together for the purposes of land ceilings. In case of surplus, officers have considerable discretion in deciding the area to be forfeited. This is usually done in consultation with the husband, and often leads to forfeiture of the wife’s land.

Although the wording of legislation is usually gender neutral as to allocation of forfeited land, land redistribution programmes mainly targeted male household heads as recipients.

Women are excluded from decision-making processes. Women do not attend meeting of gram panchayats because cultural and social factors such as female seclusion and low consideration of women’s ideas, hinder their meaningful participation in these local institutions.

Rural people and even more so rural women are often isolated from media sources and rely on information supplied by local officials and gram panchayat. However, officials are often not informed about changes in legislation or policies and, consequently, they might not provide people with the right information or the support needed to protect their interests.

Women often renounce to their statutory rights in favour of male family members due to the economic and social dependence on their kin. Furthermore, in some parts of the country, it is considered socially shameful for a woman to claim her rights before courts, vis-a-vis with her male family members. Unequal education status and restrictions on mobility further exacerbate the situation for women.

Women’s seclusion limits their mobility and participation in activities outside the home and knowledge of the physical environment, hampering their access to information on new agricultural technologies and practices, to purchasing inputs and selling the products.

Impact of land rights on women

Providing land to women will empower them economically and also strengthen their capability to tackle social and political gender discrimination.

Access to land has helped in getting credit and is likely to make a important difference to bargaining power within the home and community, enhanced their confidence level increasing will power, enabled them to bargain better deals in the wage labour market, facilitate their participation in decision making bodies, speak for their rights, giving property to their daughter, greater mobility and secure future.

Land entitlement with skills will make women to come out of the four walls of the house, confident that their land will not be misused by their husbands and it cannot be sold without their consent, minimize domestic violence, participate in decision making within the household for example, they can have the right to decide whether to sell the land or not.

Consequences of Denying Ho Women Their Rights in the Land

A much larger proportion of Ho women remain unmarried than is the case for women in other non-tribal communities-in order not to lose their rights in their parental land. As wives, their rights in the land are much less secure as they may be abandoned, forced or otherwise forced to leave the marital home without being assured of maintenance.

In the tribal community, an unmarried or widowed woman exercising her usufructuary rights over land becomes very vulnerable the rapacity and landhunger of unscrupulous male relatives who think they can grab the land if they can only get her out of the way. Thus, she is often either forced to surrender her lifetime usufructuary right or she becomes a target of violent attacks of various kinds.

The loss of usufructuary rights of tribal women due to rape by dikus (outsiders; non-tribals) has been increasing as the tribal society becomes increasingly invaded by the outsiders and the immiserization of the tribal peasantry forces the tribals to seek outside employment in order to survive. Women constitute the bulk

After more than 30 years of equal opportunities legislation, how can we explain why inequalities between women and men persist in the labour market, both in the UK and elsewhere in the EU?

Each one of us has gender identity that influenced by biological and social factors. Gender difference caused kinds of other differences among social activities or family roles. In a labor market, the gender difference is presented as gender inequality where women and men are treated differently in their jobs. Those inequalities are showed in many different ways such as pay gap and the importance of the job allocated to women and men. Since women spent most of their time in childcare, men have to become the breadwinner in the family. Thirty years after the equal opportunities legislation has been implemented, inequality is still exist and worldwide validity. Legislations that developed in the UK and EU are already more inclusive than other developing countries but it is not as comprehensive as people expected. They are still on the process of developing new legislations such as current legislation of non-standard job. By looking back at the history, women are with high expectation in taking responsibility in family rather than in work. Myriad people believe women are less productive than men and that is why women and men are treated in two different ways. Many professionals suggest plenty other reasons that may explain this historical gender inequality. In order to provide a critical investigation, different reasons of gender inequality is still persist and some inequality examples will be analyzed in the rest of this essay.

To begin with, gender segregation has been found in almost every country and contains two different forms: horizontal segregation and vertical segregation. In terms of gender segregation in workplace, occupational gender segregation is known as the unequal distribution of men and women in their jobs. Horizontal segregation stand for the segregation of the work types that women and men dominated. For example, women are more likely to be a nurse by comparing to engineer and men are preferred to be in construction industry rather than to be a nursery maid. This kind of segregation involves the gender inequality that women are expected to be the person gives care and men are expected to be a breadwinner in the family with stable wages (Tomlinson 2010). Vertical segregation refers to the order or level of the job such as managerial position and staff. This type of segregation does not necessarily involve with inequality since it concerns more to the difference of status of occupations. Occupational gender segregation is simply means employers tending to offer different occupations to women and men. In the consideration of gender issue, gender segregation may be is the beginning of widening the difference between women and men in labour market. People believe women are more suitable in the kind of jobs that men are not supposed to participate in or vice versa.

Secondly, series of new legislation were introduced in the UK and EU aimed at creating a gender equality society for women in 1970s. The equal pay for equal work principle was clarified by developing series of directives that aims at ensuring equal treatment of men and women in the workplace. Key gender equality legislations in the UK are prohibiting discrimination in pay and employment based on sex which mentioned on Equal Pay Act 1970, Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Similarly, in EU, Article 119 Founding Treaty of Rome 1957, Equal Pay Directive prohibits unequal pay with equal work and Employment Protection Act 1978 concerns maternity leave in the EU (Tomlinson 2010). Rice (1999) pointed out that in most EU countries, court and tribunal are the main agent dealing with complaints and UK has a high awareness of equality issues since its legislation are predates the EU’s. After these new laws came into force, people are expecting considerable change in women’s lives. Based on the European Commission’s report concerns gender equal opportunity at 2002, more women get the chance to participate in decision making. According to Rodgers (1999), gender-related legislations focus on making armor for women to own their right and to be in a more neutral position. However, some may dispute whether those legislations are performed well and question how many achievements have been made after they came in force. Rubenstein (1996) argues that “whether the aim of the legislation is to treat women like men when they are like men, i.e. challenge inaccurate stereotypes and labels, or to revalue and accommodate gender difference. Thus the legislation as it stands does little to challenge the ‘male’ norm against which women are rated, or to bring pressure on male lifestyles.” As she stated the legislation may not sufficient to prohibit discrimination in gender inequality and therefore does not lead to an effective prohibition. In addition, Rubery et al., (2004) claims that legislation has been long contradictory and it is breakable. He thinks those gender-related legislation are implemented in the surface of trying to build an equal gender society. There is no clear dividing line of whether company obeys the legislation or not and the unequal situation barely changes. Bellamy et al., (2006) said the reason that gender inequality is persistent in Britain is because the inadequacy of protection that current equality legislation. Besides, although the participation rate of women in labour market is much higher than before, major inequality still remains in working conditions and the pay gap may be considered as the most distinct unequal between women and men in the UK. “Women working full time earn 17% less per hour than men, and women working part time 39% less per hour than men working full timeaˆ¦ Mothers of young children face the widest pay gap, earning on average just 67% of the male hourly wage. And despite the Labour Government’s focus on improving work-life balance for parents of young children, 30,000 pregnant women are still unlawfully dismissed from their jobs each year” (Bellamy & Cameron 2006). The evidence indicates that mothers still face inequality in terms of losing jobs even legislation is there for protection. However, women who do full-time jobs are getting more and more equal with men since they may have same level of education and occupation level . For women chose part-time jobs are paid in lower wages and lower occupation level. Gender discrimination has been found as the major contributor to the pay gap and ineffective gender equality legislation can be seen as one reason of this gap. Moreover, some arguments are raised about legislation itself on how it implement. Other than dealing with the causes of discrimination, the existing legislation concentrates too much on fixing the consequences of gender inequality. The idea that those legislations are patchy is widely known by people and their ineffectiveness is not only for individuals but also for organizations. Another support idea is all the legislations focus on how to improve women’s role in labour market but none of them mention what men need to do. For example, if both men and women highly participated in labour market, there will be no carer in family. Without challenging the model of men are breadwinners, women are unable to gain stable employment. One possibility is that no matter how much time women spend on their work, men are still considered as more suitable to make decisions. Emphasizing on women goes out working without concern about men’s role may cause other problems such as children are left without guardian. Patriarchy may occur in the absence of women making economic contribution to the family as men do and then, next generations are more likely build the same sort family for their own in the future. Thus, men and women are continued to be breadwinner and housekeeper respectively. Everything remains the same even legislations are seem so protective to women. In addition, as the lack of knowledge of the law, workers and employers did not associate with the government to enhance equality legislation. Also, women tend not to make a tribunal claim because she knows there will be only a financial compensation which benefits her for a short time. In order to gain the equality of gender participations of both organizations and individuals are needed in terms of ensuring the effectiveness of legislation. Furthermore, women working in both temporary employment and part-time worker are not protected until recent legislations have developed 1998 Working-Time Directive and 2000 Part-time Workers’ Directive. In some EU countries such as Italy and France, gender pay gap are mainly caused by high involvement in non-standard jobs because workers were be paid at a much lower level of wage. Finally, the current legislation places the onus on individuals but not on employers. Employers should aware of the vital role of various changes of legislation. Tomlinson (2006) said that legislation is too soft to be diffused into organizational spheres such as policies and practices. To some extent, legislation does not integrate sufficient to protect individuals. Particularly insufficient to support mothers and thus result in women quit jobs when they start to have a big family.

Inequality problems may also rise by good implement of legislations as well. Under the employment condition, women face another difficulty of finding a job or get equal pay for equal work. Due to legislative policies protect women from work overtime or night time working; a much higher cost is needed to employ a female worker than a male worker. All firms are willing to earn additional profit and those women right protections are kind of pushing away the extra profit. “On the supply side, if the regulations are binding, women will most likely supply fewer working hours for a given wage. A night-work prohibition reduces women’s flexibility in determining the time of day at which they work and, when binding, leads to fewer working hours” (Rodgers 1999). Company may keep female employee in a lower wage level as a consequence to the low expectation of their productivity. Also, it is not surprise that corporation consider maternity leaves as a taxation of hiring female employees in terms of financial matters. European maternity leave is longer and compensation is high and this would encourage employers to hire more male employees. However, legislation does not provides the absolute protection of women from being treated unequal and ineffective policy make the situation even worse for women. In fact, it is difficult to measure the productivity of women or men and sometimes it becomes empirical issue that women usually do less by comparing to men. As the examples illustrated above, legislation is developed to protect women right and prevent unequal treatment but somehow it breaks the commitment it original sets for. Finally, among the UK and other countries in the EU, Sweden has been seen as more gender equality than others. Take the maternity leave as an example. According to Rice (1999) a minimum level of provision has set by EU legislation and relatively Germany, France, Italy and Belgium provide lower amount of provision to parental leaves than Denmark and Sweden. Also, Sweden and Denmark government expenditure on childcare are at a much higher level than other EU member states and Rice said these countries are less male dominated and hence “weak breadwinner states” (Rice 1999).

Other than the legislations’ problem, plenty other reasons could cause gender inequalities such as economic circumstances, cultural influences, reconciliation of work and family, and so on. First of all, regarding to the influence of economic circumstances inequality between women and men may be easy to explain. In high developed countries, women are more motivated to participate in labour market in order to become financial independent. However, women in developed country are expected to take more responsibility on housework because people believe women are unable to earn much money and can distract by children or housework (Lippe 2010). He said that income will be used in domestic tasks and women are not expected to earn much money so that they are expected to do chores instead of working outside. Another economic factor affect gender inequality is economic crisis when people lose their jobs. During the economic recovery period, organizations would hire employees that are expecting to be more productive. However, women usually recover slower than men and they are considered as less productive. Moreover, all kinds of social awareness are influenced by different cultures and the stereotype of women and men exists in every sphere in our life. For example, women spend most of their time at work in Denmark but the normal situation in Spain is men have less involvement in household chores. These kinds of culture themselves are against gender equality and weakening the legislation effect on sex discrimination. Culture influence could illustrated by human capital theory that women on average are less productive by compare to men in physical and abilities in certain aspects (Anderson et al., 2001). People may have a preconceived idea that woman is more suitable to do domestic tasks taught from their culture. However, this theory criticized by Bradley (1989:30) that “claiming that the link between genes, hormones, instincts, physique and sex differences and behavioral patterns has never been satisfactorily proved and that reliance on biology ignores the extent to which all forms of human behaviour are cultural and variable.” Bradley believes no sufficient evidence indicate female gene can cause worse performance of women than men in labour market. Also, women’s participation in jobs has long been affected by their carer role in family. Europe Commission shows the statistic evidence “In 2008, the employment rate for women aged 25-49 was 67% when they had children under 12, compared to 78.5% when they did not in EU” (Report On Equality Between Women And Men 2010). However, men are in the totally opposite situation, they participate more in the labour market when with children than without. This has a negative 11.5 percentage differences of the parenthood impact on women employment. In the United Kingdom, the negative impact is higher than 15 percent. Once the women give birth to baby they tend to spend more time at home rather than at work. Due to the high family responsibility of female, they may find it is hard to strike a balance between work and family. In addition, pay gap between men and women is a direct result of the allocation of jobs. Head of company prefer to allocate men in managerial position rather than women and thus the pay is different. Another reason is low wage rate are dispensed to women because they need flexible working time to take care of domestic tasks. Employer believes women have difficulties to reach top managerial positions in the result of choosing part-time jobs that can reconcile work and family in a better way. Normally, women are unavailable to work in unplanned time that company requires such as business trip and overtime working (Ponzellini et al., 2010). However, it is notable that pay of women in full-time work is clearly an increase trend and those work in part-time are not gaining same trend. Even new developed part-time legislation is implemented in the UK and other member states in EU, the deep-rooted diversity between men’s and women’s position in the labour market still exist. Nevertheless, some social policies are developed to help women spend more time out of house. For instance, government spending on child care facilitates working condition for women in the labour market. However, it is an arguable issue that household tasks are private and public policies may not be able to make a comfortable working condition for women. Hence, this diversity of gender cultures may still continue to exist in next hundred years.

To sum up, thirty years ineffective implement of legislation lead to gender inequality still existing in both UK and elsewhere EU. Legislations tend to provide a safe ground for women work outside but lack of mentioning the men’s duty in both UK and other parts in EU. To illustrate, higher involvement in domestic task when women go out for working. Another similar omit of legislation is no specific requirements to organizations and only put obligation on individuals. Based on certain statistic evidence women are in the situation of unequal pay for equal work. Women that take non-standard jobs even gain fewer wage than men on the same condition. One unintended situation is the development of legislation itself causes low employment of women since legal protection for women restrict business profit earning. Firms are having difficulty to consistent with those protective legislations for women. They tend to lower women wage or participating in company to reduce the cost input of hiring women employees. Apart from legislative policies, there are many other reasons why women and men are treated differently such as economic circumstance, and cultural influence. Women spend different length of time on work in different economies and have different thoughts of working outside as an independent individual. Organization claims there are a huge difference of recovery rate of men and women that women are less willing to work than men after economic crisis. Social expectation of genders probably is the strongest determination in gender roles. Women and men are labeled with different strengths and weaknesses by expectations from tradition. Many traditional social values and norms are still exists and whether women work outside is a good change depends on the background of the country. Also, as always there is the difficulty for women to strike a balance between work and family. Finally, in terms of promoting women in workplace men and organizations are necessarily to be associated with legislations.

According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), today’s gangs are best characterized by their diversity in geographical location, organization, and their involvement in criminal or delinquent activities. In today’s society, people are more aware of gangs forming all around the world. From little children to adults, gangs appeal to all types of people. Many different ethnic and socioeconomic groups make up gangs, but gangs are mostly made up of young children. The reason why many children join gangs is that they do not receive much attention from their family members, thus they turn to gangs as a means to get the attention they were being denied. The reason why adults join gangs is to gain power, money, or even safety. To those people, a gang provides identity, status, and love, among other things, in turn they develop loyalty to the gang they join.

Conflict Theorist Perspective

Regarding gangs, a conflict theorist would see this social issue as a pattern of domination, submission, and struggle between people of high and low standing (Brym and Lie 10). In the view of Karl Marx, all stratified societies consist of two social groups: ruling class and social class. The ruling class being made up of people with high standing and social power and would use their power to exploit those of the social class (the powerless and low standing class).

Marx would explain the gang issue as an ownership of property. Gangs are groups of people joined together by shared interest or situation; they are social class people of low standing. They want power that they believe can only come from selling and distributing drugs to get the power they crave. This would result in class struggle from the gangs with lower class, and other people with higher class; defeating the suggestion that “Lessening privilege will lower the level of conflict and increase total human welfare” (Brym and Lie 10). Instead of lessening and lowering conflict, more is created by gang violence. Marx would label gangs in the subordinate group, trying to obtain the position and power to be in the dominate group. Gangs are part of working class for someone of the dominate group, contributing to the wealth of Capitalists.

Max Weber would see gangs as one of the many social classes/status groups out there (unlike Marx, who believed there were only two kinds of groups: the working and capitalist groups). Weber believed that not only does power play a role in society; it also played an important part in religion, politics, ethnicity, and gender. Weber would probably think of gangs and break them down into smaller groups, groups based on their religion, gender, etcaˆ¦. He’d think of these smaller groups as major players in society, because he believed they all possessed different degrees of social power. In those groups there would be people of higher power (like gang lords), and in the groups of gang lords there would be the more feared gang lords as the ones highest in power and social status.

Functionalist Perspective

Functionalist view society as a social system of interconnected parts, and they examine society through a functional framework which stresses that everything in society serves a purpose (Bohm, R.M. 2001). It doesn’t matter how wrong, right, strange, good, bad, or even violent something is – functionalist would see that “something” as serving a purpose. They believe that technology advances and population growth leads to social change.

As for gangs, functionalists would likely see them as helpful citizens in society, because they serve a purpose. The easy entry into the gangs decreases the amount of poverty in society (no matter how small). The growth rate of poor people slowly increases each year, and with gangs taking being a money making business; the poor has somewhere to go (and make money at the same time).

Functionalists will also point out that gangs are there for the purpose to provide jobs to people like: lawyers, police officers, criminal investigators, and so on. If there weren’t any gangs then most police officers wouldn’t have employment in their chosen fields. The reason lies in the fact that gangs are a huge part of crime. If there weren’t any gangs causing havoc, the crime rate would drop because gangs cause a good percent of violence. If the crime rate drop, the employment for lawmakers would definitely decrease.

Emile Durkheim would explain that gangs and deviance is normal, and they are found in all societies. He would see gangs as a part of society that promotes social unity, rethink societal norms, and challenges the way things are now. In other words, gangs force society to rethink their previous norms (social solidarity) and come up with newer ones.

Robert Merton, on the other hand, preferred the middle range theory rather than the grand theory. Merton would probably emphasize the fact that gangs function with manifest and latent functions. The manifest function of how gangs (the actors) sell drugs to make a living shows a sign that the actors are conscious of their intentions. The latent function of selling drug to make money (the action) may not fully explain the action continues to be performed. The actors might not be consciously aware of the hidden reasons that they perform said actions.

Feminist Perspective

Feminists believe that society is based on disagreement between the sexes (females and males). They believe that men have more power in society and that women only have the little power (if any), because they are at a disadvantage. Feminists use both micro and macro scales of analysis. Their main focus is on patriarchy, which is their belief that society is wholly male dominated. They also want to find equality in both sexes in social, political, and economic means.

Feminists will most likely critique gangs as a male dominated organization and will let their opinions known and try to change it. They will probably observe and question to themselves, “Why are there more men than women in gangs?” Their first plan of action would be to show and explain how important women are in society. Secondly, they would make an example of how women have always been subordinate to the men dominance in society for years. From there they will continue on their quest to bring about equality in gangs. I don’t think it would matter if gangs are criminals to society, feminists would just look at the fact that the women are scarce and almost nonexistent.

In their opinions, women have just as much as a right to join any organization they want, if a man is doing the same. It wouldn’t matter to them if a female joined or not, they just want the option open for women as well.

Some feminist theories were in agreement with one another, but of course there were small differences in belief. For instance, liberal feminism believed that the problem to inequality between men and women was caused by sexist. Liberals believed that the law was sexist and the way females and males socialized with each other. They thought that the only way to make females equal to man, was to banish all sexist law and the socialization between men and women should change. If we socialized differently, the outcome of the socialization would bring greater good. Liberals would agree to let women join a gang to communicate and with one another in close settings.

Radical feminist believed that women were exploited by patriarchal society and men. It was known that some radical feminists thought the best solution to stop the inequality, was to separate both sexes so that they would live apart. They saw separation as the key to avoid the situation as best as they could. Radicals would think that women would do right to not join gangs, for the sole reason of separating themselves from men.

Marxist Feminist believed that women were there only to benefit capitalism by being housewives. They, of course, wanted to get rid of capitalism and substitute it with communism; therefore men and women would be equal. If gangs followed the rules of communism, there would be more women to rival men (if they wanted to be a criminal, that is).

Marianne Weber (Max Weber’s wife), was a well known feminist. She believed that women should be treated equally in all institutions (mostly the institution of marriage). This could be said for gangs as well, the institution of gangs should treat women equally.

Symbolic-Interactionists Perspective

Symbolic interactionism is how groups and individuals interact with each other. It focuses on the personal identity of a person creates when interacting with others individuals or groups (mostly involving group pressures and an individual’s actions). People create symbolic structures that make life what it is through interacting. It is defined that the structures that symbolic interactionism is made of, allows the actors (the individuals and groups) to understand and experience things in similar ways. Interacting like this is how society is made.

People are born in a society with symbolic structures, and it is a process that we can see actually taking place, right before our very eyes. If a person isn’t interacting with face-to-face interaction, then interactionist ignores anything outside the interaction realm.

Symbolic interactionist would explain that gangs are good subjects for interacting. They would see gangs as a structured community group of individuals that interact in all the time. A good example would be when they make their drug deals. In order to complete that task, they must interact in a way to get the most out of their sale. If they want to keep the customer (or other actor) coming back for more business, then they will interact in a way that is different from their normal way.

Herbert Blumer, student of George Herbert Mead, was given credit for the word “symbolic interactionism”. Meaning, language, and thought were the three core principles that he believed made up symbolic interactionism. Meaning gave life to the way people interacted with one another. It gave meaning to the way people saw things in life around us. Language is the voice of reasoning and understanding another’s interpretation of symbols. Thought is when a person’s thought process comes to different interpretation for a similar symbol. If you combine the three core principles, a form of communication is then created.

Herbert Blumer would believe that gangs meet the three core principles that are contributed to symbolic interactionism. They use meaning every time they try to find way to communicate with other gang members or outsiders. If meaning isn’t shown, things can and will go wrong in certain types of situations. Language is the most important core principle use. They use it to give voice to their interpretations and relay them to their listener. Language is used daily by gangster; they use it the most when giving orders or making deals. Thought could cause major problems for most gang members. If they get the wrong interpretation of something that was meant to be important, they would be in big trouble. For example, if a gang boss told one of his underlings “today is payday”, the underling would probably get a wrong interpretation of what he meant.

The gang boss could mean that it was payday for him and only him. The underlings could have thought that statement meant that he and the other workers would finally get their paycheck for their hard work. That’s a good example of how the gang boss and underling arrive to the thoughts and language. Usually all three core principles are used in every day communicating in society.

A variant of symbolic interactionism that became popular recently is social contructionism. Social constructionists argue that when people interact, they typically assume things are naturally or innately what they seem to be (14). People in today’s society look at gangs and assume they are criminals who should be locked away. But aren’t they people too? Some gang members have no other option but to join a gang. They are many personal reasons that could be fault to why a person joins a gang. Social constructionists are well known to analyze these types of problems and solve them.

I read an article today on Yahoo! titled Dozens charged with the largest Medicare scam ever. The article talked about Armenian Gangsters and how they, and their associates, used health care clinics to fraud Medicare out of $163 million. It is noted that this fraud is thought of as the largest fraud by one enterprise. The Federal Prosecutors charged and arrested some of the 73 people in a couple different states that were involved in the scam.

This article is proof that gangs are still out there in plain sight. Gang activity has gradually increased in the 20th century. Gangs sell drugs; buy drugs, kill, etcaˆ¦ It all depends on the situation they are found in.

As I’ve stated before, people just can’t understand why a person would want to join a gang and become a criminal. They are many reasons like poverty, peer pressure, boredom, and despair. I’ve explained that people join gangs to make money if they are in desperate need of it. Peer pressure is another reason why people join gangs. Young children and teens are usually the ones that fall under peer pressure. They are the most susceptible groups of people that always want to follow the crowd and fit in with the “cooler” kids.

Boredom is another reason. Boredom can lead a person to do almost anything in order to cure said boredom. Lastly, despair is connected to poverty. Those who are in poverty find themselves despairing on how they are going to get money where could they get the money.

Regular people who aren’t sociological theorist will come up with their own perspectives of gangs, and they are free to speak their opinions. It doesn’t matter if you are a theorist or not, gangs are seen and analyzed by everyday people.

Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Galtung’s theory of structural violence. Violence has permeated human society ever since the beginning of time and has been instrumental in the subversion of countless individuals, resulting in multitudes of deaths and suffering. “Violence” exists as a highly debated core branch of knowledge within peace and conflict studies as it has a tendency of being “misrecognised” (Schinkel 2010: 3). Up till today, no single academic discipline has an all encompassing grasp on the complexities of violence (Schinkel 2010: 4). However, Galtung’s theory of structural violence stands out, as it seeks to expend the conventional narrow definition of physical or manifestable violence to include violence as a form of “influence”, an invisible force which acts to constrain human social conditions (Hoivik 1977: 59, Galtung 1999: 2).

This paper will argue that Gultung’s theory of structural violence will serve to reach its strongest potential for gaining insight into the complexities of understanding the roots of violence in the context of peace studies when viewed through a triangular approach. Our investigation will begin by analysing “violence” and how it is affiliated to “structural violence”. Following that, a comprehensive discussion on Galtung’s violence triangle will be presented in order to lead the discussion onto the strengths and weaknesses of Galtung’s theory of structural violence. I shall conclude by asserting that Galtung’s theory is excessive on a mundane level, but paramount in its contributions towards peace research studies.

Before we commence to critic Gultung’s theory of structural violence, a reasonable understanding of “violence” is in order. What is violence? Are we able to define violence? Saint Augustine once noted with a condescending tone “so long as I don’t think about it (violence), I know what it is” (citied in Schinkel 2010: 5). This abstract approach attempts to explain the intricacies of violence without essentially mentioning what exactly consist in a “violent” action, begging us to question if violence is only limited in a direct or physical framework. Indeed, social scientists seem to operate under a silent general consent that one does not need to define violence (Schinkel 2010: 17). When a student shoots a teacher in the face, the frankness of reality screams for us to quickly dismiss academic red tape and label the event as “violent”. Willem Schinkel notes such a mundane “pre-reflexive apprehension” of violence to be “naively realistic” (2010: 5). If so, how are we to come to an accepted definition of violence? Virginia Held defines violence to be “predictable, coercive, and usually a sudden infliction of injury upon or damage harming persons” (1997: 187). If we accept Held’s definition, the hidden “violent” nature of non-physical mental torture and humiliation brought about by a combination of name calling, extortion, stealing and vandalising of personal property, exemplified by a school bully would be cast into doubt.

Once again we are faced with the same question. What is to be considered the accepted definition of violence? In 1994, a group of social scientists initiated a comprehensive survey to analyse violent behaviour carried out by a certain number of post-discharge psychiatric patients, in order to come to some sort of conclusion on how gender differentials influence violence (Teasdale, Silver and Monahan 2006: 649-651). “Violence” within the experiment was then narrowly defined as actions that resulted in “physical injury or involved the use of a weapon, threats made with a weapon in hand, or sexual assaults” (Teasdale, Silver and Monahan 2006: 652). Perhaps, this limited definition adequately fulfilled its purpose, which was essentially a conscious categorisation of different threat responses between man and women. However, under the pretext of conflict resolution, such a narrow definition will certainly not suffice. Thus, we see the limitations of adopting inadequate definitions and accord that the definition of violence can vary depending on its purpose within context.

Within the context of peace studies, structural violence overtly strives to connect the invisible violent “influences” of institutions with social conditions leading to the loss or deprivation of human lives (1999: 29-37). It emphasises its focus on non-manifestable threats such as poverty and unjust social, political and economic structures in comparison to direct threats like knives and guns, while acknowledging both threats to administer similar dire consequences (Kohler and Alcock 1976: 343). It is a “hybrid concept” which recognises the necessities of both theoretical rhetoric and empirical evidence (Hoivik 1977: 59). A stronger emphasis is placed on the latter, so much so that if theory disagrees with statistics, theory has to be readjusted to fit the conclusions of research accordingly (Galtung 1999: 11-12). On the other hand, we also have to apprehend and be wary of the “hidden” nature of violence that hinders empirical accumulation (Schinkel 2010: 5). Structural violence views that the agent of death is no longer conventional manifestable objects, but deadly “influences” such as discrimination, exploitation and injustice. John Archer agrees and notes that a combine methodology of both quantitative and qualitative research is imperative for a more rounded understanding into the roots of violence (2003: 26).

The concept of structural violence is essentially useful as it is an attempt to expand the existent spectrum of traditional physical threats into the realm of intangibles which is paramount towards deriving underlying causes of violence. However, structural violence by itself is strictly limited if it does not even recognise immediate visible threats. Therefore, instead of adopting a singular or bilateral approach, Galtung advocates a triangular mode of understanding violence and proposes cultural violence, structural violence and direct violence to be the corners of this unique triangle (1978: 208). It is this distinct triangle that sets “Galtung’s theory of structural violence” apart from the other theories of “structural violence”. The purpose of the triangular approach is mainly to stress on the multifaceted nature of violence. Under Galtung’s perspective, Cultural violence, structural violence and direct violence can all be interlinked into one another to allow for a more complete understanding on the origins of violence in the world (1999: 29-34). This particular approach permits us to analyse patterns of mutual reinforcement or escalation within conflicts and assists us in identifying “corners” where we can break the triangle in order to put a halt to violence as a whole (Galtung 1978: 487-489).

A thorough analysis of Galtung’s violence triangle is in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Galtung’s theory of structural violence. An examination of either cultural violence, structural violence or direct violence separately as singular approaches sets themselves up from the beginning to be easily criticized due to the objective nature of theories (Hoivik 1977: 59). If we approach the violence triangle as an entirety, its vastness and multifaceted nature would overwhelm the need for structure. Therefore, so as to investigate the linkages between the three different types of violence, I shall be adopting a more bilateral approach by exploring connections between cultural violence to structural violence and direct violence to structural violence.

Galtung notes “behind all this (violence triangle) is cultural violence” (1999: 2). If we are to view Galtung’s perspective of violence as a vertical ladder instead of a triangle, it will begin with cultural violence on the top, structural violence in the middle, followed by direct violence (Galtung 1999: 2). What is cultural violence? Cultural violence are prevailing attitudes and beliefs within culture which we are acquainted with since adolescence in our everyday life that makes direct and structural violence seem right or at least acceptable (Galtung 1990: 291). Under the steady flow of time, cultural violence creeps into our daily lives without our realisation and changes attitudes towards what is thought to be the acceptable usage of violence (Galtung 1990: 292-295). One should note that when we speak of “culture” within cultural violence, we do not refer to entire cultures but to certain “aspects of culture”, such as media, religion, ideology, language, art, and empirical science (Galtung 1990: 296-301). Douglas Kellner writes that “Media culture helps shape the prevalent view of the world and its deepest values: it defines what is considered good or bad, positive or negative, moral or evil.” (citied in Held 1997: 201). It is not difficult to imagine what harm this “aspect of culture” propagates as a dominating power of “influence” with its constant barrage of materialistic advertisements and violent media which an average individual is exposed to in today’s modern society. With respect to the violence triangle, “aspects of culture” can be seen as the legitimizing source for both direct and structural violence (Galtung 1990: 294).

Susan Rakoczy notes that a patriarchal religion such as Christianity breeds cultural violence as it systematically degrades women’s dignity and position in society by associating God with a male and by preaching women’s inferiority through ancient decrees found in the Bible (2004: 29; Galtung 1999: 40-43). Religion gives males the perception that they have a legitimate role granted by God to discipline women when there is a need for it. However, one should also note that such scenarios are often subjected to the character of the individual and should not be lumped together as a group, giving the false impression that all Christian husbands abuse their wives. This is an excellent example of how an “aspect of culture” legitimizes “influence” and builds institutions like churches, which unintendedly promote structural violence by nurturing patriarchal beliefs which are arguably generally accepted by the public in most Christian societies.

Structural violence can be perceived in the fundamental hierarchy of the church’s ladder of office, as seldom females are offered key positions of leadership in the church, even though they are ordained according to their religion (Rakoczy 2004: 33). The aforementioned sexist phenomenon can be directly linked to dominant patriarchal sentiments found in such societies, so much so that such an oppression goes unquestioned due to the effects of “cultural violence”. One can even argue that western patriarchal beliefs to a certain extent had an influence in the war in Afghanistan when the media painted Afghanistan’s women to be insecure and needed protection by western men, leading to further “direct violence” (Ayotte and Husain 2005: 112).

By now, we should have a familiar grasp with the concept of “direct violence”. To reilliterate, it is the visible and physical threat that takes the manifestable form of guns, bombs, knifes, etc which are non-recognisable by strict structural violence conventions. Neoliberal policies as an agent of structural violence have been identified by scholars to be clearly aggravating “direct violence” through its implementation, directly causing the uprise of extreme poverty, unemployment, social stratification, inequality and animosity around the world (Olivera and Furio 2006: 104; Sanchez 2006: 178). The seriousness of the issue is not to be easily dismissed as Gernot Kohler and Norman Alcock noted in 1965, fourteen to eighteen million deaths were attributed to structural violence, while direct violence had a comparatively lower death rate of roughly a million (1976: 350).

Sanchez argues that under a neoliberal system, the systematic exploitation of the middle- and working- class coerces populations to turn to “radical violence” or to what we understand as “direct violence” by provoking strikes and demonstrations which has the potential to turn bloody (2006: 179; Gitelman 1973: 2). Similarly, as social conditions deteriorate, the poor and the young turn to criminal violence through “youth gangs, criminal mafias and drug cartels” to obtain what they need by robbery, kidnapping, carjacking, etc which can be seen as forms of “direct violence” (Sanchez 2006: 179). Structural violence not only exploits, but also incites the manifestation of physical violence by the poor and suffering to be employed as a tool for basic survival (Sanchez 2006: 179-181). However, people do not turn violent just because they are poor, but because they are deprived of basic resources. In other words, Galtung’s theory of structural violence guides us a step forward into the realm of social and resource inequality, where the rich have many and the poor have few.

Critics on the strengths of Galtung’s theory of structural violence suggest that Galtung’s theory sets itself up as too wide of a definition (Schinkel 2010: 39). For an ordinary person, violence is people getting beaten up and being tortured in a physical or visible manner, not the well meaning all-encompassing surreal vision that Galtung has provided us with. Does this entail that Galtung’s violence triangle theory is pointless? As we have discussed earlier, I believe the justification lies in how we approach his theory within context. On a mundane level, without any doubt, the practice of Galtung’s violence theory would indeed be excessive. However, in relation to peace and conflict studies, Galtung theory of structural violence is an essential stepping stone towards world peace. No longer can future academics investigate “violence” without first considering the hidden “influences” linked by cultural and structural violence that have subtly ingrained itself unto non-suspecting individuals. Inequality caused by social structures is postulated to be the core culprit for “violence” all around the world (Miliband 2005: 39-41). As we have earlier analysed, Galtung’s violence triangle strongest contribution is that it opens up debate for further inquiry on to the actual roots of violence.

If social institutions, the perpetuators of structural violence, are pinpointed to be the major source of inequality and hence “violence” in the world, can we do without them? Bill Gates Sr disagrees and notes, “Success is a product of having been born in this country, a place where education and research are subsidised, where there is an orderly market, where the private sector reaps enormous benefits from public investment. For someone to assert that he or she has grown wealthy in America without the benefit of substantial public investment is pure hubris” (cited in Miliband 2005: 44). Nevertheless, there is still a pertinent need for social institutions and the economy to exist, so as to provide society with public safety, resources, education, infrastructure, health and welfare. How are we to negate inequality if social institutions are to stay? Levine argues that inequality stems from the extreme concentration of “power”, such as income and resources which are allocated in the hands of the elite few (2003: 127). Therefore, the solution is clear. “Power” has to be redistributed. This is the core concept of Dawn Brancati’s book Peace by Design, where she advocates political decentralisation to solve conflict and secession issues around the world (2009: 29-64). Perhaps the best institutional structure is an egalitarian one, whereby employee and employer “power” relations are more democratic.

It is no surprise that Galtung’s theory of structural violence contains a few subtle weaknesses. Levine notes that all theories no matter how polished, encompasses innate assumptions and prejudice (2003: 126). The foremost weakness within Galtung’s theory is that it is “faceless”. By “faceless”, I mean that the theory does not recognise individual human characteristics but carelessly categorises society into such as “the poor”, “the rich”, “the haves” and “the have-nots”. It is common understanding to acknowledge that if we place several people under similar circumstances, each individual will react differently. The same logic of inconsistency applies when we analyse violence. One of the core attributes of structural violence is its unique ability to recognise violent “influences” such as stress. However, Galtung’s violence triangle theory does not take into account how different individuals would respond to different stress levels (Linskey, Bachman and Straus 1995: 4-5). Would the individual manifest direct violence towards others, such as rape, homicide, interfamily assault or turn aggression inwards to acts of suicide, smoking and the abuse of alcohol? Wilkinson notes that stress in early life like the loss of one’s parent, domestic conflict, etc can have dire consequences on the individual’s mental and physical health (2005: 185-188). We can envision the concept of humanism spreading its effect, as different characteristics and upbringing of individuals would process stress in varying fashions. This gives the impression that Galtung’s structural violence is humanistically idealistic.

Idealised society is arguably in the minds of most peace researchers. It is due to the anticipation and firm belief that the possibility of this utopian view is feasible, that Galtung’s theory of structural violence was introduced in the first place (Hoivik 1977: 60). However, human beings are too unpredictable, stubborn, impulsive, unreasonable, erratic, etc to fall perfectly into comprehensive theories. Not only is the individual easily swayed by internal emotions such as stress, humans are also influenced by immediate external social scenarios. The circumstance which I am specifically keen on is the “bystander effect”, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim which is not on the forefront of Galtung’s violence triangle. Research proves that with greater number of witnesses to an emergency event, the less likely single individuals are to help (Levine 2003: 128). It seems as though with the myriad of irrational social behaviour, we can never be able to predict how human beings would react when exposed to violent “influences”, the best cause of action is to minimise “violence” from its roots.

Emile Durkheim is a founding father of Structural-Consensus Theory known as Functionalism. This theory looks as society as a whole, known in sociology as a Macro theory due to not looking at individuals or individual problems but at society as a group or sub cultures. Durkheim would argue that society was characterised by an existence of order, control and constraint of individuals,i?Yneed to reference with the individual being viewed as less important than the entire group as a whole. It is a Logical and Systematic analysis: It treats us all as being the same and offers no explanation for differences. It explains how society has maintained its existence over time and it tries to influence the children of tomorrow by forcing past beliefs and decisions on them.

Durkheim believes socialisation is important to keep society functioning well and that we should pass our rules, norms and values through generations and change nothing to maintain social stability. Durkheim theorises that we all depend on each other and our institutions need each other in order to survive, this is known as Interdependence. Durkheim explains this by his Organic Analogy, for example like the human body if the heart stops working it has a knock on effect onto the lungs, brain and the rest of the organs. This theory can be observed within the recent happenings of the global financial crisis which caused the threat and total collapse of the world’s largest financial institutions; so when the major banks actually did collapse it had a negative effect on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and damaged employment, education, housing, borrowing and private business around the world.

Functionalist theory has weaknesses as it assumes everyone has the same choices and decisions to make in life when in actual fact rich people have more options than poor people: if we consider different nations we observe that poor people in Africa can only afford to eat one bowl of porridge a day whereas rich people in America can eat five times a day whatever they want, also some countries only offer boys education when in other countries education is compulsory for both males and females. It states that we have no free will and that our paths in life are set out for us by our genealogy, meaning the traits and genetics we inherit from our ancestors. Another negative of this theory is it does not explain conflict in our society and does not accept that we are all different and states when people disagree with the consensus they are classed as being “dysfunctional”, this is unfair to those people as they could form a sub group within our society yet are unable to have a voice or share their opinion for example a functionalist would argue that Gay relationships don’t fit in with the nuclear family ideal as a functionalist society these people and their beliefs are excluded and their differences ignored.

Marxism Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Marxism theory is known in sociology as a Structural Conflict theory like the functionalist theory it looks at society as a whole and the structure of society such as the institutions that keep society stable. However the Marxist theory focuses on the different conflicts that happen within society mainly between the classes. As Marx explains, the predominant class conflict within society occurs between the proletariat (lower class) and the bourgeoisies (upper class).

Marx argues that this is due to the bourgeoisie being the owners of production; they therefore own the means to create work by owning the tools, material, trade and stability for their workers. This creates requirement of the bourgeoisie for the proletariat as they require the trade, work and wages in order to feed their families. However the tension is created due to the proletariat being low paid with usually bad standards of work environment and long hours of work. The workers were made to work hard and meet targets every day in order to turn a profit for the owners of production knowing that if their work wasn’t up to scratch or they disobeyed the rules they could lose their jobs, the bourgeoisie knew they could replace a worker quiet easily so had the power to make these decisions without thought for the workers. This relationship as Marx describes is reliant on each other and is apparent within all aspects of the economy even today in our present society. Due to such high unemployment and an economy in recession, wages and salaries have been frozen for a few years now and not rising with inflation causing more tension between the lower class and upper classes of society and government.

Marx explains that this relationship was/is oppressive to the working class individuals due to the low wages, the working classes are restricted in their social mobility as well as their ability to move up through the academic or employment ladder. This is almost certainly relevant in today’s society for example mortgages are only available to a small margin of those able to pay large deposits to secure loans and in England educational attainment comes at a high price. Marxist sociologists believe that the education system has been designed and constructed as a training ground for the children of the proletariat. It is dominated by the ruling class to socialize them to accept that individual competition and inevitable inequality is the only system that works. For Marxists this is a powerful form of social control that will legitimise the capitalists economic forms of production and the legitimate political leadership of a capitalist ruling class (hegemony) with this Marxists do not believe that the education system provides equal opportunities for the children, even though it comes across as fair and equal, children are often split into groups based on merit and ability. Marxist sociologists would refer to the learning of rules, norms, routines and regulations as the hidden curriculum, Marxists see this as a way of reinforcing the class system to ensure, that pupils learn the skills more suited to their class background. Marx fully believed that in order for this relationship to change that the masses had to come together to overthrow the bourgeoisie from power and take control to make it a fairer society (socialism).

Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim

Within sociology, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim have played very influential parts when it comes to looking at society and its structure. They both adopted a structural position from which they saw society as a system made up of similar parts and they believe that culture is as crucial to identity as socialisation. Both believed the social structure controlled the individual through socialisation of values, Durkheim thought positive of this situation, whereas Marx felt this was negative.

Karl Marx believed that religious values and beliefs are the basis for the values and beliefs within society. Marx believed that order was achieved through unequal power relations between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in which the bourgeoisie control the environment and the conditions (economic determinism) that the proletariat are consigned to earn in order to live. This is referring to a capitalist society, where the working class individuals work to a set of rules and guidelines in return for a wage, however turning a higher profit for the owner than what they earn. Marx argues that these roles between the classes are oppressive, exploited, alienated and constrained by the ruling class and believes that revolutionary change would only be possible and take place when the working classes are fully aware of these conditions in which they live, he also believes that the bourgeoisie are the controllers of culture since the economic forces determine everything else and use the super structure of society for their own purpose including religion, education and rules. Marx refers to this as a movement from a class “in” itself to a class “for its self”, however, before the working class can become a class for itself they need the development of a class identity, the realities and the problems of society are largely hidden from them this Marx states is an” illusionary world” in which they live and is referred to as a state of false class consciousness in society.

This is the aim of Marxist sociology; to exploit and show society for what it really is, by doing so would be to create true class consciousness.

For Emile Durkheim, who believed that individual identity was a problem or an issue for society as a whole and if restricted, harmony and social order could continue.

Education was not always free for everyone in Britain, nor does it look like it will remain free, at least with regard to higher education in Britain. Up until relatively recently (1871 Forster Act) education was only open to those who could afford it, the upper class and a section of the middle class. Public schools (those that you paid for) were one of the few forms of schooling. The working class child received a very short and simple education, usually in a religious run school, a Church school. Then with industrialization, education was gradually extended to all. It was argued that in order for Britain to succeed, that is, remain at the forefront of the worlds economies it had to have a literate and numerate workforce. Education for all came into being because the capitalist industrial system required certain abilities amongst the workforce and because the capitalist class was broadly supportive of it.

The Ideological Functions of Education

For many Marxists education is seen as the ideological apparatus of the state, that is, it disseminates ruling-class ideology. It is a myth making machine, its very existence seems to foster the most absurd beliefs. This is very much the argument of the French Marxist and philosopher Louis Althusser. According to Althusser no class can hold power indefinitely solely on the basis of the use or threat of force. The Police, Army and the Prisons can only hold back the tide but not a tidal wave. Ideology provides the most effective means of control, by controlling what others think you control what they do. It is the most complete form of control.

Althusser believes that the education system has taken over from the Church as the main agent of ideological transition essential to the maintenance of the capitalist economic system. For example, in the past most people accepted their positions in life, no matter how unbearable, because they believed it was Gods will. They were poor because God wished it so, they were hungry because God wished it so, they were powerless because God wished it so. Such beliefs are now in decline, although many still hold them, much more common is the belief that everything boils down to the great God of education. Those who are smart and hardworking do well in education and gain educational qualifications and in turn do well in the world of work. Those who are unemployed and working in low paid jobs did not gain educational qualifications and were probably not academically gifted. This is, however, an ideological belief as it has been shown that the higher your parents social class so the higher your educational qualifications and duration spent in education. Class still determines where you end up in the majority of cases. The education system propagates the view, however, that success is all down to intelligence and hard work.

Schools directly transmit the ideological belief that capitalism is fair and just. For example, you might learn about free market economies and how their competitive nature creates great wealth for every American. You might learn about how companies compete in the market place, which in turn means that they try to under-cut rivals which in turn means constant innovation in efficiency and good value for the general public etc.

A good example, one that I heard while travelling on the train, is provided by those who go to the local elite school. I happened to overhear, much to my astonishment, a girl of about 13 or 14 years old actually selling shares in her “school business”. Her and some fellow pupils had set up their little business, at the bequest of their teachers, and were now busy selling shares to their fellow pupils. She explained it was a sound investment. Her fellow pupils, equally enthusiastic, snapped up the shares with greedy hands. The very fact that their teachers suggested and encouraged such activity would seem to suggest that those students involved in it, and around it, would come to see the private enterprise system as a just and fair system. The conception of the role of the teacher is, after all, one of fairness and equality.

Schools are also ideological in that they foster certain values which function to ensure the continuance of the capitalist system and perform certain other functions. Ideology consists not just of certain beliefs that distort reality but also of values which function to preserve the existing social order. One of these values, particularly prevalent in societies such as America and Britain, is that of competition. The school is an arena of competition, the teachers the judges and instigators. The use of certain sports in schools is part of this ideological function. For example, the playing of competitive games such as football, rugby, cricket etc. where there are two opposing sides, one side will be winners the other losers. One side must compete against the other, they must try to outscore their opponents. The winners, and those who perform best, are afforded prestige (the Jocks) while those who do not are openly mocked by teacher and student alike. Pupils are taught to compete rather than to help one another to each others mutual benefit. It is this sort of value attachment which is instrumental to the survival of capitalism and its “smooth” functioning. To put it simply, if the working class decided that instead of competing for the limited number of jobs that exist at any given time, thus ensuring that some have no jobs, that they would band together and demand full employment then capitalism, and with it the capitalist class, might be overthrown.

The education system also plays an ideological role in that it is through the school that much of our stock of knowledge, be it ideological or otherwise, about the world is gained. The school is one of the main agents of socialization. Only certain things are, however, taught in schools. This is not so much because teachers are reactionary middle-class types, although many are, but more because what they are allowed to teach is governed by the curriculum. What they teach is dictated by the the state. They may well wish to teach students about things such as Socialism, Anarchy and the evils of the free enterprise system but they dare not. For example, I learnt about Russian history without ever recalling hearing the words Karl Marx or hearing a single idea of Marx expressed in class. If someone had said Marx to me at age 15 I would have replied Groucho Marx? You are taught a sanitized view of history, one in which class conflict does not figure. History is taught as if history were nothing more than the product of certain charismatic individuals. You will also learn all about “democracy” but never about the alternatives to “democracy”, that is, socialist democracy. When you are told of socialism you are told of the Communist regimes of Russia, further perpetuating the ideological belief that these societies are socialist when it is evident they are not.

Bowles and Gintis

“Schooling in Capitalist America”

Bowles and Gintis, in one of the best known Marxist accounts of the education system, argue that there is a close correspondence between the social relationships that exist in the classroom and those of the workplace. This correspondence is essential for the reproduction of the next generation of workers appropriately schooled to accept their roles and position in society. Without this correspondence capitalism would not function quite so smoothly. There would be constant “rebellion” within the workplace and even many who thought that a new social order was required to realise full human potential.

Hierarchies

One of the things that school and the workplace have in common (apart from being boring and monotonous) is that they are both hierarchically organised. A hierarchy basically means that they are organised in a way that is analogous to a wedding cake. There are different layers each one resting upon the other, each one smaller than the other, with each one in turn having more power or authority than the one below. At the bottom of the school cake rests the base of the pupils while at the top sits the pretty little cherry of the headmaster or headmistess, then above them there is another hierarchy. Pupils have little control over what they learn and when they learn it and how they learn it. This is decided in part by the teacher and in part by the curriculum. This corresponds to their later experience of work, which like school is organised in a hierarchy. Karl Marx describes the workplace as follows:

Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy officers and sergeants…(Communist Maniefsto)

In school pupils are encouraged, through various sanctions, both positive and negative, to conform to the existing hierarchy. Schools reward punctuality, hard work and obedience and discourage creativity and critical awareness. You can think but only about how better to do a given task (instrumental reasoning), Don’t ever think about the merits of the task itself. Such attributes, which school fosters in the majority of pupils, are what employers require and desire. They do not want workers who question authority or who come to work five minutes late or spend their time thinking about how better the economic system could be organised so that all may share the wealth it creates.

The Jug and the Mug

Schools also correspond to work in that schools offer little satisfaction or enjoyment to the pupil. For the majority of pupils school is a boring monotonous place, somewhere which takes away their free time and prevents them doing what they really want. Learning is conducted on the jug and the mug principle. The teachers are the jugs brimming with knowledge the pupils are the mugs ready to be filled with knowledge. The teacher pours their knowledge day after day in the same dreary fashion into the pupil. The pupil is encouraged to look towards other things such as educational qualifications as the aim of their study. Such educational qualifications, they are told, will mean more money in later life. They are encouraged to work through external rewards. Again this closely corresponds to work as work will for the vast majority be extremely monotonous and boring in the extreme. They will either be standing at a factory line repeating the same task day after day or sitting in an office completing the same task day after day. If education was itself interesting, stimulating and give a sense of satisfaction then pupils may then expect the same from work, they would be bitterly disappointed. They may even give up the whole notion of wage slavery, imagine that!

Inequality is Justified by the Education System

Capitalist societies are societies in which exists inequalities, particularly of wealth, power and opportunity. If ever such inequality was to be seriously questioned, in all its manifestations, then it could, lead to the erosion and replacement of the free market economy or capitalism. One way in which this situation is avoided is by promotion of the ideological belief that such inequalities are justified. Inequalities are to put it simply, right. Education makes inequality more socially acceptable by broadcasting the myth that it offers every student an equal chance. Nowadays in societies such as Britain and America all children are entitled to state education. The argument is that those who achieve top qualifications go on to top jobs and that they deserve their success because they are smarter and more hard working then their fellow class mates. The education system promotes this myth and leads people to think along such lines simply by its existence. Bowles and Gintis, however, point out that your chances of educational success are closely related to the class of your parents. The higher the social class of your parents so the greater the duration of your stay in education and the higher your qualifications.

But what about the evidence that suggests a correlation between educational success and intelligence. Various studies have shown that those who achieve educational success, higher education qualifications, have higher IQs than average. They are to put it simply, bright. Bowles and Ginits do, however, attempt to counter this argument. They argue that the relationship between these two variables is not a causal one. Intelligence does not determine educational success. If this was true then you would expect people with roughly the same IQ to have roughly the same educational success. Ginits and Bowles examined the educational attainment of those with roughly similar IQs and found widely different educational attainment levels. They argue that the higher than average IQ of those who have attained higher educational qualifications is a by product of their longer duration in education. Their higher IQs are a result not a cause of their educational attainment. Certainly the evidence would seem to suggest that this is indeed correct.

The Myth of Education

(Some Personal Observations)

Part of the dominant ideology of all capitalist societies would appear to be the belief that intelligence plus dedication equals educational success which in turn means success in the workplace. We can represent this chain of thought by the following equation:

Intelligence/Dedication =/+ Educational Success = Monetary Success

Material Resources

I will now deal with the first part of this equation, that intelligence and dedication equals educational success. This is simply not true. Bowles and Gintis argue that by contrast educational success is determined much more by the social class of the students parents. This is not to say that all those from a working-class background will not achieve educational success or that all those from upper or middle class backgrounds will achieve educational success. Ralph Miliband (“The State in capitalist Society”) puts it as follows: “It may not be essential, in order to achieve material or professional success, to be born of wealthy or even of well-to-do parents: but it is certainly an enormous advantage, rather like joining a select club, membership of which offers unrivalled opportunities for the consolidation and advancements of the advantages which it in any case confers.” Being born of well-to-do parents gives certain benefits, some of which derive from the better material circumstances of the family. But how is money translated into educational success? There are a number of ways in which this is translated.

Money can’t buy you Love but it can buy an Education

Material wealth allows parents to provide certain resources which in turn help their son or daughter gain educational success. They can for instance pay to send their children to public schools (fee paying schools) where no matter how undeserving the student they are almost certainly guaranteed educational success. In Britain rumour constantly circulates that the “Toffs” get their exams marked much easier than their state school counterparts. Whatever the truth of such rumours the environment and standard of teaching is certainly of a higher standard than an inner city comprehensive, poorly funded with demoralised staff.

Even if parents are not well enough off to send their children to public schools (ones that you pay for) there are still other ways in which material well being can help. Parents may not be able to afford to buy their children an education but they may be able to afford to send their children to private tutors to subsidize their state education. They can afford to pay the fees for private tuition on a one to one basis, which can make the difference between a pass and a fail. Such tuition done on a one to one basis, conducted over a substantial period of time, can often make the difference between educational success and failure. Also, the more you can pay so, in general, the better standard of tuition you will receive. In Northern Ireland you may pay as much as A?30+ an hour for such tution from a professional body.

Lastly, parents can also afford to buy other resources which will increase the students chances of educational success. They can afford to pay for such things as extra textbooks, a resource which is increasingly expensive. They can also afford to buy children one of the most essential tools of their educational careers, a decent computer with a printer and internet connection. Despite what teachers may say to the contrary, and they say it repeatedly, presentation is just as important as content. Your content may be great but if presentation is poor then your marks will suffer. Those with computers and printers have no such problems. They can even run spell checks and grammar checks at the touch of a button. Their handwriting may be a scrawl but if you print your work no one need ever know. The internet is perhaps one of the most important factors in this element of educational success. Internet access is not equally spread throughout societies and the world. There are those who are connected and those who are not connected. Those who are not connected do not have access to the vast amounts of information that are stored on the servers of the world wide web. Even if there is a connection in school it is no substitute for a home connection. It can take literally hours to find the information you want, most schools have time limits.

Ideational Resources
Relations Within the Classroom

What are ideational resources I hear you ask. The term Ideational resources is simply another way of saying cultural resources. Classes (groups of people who occupy a common relatiohsip to the means of production)as you already know (don’t you?) have their own, more or less distinct, sub-cultures. That is, they have different norms, values, beliefs, stocks of knowledge, ways of speaking, customs or to put it simply ways of life. The average working class man or woman will not speak and behave in the same way as the average upper class British person. This can lead to certain biases (certain things are more likely to happen)within the classroom which in turn lead to certain types of students being less successful than others.

Basil Bernstein has conducted work with regard to what might be termed ideational resources. Bernstein is interested in speech patterns. We should remember that speaking is not something that comes automatically, speech is very much cultural not biological. Also, we should remember that certain ways of speaking, such as “speaking posh”, are also learnt. People are not born with marbles in their mouths others must put them there. Berstein identified two forms of speech code,: the elaborated form and the restricted form. The restricted speech code takes the form of short hand speech. Such speech is usually short and does not conform to common grammar. The meanings are also hard to grasp for those not part of the particular social group using the terms. The elaborated code on the other hand uses fully formed sentences with universal meanings. Such a speech code is context free, it can be understood by all those who know it whether friends of the speaker or not.

Bernstein also realized that the form of speech code used predominantly in the classroom was the elaborated speech code. The elaborated speech code was how the teacher expressed him or her self and it was the language in which the text book was written. The middle-class child to some extent learns and is fluent in both forms of speech, both restricted (which they use with parents and friends) and elaborated (which they use in the context of the classroom). The working-class child by contrast only learns and feels at home with the restricted speech code. This may mean that during lessons, which are taught in the elaborated speech code, they lose track and cannot understand what is being communicated to them. They will be misunderstood and will in turn misunderstand what is taught. Hardly a recipe for educational success.

There are other ways in which ideational resources also play a part. The classroom is an arena of meaning, just like social life in general. People attach meanings (beliefs, purposes, intentions etc.) to objects, events and actions. They define the situation and act according to this definition whether it be true or false. The classroom is presided over by the teacher who is by virtue of their occupation “middle class”. The teacher is a member of a community and will as a result internalised many of the prejudices, both positive and hegative, of that community. This stock of knowledge (prejudices)enables them to apply certain labels to pupils. There is an ideal student and a disruptive pupil, an “intelligent” student and a “stupid” student. Research has shown that teachers are more likely to label middle class children as students likely to succeed while they are more likely to label working class children as failures or disruptive. This can lead to a self fulfilling prophecy. Because the teacher believes that a student is destined to fail they fail. This is because they may spend less time explaining things to the student and may also let them away with poor work, perhaps even with doing no work.

Knowledge and the Education System

(Pushers of Junk)

Its a commonsesnse assumption that all schools do much the same thing, that is, they teach. But this is only part of the story. What the student learns within the school, be it part of the curriculum or not, will vary with school. To put it simply, those who go to “elite” schools, schools for the well-to-do and the “intelligent”, learn different things to those who go to “normal” schools. Also, there is even a distinction, in Northern Ireland at least, between state schools. There are Grammar schools and technical schools. The elite schools, and to a lesser extent the grammar schools, instruct students how to be leaders. They are assigned positions of authority, they take part in games requiring leadership, they are groomed for leadership. They are also taught the mysteries of the free enterprise system. They learn about “business”, they are even given practical experience of running a business. Those who go to the Technical schools, the vast majority of whom are from wroking class homes, are taught to be “doers”. They are to be the hands for the thinkers, those who will lead them, their colleagues in the elite schools. They are chanelled by teachers, and by “career advisors” (pushers of junk) to follow certain paths, but virtually never encouraged to go down the academic path. The academic path is those from elite schools. How can you ever become a member of the capitalist class or even the various elites of capitalist society if you lack the knowledge of how the system works? How do you become, even if you wanted to, an entrepureneur when all you have ever been taught is to be a worker.

The very knowledge that is passed down to children across the generation may affect their chances of educational success. Schools teach pupils, they try to instill them with knowledge. They don’t teach them any knowledge, only certain things. For example, in the elite schools you will learn about things such as classical music, literature, art etc. or “high culture” as it is known. To a lesser extent this “high culture” is also present in the wider education system, its just diluted. The child from the upper or middle class has already internalised much of this sort of knowledge, it is part of their sub-culture. The working class child has also internalised certain knowledge but not of the same sort. They might know a lot about football or films or pop music but they do not know what the middle class child knows.

Perhaps the best example of this is the TV programme University Challenge (shown in Britain). In this poor excuse for entertainment two opposing university teams answer questions, the majority of which are about “high Culture”. The victors are universally regarded as “very smart” but they are smart simply because they know about “high culture”, because they can regurgitate a lot of facts that form part of their daily existence, their culture. To put it simply the student who can recite a Shakespearean sonnet is considered a “genius”, the pupil who recites the lyrics from a Rage Against The Machine song is an idiot who has wasted their time (Ya Gotta A Kuc*in Bullet in Ya Head).A

The Second Part of the Equation

So far we have only examined the reasons why the first part of the equation is not true but what about the second part. Does educational success really equal material and/or professional success?

Not all working class children fail miserably in terms of their education. Some go on to further education and gain degree level qualifications, some will even go on to form the ranks of the service class. They will be doctors, teachers, journalists, lawyers some may even become captains of industry. The percentage of those who do achieve this is, however, very small relative to the size of the working class. Across the generations the middle class tends to reproduce itself, middle class parents have children who in turn go on to gain middle class jobs and in turn have middle class children and so on. That there is token mobility does not mean that class is not important, indeed such token mobility may strengthen the existing social order. If the existing order is defined as just and fair there is less chance of its overthrow from below.

Middle class children are not just successful because they gain qualifications, this is only part of the story. Middle class children, and those from the upper class particularly, are successful in part not because of what they know but because of who they know, or who their parents know. They have connections, networks of “friends”. Let’s say there are two people who go for the same job, that of an accountant, one of them is from a working-class background, the other is from a middle class background. The middle class job applicant has a father who happens to be a member of the same Church, same Masonic lodge, same Golf Club as the Manager of the factory. Exactly who do you think will get the job? The working-class job applicant whose Dad is a refuge collector or the job applicant whose parents are middle class and form part of a network of “friends”, or to put it slightly different, have connections? Qualifications are important but they are only part of the story, connections are much more important.

In Northern Ireland nepotism (giving favours to family anf friends) has always been rife although it has declined slightly since Direct Rule. Mainland Britain also, however, has its own form of nepotism or pattern of bias in terms of the labour market hierarchy. In Britain it remains the case that the elite positions in nearly every institutional sector, be it in private industry, the state, the church, the Army etc. have been monopolized by people from a certain background sharing certain educational characteristics in common. Many sociologists point to the existence of an “old Boys network”. The British sociologist Anthony Giddens argued that in britain there is no major institutional sector where less than half of those in top positions are of public school (private funded school) background. For example the following percentages were found with regard to the varying institutions:

Percentage who attended public school.

Anglican Bishops 80%+

Army officers over rank of major-general 80%+

Top Judges 80%+

Conservative MPs 76%

Senior Civil Servants 60%

Directors of industrial corporations 73%

Directors of financial firms 80%

Labour Party 26%(It has probably increased)

As we can see there is a certain pattern with regard to those who occupy the top positions in organisations, be they the military or the company boardroom. Part of the reason for this pattern is down to connections, the old boy networks. Those who occupy top positions have been in many cases to the same school, perhaps at the same time. They have frequented in the same circles, gone to the same Universities (Oxford and Cambridge), and are members of the same societies etc. They feel a common sense of identity with those who are like them, those who have had an elite education. If you are an Eton man then you must be okay.

Part of the explanation for this pattern of bias with regard to the educational background is to be found in the networks that exist but also in part because of the higher prestige that attaches itself to certain educational institutions. Whether rightly or wrongly certain educational establishments, such as Eton public school and Oxford and Cambridge universities, have much greater prestige than a former Polytechnic in Manchester or a comprehensive in inner city London. This fact turns the whole argument of equality within education upon its head. Degrees are not viewed as equal although the same work goes into a degree from Oxford or Cambridge as in any of the “lesser” universities. How can their be equality of opportunity when even those who have equal qualifications are judged differently depending on where they gained such qualifications?A

Conclusion

I have attempted to show that education is something of a myth making machine. All the education in the world may not gain you entry to the ranks of the capitalist class. You must have the connections to make your education work for you. Also, the material disadvantages combined with cultural disadvantages all conspire to make the chances of the child from a working class background getting a good education much less. I myself would see material resources as of paramount importance when it comes to educational success. Other factors also come into play, such as the standard of housing and diet of the student, all of which are in favour of the middle class child. We should not, however, overlook the role that ideational or cultural resources play in determining educational success or failure either. Lastly, even when the working class child is successful in terms of education this by no means is translated into success in the labour market as witnessed by the large numbers of people with degrees and other higher qualifications who “underachieve” when it comes to paid employment.(“Twenty years of schooling and they put you on the day shift” Bob Dylan). In conclusion it is not so much what you know that holds the key to professional and monetary success but who you know. Marxists would argue that true equality of opportunity, be it educational or otherwise, can only be created in a socialist society in which inequalities had ceased to exist. Raymond Boudon writes: “For inequality of educational opportunity to be elimanted, either a society must be unstratified or its school system must be completely undifferentiated.”

Function is an unclear term, often used by orthodox sociologists to define the logical and social place of roles, institutions and structures in terms of the production and reproductionof a society as a social

Functionalists believe everything serves a specific function in our society and these functions need to be understood. Everyone has a role to fill in this functional society, in other words we need to have stratification so as everyone has a purpose. Functionalists are very

boundaried and thin within the square. For this theory to really work, there needs to be a consensus amongst the individuals that make up society, they need to believe everything is in the best interest of this so called utopia. There is obviously no conflict of interest. This does not seem possible in this modern age, so can functionalism still be considered a plausible theory. It does of course have its merits, yes everything does have its function, but these functions are up for a degree of interpretation and change. Unfortunately functionalism

does not explain change except in a gradual evolutionary way.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory is a body of theories including marxism, which claims that all social orders are fractured by social conflict, typically between classes and other groups, over control of valued resources including wealth, power and property (Bessant & Watts, 1999). Conflict theorists believe that conflict is the basis of social order and that a minority of people with power are able to impose their will over others. There is a conflict of interest, people have different goals and purpose. They will use whatever means to gain this, even to the detriment of others in their society. Those with more power and money have the ability to gain a higher level of services by the main institutions in our society (such as education and health), thus creating a greater level of stratification in society. This in turn creates more conflict as those who cannot get the services they need turn to deviant or dependant methods to gain the same baisc needs. Unfortunately it is a vicious circle which continues to breed contempt from both sides of the fence in our society.

Durkheim

Durkheim (1858-1917) was one of the original ‘founding fathers’ of positivist sociology (functional theory), his concern was how to preserve society. The basis for social order (how society hung together and worked over time) was not economic but moral for Durkheim, expressed in the type of solidarity that a society exhibited (Willis,1999).

Durkheim was particularly concerned to distinguish social facts, which he sometimes described as “states of the collective mind,” from the forms these states assumed when manifested through private individual minds. This distinction is most obvious in cases of customs,

moral and legal rights and religious beliefs etc.

Marx

For Karl Marx (1818-1883), the transformation had to be understood primarily as a change in the economic structure of societies; a change in the means by which economic production was organised from a system called feudalism to one called capitalism (Willis 1999). Marx was a man looking to understand society, he followed many different paths and was alienated many times for his ideas. His theories on value and surplus value, accumulation, exploitation,

pauperization, crisis and appropriation, class struggle and revolution made no immediate impact on the workers’ movement, until after his death in 1883 (Rius 1999).

Unemployment

We are entering a new phase in world history – one in which fewer and fewer and fewer workers will be needed to produce the goods and services for the global population…For the whole of the modern era, people’s worth has been measured by the market value of their labour…now new ways of defining human worth and social relationships will need to be explored (Rifkin 1996). Life has changed, globalization and feminism have had a huge impact on the work environment around the world. Technology has also made many jobs redundant. Unemployment has become an issue allaround the globe, explanations of this phenomenom are plenty. How does unemployment serve a purpose, or is it just another chance for the powerful to stamp on those with less power? The government views the unemployment situation as an idividual problem. It is due to the lack of training of the individual, they now make people have training to continue to get unemployment benefits. This is a great idea as far as keeping the individual busy and increasing the self-esteem and knowledge, but what then? We are now creating alot of qualified people for positions which don’t exist. We need to look at why there are not enough positions to employ these individuals. If it is not lack of skills, then what is it? Could it be that they government or us as a society are not doing enough to promotebusiness in Australia, instead sending our work load overseas for cheaper labour. We need to look at why the positions are non existant rather than assuming it is the individuals fault. Unemployment affects our society in so many ways. The four main institutions I am looking at are family, education, health and government.

Firstly the family, unemployment places added financial and mental strain on the family. The lack of income can cause many families to have to live without the basic necessities which we take for granted, they then need to turn to welfare agencies in order to survive. Lack of income also means children often have to miss out on school activities

and sports programs as the family budget can no longer stretch the distance. This monetary strain can cause breakdown in both the individual and family. This can turn in domestic violence, alcoholism, gambling, family dysfunction and even suicide. Unemployment has such wide ranging affects on family life. Alcoholism, smoking, the illegal use of drugs and crime are associated with unemployment (Makkai 1994).This can then be made even more significant when their is further stratification caused by age, disability, ethnicity, gender, sex, class and race. For example, if your race was one that expected the men to work and the wife to stay at home and raise the children. When you become unemployed, you may lose your standing as both a husband and member of your community, as you can no longer provide appropriately for your family. Each of these aspects further increases the impact of unemployment.

Secondly, there is education. Public versus private is already a hotly argued issue, do children get a better education from private or public education. This is not an issue for Australians who cannot afford the private education system. It is still a struggle though to pay for books, uniforms, excursions, camps and other school activities. Add in unemployment and the issue becomes even harder. If you currently have your children in private education and become unemployed, you may not be able to meet the financial demands. Taking your child out

of their school and changing them to the public education system can then be very traumatic for everyone involved. Once again add any of the other stratification issues mentioned before and the situation can become very volatile. You may have certain reasons for attending special schools, if then cannot afford to maintain this situation what happens to your child. For example, a special school for your disabled child, mainstream public school may not be able to handle your childs disability. Your child is then left in a situation which is detrimental to their well being.

Thirdly, government, unemployment is such a hot issue with voters that the government must be seen to be doing as much as they can to help the situation. They are always making promises to decrease the unemployment rate, unfortunately the unmployment rate does not really give an accurate picture of how many people are out of work. It is only those who are registered as looking for work. The government provides welfare and training for unemployed but they do not seem to see the bigger picture. The government also creates stratification by having different payments and services for different races, rather than basing services provided on an individual needs basis. For example, Austudy and Abstudy.

Finally, health system, the health system is hit hard by unemployment especially with the drop in bulk billing. Many unemployed people cannot afford to go to a non-bulk billing doctor so instead go into their local emergency department. This is causing congestion in the emergency department. There is also an increase of illness (mental and physical) and suicide amongst the unemployed. This is creating a huge draw on our medicare and health system. Those on low incomes or unemployed cannot afford to have private health insurance, so are therefore no getting all the help they need. We are creating a system where people are leaving illnesses and injuries until they are quite serious due to the fact that they cannot afford to see a specialist.

We will now look at what the functionalists and the conflict theorists say about it.

Unemployment (Functionalism)

Functionalists believe unemployment serves a purpose in society. We need unemployment in our society, it plays its own part. For all those who are or have been unemployed, it is hard to see how it can possibly be good for society, part of the master plan. Unemployment creates so much misery and further increases the problem of stratification.

Those in the underprivileged class have to rely on government handouts, which only creates further poverty as those people struggle to make ends meet. This in turn affects the family structure by adding extra money pressures. This is the point though, unemployed people create work for centrelink staff, welfare agencies, counsellors and keep cheap discount stores in work. It also maintains that there will always be someone to take the menial jobs that others don’t want. Those lower classed people will do the jobs others won’t. We need the divisions to make sure there are people to cover all types of places in society.

Unemployment (Conflict Theory)

Conflict theorists see unemployment as more evidence of those in a powerful or priviledged position taking advantage of others. Power is the emphasis is an employment situation, while employed you have a certain amount of power, both over your work environment and your own life. Once unemployed you become powerless, reliant on the government to provide you an income. Once in this position, an individual is likely to take a job which is below their abilities and for less pay, just so as to be earning an income. The difference in class and standing continues to increase. Those with money, do not need to stoop to this type of position, they can instead wait until an

appropriate job comes up or they can indulge in further education to improve their position even more.

Conclusion

Unemployment plays are major part in our society, its affects are wide reaching. The implication that unemployment is an individual problem due to lack of skills, only seeks to increase the problem. The idea that who we are is depicted by what we do as a job, creates further stratification of our society. Long-term unemployment has been shown to be one of the most important contributors to domestic violence and other forms of crime, as well as psychological illness and suicide (Baker 1993).

Whether we look at unemployment from a functional or conflict perspective, there is no right or wrong answer. We need to look at it from both perspectives to get a better idea of the situation, and then to look at possible ways of dealing with the issue. There will always be unemployment due to changes in the environment, whether they are biological or technological. For this reason further insights into how society deals with unemployment is

necessary. Stratification is a principal aspect of the evolution of a society’s social identity, when this is compounded with unemployment, alienation and dysfunction becomes a consequence.