Let’s
do this thing.
Three theories attempt to explain global stratification – that is to say, how social stratification is a global phenomenon, occurring in all cultures. These theories are the Functionalist View, the Conflict Perspective, and then you have Lenski’s Synthesis. There are three OTHER theories to explain how global stratification ORIGINATED, but we will deal with those at another time. They are the Colonialism, World System, and Culture of Poverty theories.
In
the Functionalist view, proposed by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore in
1945/1953, there are four factors that will lead to the inevitable
stratification of society. To wit:
1.
For society to function, its positions must be filled;
2.
Some positions are more important than others;
3.
The more important positions must be filled by more qualified
people; and
4.
To motivate the more qualified people to fill these positions,
they must offer greater rewards (from the text).
To put it another way: Let’s
talk about GE and Panera Bread, and let’s make the assumption that for values
of ‘important’ GE ranks higher. GE needs to have a CEO. So does Panera. In
order to fill the position at GE, the Functionalists would have you believe
that GE needs to find a more qualified person to be CEO and therefore must
offer more money and perqs to get the right person into the position. In 2014,
Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, received $37.2 million in total compensation; Ronald
Shaich, Panera’s CEO, received $3.4 million (Wikipedia.com; salary.com). This
would seem to bear out the theory.
However, as Melvin Tumin
pointed out in 1953, there are some major issues with this. First, how do you
define ‘important’? To the average person, Panera is probably more visible in
their lives than GE, for all that GE is a major manufacturer of just about
everything and Panera bakes bread. Second, if this stratification worked
perfectly then we would all eventually live in a meritocracy, where all
positions are awarded on merit. Does this sound like the real world? Patently
not; I’m certain every one of us has at least one example of being passed over
for someone less-qualified but better-networked. Third, if stratification is
functional, then it ought to benefit everyone. This, too, is patently not so.
In fact, it is the opposite, as many people never get the chance to participate
even if they might have been more capable.
In the Conflict
Perspective, there are several complementary tenets. First, Gaetano Mosca
proposed in 1896 that society will be stratified by power. His reasoning was
that no society can exist unless organized; this requires leadership for
coordination. By its nature leadership requires inequities in power as some
people step into leadership roles while others follow. Finally, since we are
all, at the core, selfish jerks, the people in power will tend to enrich
themselves. Karl Marx predicted further that, as the workers (the powerless
proletariat) grow frustrated with the abuses of the powerful (bourgeoisie) they
will revolt and rise up to take the reins of power and control the means of
production. Current Conflict Theorists apply this principle of battle between groups
down to internal conflicts as well, for example between rival unions, or
racial, gender, and ethnic groups competing for social advancement. George
Carlin, in his show Jammin’ In New York,
said:
Now,
to balance the scale, I'd like to talk about some things that bring us
together, things that point out our similarities instead of our differences.
'Cause that's all you ever hear about in this country. It's our differences.
That's all the media and the politicians are ever talking about—the things that
separate us, things that make us different from one another. That's the way the
ruling class operates in any society. They try to divide the rest of the
people. They keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other so
that they, the rich, can run off with all the fucking money! Fairly simple
thing. Happens to work. You know? Anything different—that's what they're gonna
talk about—race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income,
education, social status, sexuality, anything they can do to keep us fighting
with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank! You know how I define
the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of
the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does
all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle
class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs.
The issue that I can see
with this Conflict Perspective is, while it does seem to reflect the current
socio-economic condition in the United States today, with a tiny minority
owning or controlling an overwhelming majority of the country’s wealth, it
doesn’t quite apply to less-developed nations.
That’s where Lenski’s
Synthesis comes in, and this is the one I agree with most. In 1966, Gerhard
Lenski proposed that the Functionalist Theory would prevail in societies where
there was not a surplus of goods and
services, while the Conflict Perspective would rule where there was a surplus. In simpler terms, in the
less industrialized nations, where mere survival is the name of the game, it is
more important to simply get by on a daily basis. Certain jobs, certain
positions, are clearly more important (the best hunters eat better, the
strongest warriors are honored) and others less so. Once the society has
progressed to the point where a surplus is possible, where the potential of starvation
is not around every day’s dawn, then a struggle arises over control of the
surplus. The group that eventually prevails becomes the elite, and the other
groups struggle for their place in the pyramid.
Ch10: What are the major
consequences of social class? What do you feel are the most significant
issues of these and what are others not addressed?
According
to Weber, social class is determined by grouping people closely by property,
power, and prestige – or, in another perspective, wealth, the ability to get
your way, and respect. These three components are intertwined; power can bring
property, prestige can bring power, property can bring prestige, and so forth.
Naturally, your social class has effects upon your life and how you live it.
Some of these consequences, identified in the text, are:
·
Physical Health – more money, better health care (generally) and
better choices
·
Mental Health – same equation
·
Family Life – stresses from a more difficult life place stresses
on families
·
Education – more money, more opportunities
·
Religion – although not immediately apparent, there is certainly a
bit of a caste system in Protestant churches, with some being for those with
money and those who are piling up riches in heaven because they can’t
accumulate them on Earth
·
Politics – yes, the right to vote is pretty universal in this
country, but who you vote for is a function
of your class. If you have money you tend to feel you should keep it and thus
vote Republican; if you are struggling and need help you vote Democrat
·
Crime and Criminal Justice – think of it this way: if OJ was a
poor black man instead of a rich black man, do you think he would have been
acquitted?
If I had to pick just ONE
of these as ‘most significant’, I would propose Physical Health. A poor person
needs to be healthy; in this country, with no mandatory sick leave, a workday lost
to illness is a significant financial blow. Living from paycheck to paycheck,
scrimping and saving to make ends meet, your working class person simply cannot
afford to miss money or their world might crumble. In addition, a good medical
plan will allow them to head off many mental health issues through regular
interaction with trained medical professionals. If you’re healthy and working,
your stress is reduced (compared to unhealthy or unable to work) which will
lead to better family life. If you’re healthy, you may be able to physically
afford to take classes to advance your learning and get ahead.
And one that is not
addressed specifically is personal freedom. Yes, in theory every person in this
country is equal to every other and has all the rights of anyone else. But if
you’re making minimum wage, and your supervisor tells you to do something
inappropriate, how many people would be comfortable refusing and possibly
losing that job? Your rights are being infringed; you cannot speak up!
Ch11: Where is gender inequality
experienced? What are specific examples of how you have experienced this
or are aware of this/ What can be done to change this and improve these
conditions?
In the simplest
possible terms, gender inequality is experienced everywhere, in everything. It
is endemic, crosses all cultural borders, and permeates every aspect of all
societies.
Specifically, from the
text, it is experienced in:
·
Everyday Life – specifically, devaluation of things
feminine (‘you throw like a girl’)
·
Health Care – it’s all in your head; ‘feminine vapours’
·
Education – being seen as weaker and encouraged to
study less strenuously; still being steered to ‘feminine’ courses of study
·
Workplace – the pay gap; the glass ceiling
·
Sexual Harassment – unwanted sexual advances and behaviour
·
Violence Against Women – there is still a culture of ‘she
deserved in’ in many crimes, including rape and domestic abuse
Being male, I have not experienced any of these. However, I can
state that as the culture has become more aware of these inequalities,
behaviour has changed. What was acceptable twenty years ago is frowned upon
now; what was taboo then is accepted. Overall, this is progress, although one
might argue that in a race to become entirely gender-neutral and totally
inoffensive to all we are losing some of the challenging aspects of our culture
which have provided an edge. (I provide this link to an excellent article for
further reading: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/)
I will end with two quotes, one to make you think and one to
amuse. You can decide which is which.
Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they
have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and
what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to
demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle
merely for equality. For women, "equality" is a disaster.- Robert
Heinlein
Boy, these conservatives are
really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do
anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life
conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After
that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No
nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food
stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're
preschool, you're fucked. Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you
reach military age. Then they think you're just fine. Just what they've
been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be
dead soldiers. Pro-life... pro-life... These people aren't pro-life, they're
killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do anything they
can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to
kill it? They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman.
Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They
believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state. –
George Carlin
No comments:
Post a Comment