Category: Inequality

Long before our society had entered the new century, social scientists have been conducting research and were trying to explain some significant large-scale changes. Now there are several ways in which sociologists could try to make sense of these changes that could be summarized by words like restructuring, globalization, or the new economy, however old sociological concepts, such as inequality are still much more relevant concerning the understanding of todays society (Moen, Dempster-Mcclain, & Walker, 1999). The modern world possesses such aspects of inequality as non-equal distribution of incomes, jobs, and wealth. Many jobs are only part-time, and the lions share of them are low wage. This situation is accompanied by the fact that many people are dependant on the benefits of welfare, and furthermore, they are poorly informed about social facts and ideas, as many tend to relate themselves to an amorphous middle class (Berberoglu, 1994).

Prominent sociologists of the 20^th century Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, created a theory called the Davis-Moore hypothesis. This hypothesis claims that it is vital for society to be socially stratified and socially unequal. According to this theory, the importance of such stratification consists in certain occupations and positions being more essential to the societys survival than other occupations and positions; in other words, some jobs are of greater importance than others. This leads us to a conclusion that such jobs must be held by the most talented people, in other words, the best in the field (Lopreato & Hazelrigg, 1972). Consequently, in order for such professionals to be attracted to take these positions, the jobs must offer greater rewards: better salaries, greater prestige, and more power compared to other occupations. The aforesaid makes our society unequal. It is rational to summarize this hypothesis by stating that such social unfairness is not simply unavoidable, but it is inherent for societys proper functioning. The inefficiency of an egalitarian society would be caused by talented people not being encouraged to excel. According to Davis and Moore, human society has always been a meritocracy with the domination of inequality, where the personal social position is proportional to ones capabilities and efforts.

Another well-known sociologist Herbert Gans has a somewhat different approach on this issue. In his work, entitled The Positive Functions of Poverty, written over twenty years ago, he was the first one to turn his attention to the fact that poverty obliges people to engage in certain types of occupations, as they have no other alternatives left (Oconnor, 2000). This condition relieves the richer part of the population from having to occupy these jobs or provides them with a few advantages that otherwise would not be available. According to Herbert Gans, social inequality exists because society (the people) are benefiting from it, as it performs various functions. For example, because of social inequality, the poor population category is willing to be involved in jobs where unpleasant tasks are performed (Glassner & Hertz, 2003). Because they receive low income, they are willing to make purchases of things not wanted by the richer individuals. Another important function of the poor is that they constantly remind others about the importance of working hard (Donaldson, 1969). They are also playing a role of the drudge of a household for most of our social problems, as well as create work for the other little more moneyed part of the population (e.g., doctors and lawyers of lower qualification, pawnshop owners, social workers).

If one were to compare the two social inequality theories discussed above, one could say that they both accentuate the usefulness of social stratification. However, according to the Davis and Moore theory, inequality assists the inefficient society functioning, whereas according to Herbert Gans, the existence of poverty is explained by many benefiting because of it, as the existence of poverty ensures that societys dirty work will be done (Gans 1971). The thesis of Davis and More has a few weak spots that can not stand criticism. For example, the authors claim that some positions are more important than others and more important ones are rewarded accordingly. The question is, according to which criteria it is possible to measure the essentiality of a position (Dennis 1976)? The theory also states that the importance of a position is always rewarded accordingly; however, this suggestion is not always true, as there is a wide array of jobs that are of much essence but do not offer much prestige or income. The profession of medical doctor subscribes to this theory, as it is an important, prestigious occupation with corresponding rewards, high salary, much power, but nursing is just as vital to the society offers far less prestige, power, and income, compared to the previous occupation. On the other hand, there are high prestige and high-income jobs which are of little relevance to societys survival (Szmatka, Lovaglia, & Wysienska, 2002). Examples of such occupations could be movie stars, professional sportsmen, popular musicians, and many others. This leads to a conclusion that is opposing this theory, many positions are not being awarded based on merit, explaining why our society is not a meritocracy. The term underclass used by Davis and Moore is being criticized by Gans, as he initiates a more complex concept of how Americas most disenfranchised category of the population is being made sense of by the wealthier, more privileged Americans (Young, 2007). Herbert Gans helps to establish a better interpretation of the poor, inviting a more accurate assessment and investigation of poverty. He states that underclass people play more complex roles, comparing to simply not being able to qualify to more prestigious jobs (Davis and Moore), and are much more sophisticated beings than suggested by the underclass label.

References

Berberoglu, B 1994 Class Structure and Social Transformation, Harper Perennial, Westport.

Dennis, H. 1976, Wrong, Skeptical Sociology Columbia University Press, New York.

Donaldson, S. 1969, The Suburban Myth, Columbia University Press, New York.

Gans, H. 1971. The Uses of Poverty: The Poor Pay All. Social Policy. pp. 20-24.

Glassner, & Hertz, eds. 2003. Our Studies, Ourselves: Sociologists Lives and Work, Oxford University Press, New York

Lopreato & Hazelrigg. 1972, Class, Conflict, and Mobility: Theories and Studies of Class Structure, Chandler Publishing, SF.

Moen, Dempster-Mcclain, & Walker, eds. 1999. A Nation Divided: Diversity, Inequality, and Community in American Society. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY

Oconnor, A. 2000. Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century U.S. History, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Szmatka, Lovaglia, & Wysienska, eds., 2002, The Growth of Social Knowledge: Theory, Simulation, and Empirical Research in Group Processes, Praeger, Westport.

Young, A. 2007 Herbert Gans and the Politics of Urban Ethnography Age of the Underclass. City & Community, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 7-20

Introduction

Social inequality refers to the difference in the quality of life experienced by different people in the same community, usually between the rich and poor. Continued experience with this inequality leads to the establishment of class structures or social stratification. America is a prime example of such a society. Indeed, it is not hard to see that there are people who have so much wealth and receive big incomes, whereas others have too little wealth and receive close-to-non-income.

Is the U.S. truly the land of equality?

Despite the example mentioned above, it would be erroneous to classify America as a truly unequal society. This is because it has been in the American tradition to reduce the gap between its rich and poor. Indeed, American society provides equal opportunities for members of different structures to increase their wealth so they can all be better off. This scenario makes America a true land of quality; which is achieved through the provision of an enabling environment. As a result, poor people in America have a higher chance of climbing the class ladder than their counterparts in other parts of the world (The Economist, 2006).

The reason, the American society has been concentrating on increasing its economic productivity as a way of helping its poor escape poverty. Contrary other countries, including the rich ones in Europe, have concentrated on taking wealth from the rich through higher taxation as a way of helping their poor. Also, it is noticeable that American poor have been getting into better lives than their counterparts in other parts of the world; the rich have been getting richer. On the other hand, the rich in other parts of the world have seen their wealth rise slightly remain stagnant whereas the poor see their plights stay the same. This is despite the efforts made by respective governments to reduce the gap between the two groups.

Inequality in America Today

Recent reports indicate that national wealth going to the richest one percent increased from eight percent in 1980 to sixteen percent in 2004, whereas the percentage of national wealth going to the poor one percent increased by a slimmer margin (NPR, 2007). This has been taken by many people to mean that Americas wealthy have been taking the entire national income home, whereas the poorer are getting even more destitute. But this is an utter exaggeration because it can easily be established that Americas poor have been experiencing better lives at a higher rate than their European counterparts; this is indicated by fact of increased home and motor vehicle ownership, education attainment, and the overall quality of life (NPR, 2007). The rising gap between the rich and poor in America is making many people claim that American inequality is increasing rapidly. However, critics are ignoring the fact the productivity of American society has resulted in rising living standards for all citizens.

The United States, therefore, serves as a society that is unequal but is applying the necessary measures to ensure that the gap between the rich and poor is bleached through methods that will leave all groups better-off. This method is none other than rooting for economic growth that provides opportunities to all in society. Other countries in the world, especially those in Europe have some lessons to learn from America, failure of which will lead to exacerbation of their inequality crisis.

References

The Economist (2006). America Inequality. Web.

Berliner, U. (2007).Haves and Have-Nots. Web.

Introduction

According to Marmot and Wilkinson, health inequalities are the systematic, structural differences in health status between and within social groups within the population (Marmot and Wilkinson, 1999). Health inequalities relate to other socioeconomic factors that determine health status in society.

These factors may include diet, housing, employment, and access to healthcare among others. Thus, the focus of healthcare inequalities concentrates on factors that reduce accessibility to healthcare services for different socioeconomic groups.

Conditions which determine accessibility to healthcare services usually present serious challenges to policymakers in their attempts to address them. This is because most of these causes have relations with other multifaceted factors. Consequently, the solutions must also reflect the nature of these causes.

We should note that policies that can adequately address healthcare issues should be long-term, need multiple inputs and continuous improvements as new socioeconomic challenges emerge. We have also witnessed lack of clear evidence regarding the effectiveness of existing policies that seek to address healthcare inequalities. Thus, the UK government is continuously looking for new approaches for addressing existing healthcare inequalities.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the UK Government Strategies in Addressing Inequalities in Health

Health Care

The UK government strategies of providing healthcare services have marginally contributed to the effectiveness of addressing disparities that exist in healthcare provisions.

Debates and politics about the portfolio of the department of health in the ministry have negatively affected works of the National Health Services (NHS). The UK government has set targets that aim at reducing main causes of deaths in the UK. These include reducing cancer deaths among the elderly, reducing strokes, accidents, and mental illnesses.

The challenge is that policymakers did not address these targets to reflect healthcare inequalities that exist in the society. It is only under rare circumstances that these targets may indicate a minimal reflection of health disparities.

Changes in the structure of the organisation also affect the provision of healthcare services to address inequalities. This has led to the creation of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) that will address healthcare disparities, and commissioning hospital services among other functions (Department of Health, 1999).

Creating Target and Performance Cultures

Existing inequality in healthcare has prompted the UK government to initiate a culture of targets and performance. Consequently, it has come up with some few strategies. First, we have Public Service Agreements (PSAs). Ministries have developed a department (spending) to ease their works with the finance ministry. PSAs can play a fundamental role in reducing disparities in the provision of health services.

However, this department lacks the structure of fulfilling this role since that was not its primary aim. Deakin and Parry propose the linkage between the PSAs policy, outcomes and accountability because of the social policy this department can address (Deakin and Parry, 2000).

Second, the famous Acheson Report has no provisions for reducing health inequalities. The report notes that causes of health inequalities are complex and involve elements which interact. Therefore, the government did not provide any provision for addressing such inequalities. Consequently, it introduced some targets in 2001 (Acheson, 1998).

These targets focused on children under one year in reducing mortality by at least 10 percent mainly in poor areas. Likewise, health authority targets to reduce the gap that exists in life expectancy in areas with low life expectancy at birth by at least 10 percent and spreads it to the entire population.

In order to ensure the effectiveness of these targets, the government developed some indicators to monitor their progresses on a long-term basis.

Structures and Processes

The UK government has put in places structures and processes that ensure effectiveness in addressing health inequalities. First, there is the Joined-up Government (JUG) process and structure. This structure requires various departments of the government to work together in solving multifaceted problems through the creation of policies.

This is may not be effective because it is not a system of nationwide approach in tackling health inequalities. The problem is that many ministries and their departments may participate in policies formulation, but the responsibility to implement these policies rests with one of them (Lurie, 2002).

In the UK, public policy reforms have created fragmented departments among various services providers. These fragmentations in policies have hindered the achievement of the main goals set in the policy document. Flinder found out that issues that are not within any coordinating committee do not get any attention; thus, they end up neglected (Flinders, 2002).

There also exists massive competition for resources among these different branches of JUG (Flinders, 2002). These factors affect service and resource provisions in various departments such as health, and education among others. In addition, not all ministries related to health take initiative for enhancing change.

Second, there is also Cross-cutting Review. This exists to inform the government spending in areas which are not within the main portfolio of the ministries. In the year 2001, health inequalities became the topic of review. The review revealed that there is a need for long-term agendas for addressing health inequality issues.

They also indicated the need to put health in equalities among the mainstream elements. The review team identified areas of focus, such as improving housing, nutrition improvement programmes, focusing on poverty areas and improving provisions of healthcare services.

Redistribution +trategy

The UK government embarked on a modest redistribution of resources to the disadvantaged masses. The government concentrates on providing modest employment to these masses in order to improve their socioeconomic status. However, this approach may not solve health inequalities because it lacks the basic agenda of redistributing wealth in a progressive manner.

The UK government has also introduced some forms of tax credits for adults in employment some benefits. They mainly target single parents and disabled persons in society. These approaches in wealth distribution will have marginal significant in addressing basic socioeconomic and multifaceted factors resulting into health inequalities (Dolowitz, 2003).

Children Agenda

Health inequalities mainly affect the vulnerable majorities in society who are mainly children. Consequently, the UK government has launched strategies to reduce health disparities that affect mostly children. First, the government borrowed the idea of Sure Start from the US government.

This policy strives to improve the life chances of children from poverty-stricken areas through changing their patterns of living together with their families. The programme targets children in poverty areas, but the area of focus and number of children in poverty remain low. The programme has no clear guidelines on how it will cover the entire country.

Second, there is also a Child Poverty programme. The UK government set targets of reducing children living under poverty by 25 percent by the year 2004. According to Brewer and Gregg the UK has one of the highest rates of child poverty (measured as households with income below 60 percent of the median income) of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries (Brewer and Gregg, 2001).

This programme strives to improve the living standards of children from regions stricken with poverty through introducing new benefits, increasing welfare benefits. This is a subsidy programme whose focus is on poor households for the benefits of the children.

Observers have noted some positive improvement as the number of children in poverty reduced below 60 percent. However, critics of these programmes believe that such improvements cannot result from policy implementation because the policy is also responsible for creating residual group whose lives the policy has not touched (Guy, 1997).

Area-focused Strategies

The UK government has initiated a number of policies targeting certain location so as to address the issue of poverty and poor populations (Illsley, 1999). Health Action Zones (HAZ) programme has an interagency approach in tackling issues of poverty and deprivation. HAZ targets at least 13 million people. HAZ main focus is to formulate and implement strategies that can eliminate poverty in parts of England.

HAZ has some drawbacks in terms of structural changes that continuously affect its implementation agendas. The government also uses it as it main reference point for creating short-term agendas which are difficult to achieve and implement effectively (Illsley, 1999).

Conclusion

The UK has spent quite considerable amount of time and resources in its attempts to address issues of health inequalities. The country views these issues in terms of policy problems.

A number of reports and research works have identified multifaceted factors, which are responsible for the existing state of health inequalities in the UK. These works provide the government with the basic background and foundation on which to lay their approaches for addressing health inequalities.

These policies have helped address some challenges facing the health sector in the UK, but they have also met crucial challenges that we cannot ignore. The major challenge is how the government can effectively address and implement health inequalities policy agendas.

In addition, there have been significant progresses in addressing health inequalities, and the government has realised that incorporating all stakeholders in the policy formulation and implantation may be the best approach in tackling socioeconomic determinants in healthcare provisions.

Challenges are clear indicators that some of the approaches the UK government is using for tackling health inequalities may not be the best approaches. Thus, these poor outcomes call for immediate formulation of new policies for tackling emerging problems. The UK should also borrow from countries like the US that have implemented most of their health care policies successfully.

The UK government must realise that some of its approaches may not be effective. In this regard, the country must reformulate these policies, for instance, the UK agendas on tackling healthcare disparities lack clear focus and as a result, they may not yield the desired results.

This is the case of socioeconomic policies that aim at addressing poverty and health care inequalities. Thus, the UK should focus on its long-term agenda for challenges problems in the provision of healthcare services effectively.

Most of the policy initiated to address health inequalities never provided the main issues responsible for health inequalities. At the same time, these reports fail to provide clear guidelines on how the government should implement some of their findings.

Reference List

Acheson, D 1998, Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health, The Stationery Office, London.

Brewer, M and Gregg, P 2001, Eradicating Child Poverty in Britain: Welfare Reform and Children since 1997, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London.

Deakin N and Parry R, 2000, The Treasury and Social Policy: The Contest for Control of Welfare Strategy, Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Department of Health 1999, Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation. White Paper Command 4386, The Stationery Office, London.

Dolowitz, P 2003, A Policy-makers Guide to Policy Transfer, Political Quarterly, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 1018.

Flinders, A 2002, Governance in Whitehall, Public Administration, vol.80 no. 1, pp. 5175.

Guy, K 1997, Our Promise to Our Children, Health Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Illsley, R 1999, Reducing Health Inequalities: Britains Latest Attempt, Health Affairs, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 4546.

Lurie, N 2002, What the Federal Government Can Do about the Non-medical Determinants of Health, Health Affair, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 94106.

Marmot, M and Wilkinson, G 1999, Social Determinants of Health, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Even a superficial assessment how John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau used to conceptualize the notions of private property and inequality will reveal that there is a fundamental inconsistency between the both philosophers views, in this respect.

According to Locke, all people are born equal, regarding their right to pursue happiness in whatever the way they consider the most fitting, All men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit (Locke 10). Since it is in the very nature of men to regard the amount of money/material assets in ones hands reflective of the measure of the concerned individual well-being, it is thoroughly natural for people to be innately prompted to place ownership-claims on just about anything that comes in their sight.

What this means is that a person comes into possession of material things naturally, since the concerned process cannot be discussed outside of his or her willingness to apply an effort in trying to materialize its ownership-related aspirations. In its turn, this means that law and order, in fact, derive out of the informal/formal institutionalization of private ownership/property even in the most primitive societies. Therefore, the governments function is to merely provide a legal framework for people to go about exploring their personal agendas (extrapolative of the concerned individuals obsession with the thoughts of enrichment), without causing the society to collapse due to the internal divisions between its members.

Some of the most important implications of such Lockes suggestion are as follows:

• The institution of private property is indispensable to the societys proper operating. By owning property, individuals are endowed with the natural right to use just about any mean necessary to protect it from being claimed/violated by others. Because everybody is aware of this simple truth of life (even if on an instinctual level), it prevents the uncontrollable escalation of tensions within the society.

• Inequality is natural (and even desirable). Even though people are born equal, in the discursive sense of this word (concerned with the discourse of Judeo-Christianity), this does not presuppose their de facto equality. One of the reasons for this is that ones endowment with the right to make free choices in life does not necessarily mean that he or she is capable of taking practical advantage of it. According to Locke, this is the main motivating factor behind the class-based stratification within just about any society.The philosophers other inequality-supporting argument has to do with the assumption that, even though the functioning of the free market (Capitalist) economy does result in inducing inequality, both rich and poor equally benefit from living in the society that becomes ever more technologically and culturally advanced  the process made possible by the same societys appropriation of the inequality-inducing operational paradigm. As the philosopher observed: The poorest day laborer in England, living under a private ownership system, is better off than a chieftain, the best off person, in a North American tribe that lives under something closer to a free use system (Locke on Property 4). This is the reason why Locke is commonly regarded as the founding father of economic Liberalism.

• Every person is at liberty to live as he or she consciously chooses. However, Locke does recognize that there are certain limits to this liberty  the above-mentioned provision only applies for as long as the manner in which the concerned individual goes about trying to achieve self-actualization does not threaten the interests of other people. Nevertheless, the philosopher refrains from specifying how to determine the rightful boundaries of each persons existential interests.

As compared to Lockes point of view, in regard to the discursive significance of private ownership/inequality, that of Jean-Jacques Rousseau is much different. The foremost inconsistency between the two has to do with the fact that unlike Locke, Rousseau refused to acknowledge the quintessential naturalness of the private property institution: The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe he was the true founder of civil society (Rousseau par. 1).

This refusal, on the philosophers part, was reflective of his realization that the measure of a persons industriousness plays a secondary role within the context of defining his or her chances to attain social prominence  a primary role is played by a blind luck. Therefore, being rich and socially respectful does not mean deserving to be in the position to exert influence on the policy making process within the society as something thoroughly natural. What this means is that the institution of private property cannot possibly serve as the theoretical foundation for establishing a morally sound and long-term sustainable social order, especially given the fact that the assumption of a private ownerships sanctity has been commonly evoked to justify slavery.

What is then the source of law and order in the society? According to Rousseau, it is what he used to refer to as social contract  the peoples legally (not naturally) binding agreement to act in a manner beneficial to the societys overall well-being, even if this requires them to apply an effort into suppressing the irrational domination/enrichment-seeking instincts within themselves. In its turn, this implies that private property is a socially (rather than naturally) constructed concept.

As yet another indication that there is nothing natural about the concept in question Rousseau considered the fact that the extent of the governmental authoritys legitimacy positively relates to the governments ability to withstand corporate pressures, exerted by the selfishly minded representatives of the social elites. This, however, would never be the case, had ones entitlement to property rights been the actual agent of social progress. Consequently, this supposes that, contrary to the Lockes take on the subject matter, human society is a highly systemic entity of its own, the overall quality of which only indirectly relates to the qualities of its composing elements (people).

The suggestions practical implication is quite apparent  being highly irrational, peoples obsession with accumulating material riches (which Locke believed was the enabling trigger of socioeconomic advancement) stands opposed to the very principle of historical dialectics, which in turn predetermines the qualitative essence of the surrounding social realitys emanations. After all, ones stance in life cannot be discussed outside of the affecting environmental circumstances, which are the subject of a continual transformation. Therefore, there is nothing sacred about the concept of private property  ones fixation on trying to accumulate property as the actual purpose of his or her life, is merely the indication of the concerned individuals underdevelopment as a socially integrated being.

Rousseaus outlook on the societal significance of private property helps to explain his insistence that there is nothing intrinsic about peoples inequality as well. As the philosopher pointed out: If we follow the progress of inequality in its different revolutions, we shall find that the establishment of the law and of the right of property was its first term (Rousseau par. 57).

In fact, Rousseau believed that inequality is instrumental in helping the rich and powerful to impose their dominance on the socially underprivileged citizens: The origin of society and law& gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty& converted clever usurpation into unalterable right& and subjected all mankind to perpetual labor, slavery and wretchedness (Rousseau par. 147). Therefore, there is indeed nothing too surprising about the fact that this French philosopher is commonly referred to as one of the early precursors of Marxism.

In light of the recent breakthroughs in the fields of sociology, psychology and neuroscience, Rousseaus view of property/inequality appears much more scientifically sound, as compared to that of Locke.

The reason for this is that, unlike the former, Rousseau proved himself capable of realizing that there are strongly systemic subtleties to the societys functioning, evocative of the Aristotelian famous suggestion that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts  something that exposes the sheer fallaciousness of Lockes idea that a person is predetermined to prioritize its personal agenda in life, even at the expense of adopting a strong anti-social stance, and that there is an intrinsic quality to ones property rights. The failure of Neoliberalism in the West (the ideology that can be traced directly to Lockes writings) serves as yet additional proof of this statements validity.

Works Cited

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Hackett Publishing Company, 1980.

Locke on Property. UCSD. 2012. Web.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. On the Origin of the Inequality of Mankind. Marxists. Web.

When examining the statement there is hardly any inequality among men in the state of nature by Rousseau one cannot help but think of the concept of the Ubermensch developed by Nietzsche.

Nietzsche describes human beings as being in a phase of intermediate evolution between apes and the overman wherein due to this intermediary state humans can thus be broken down into two distinct categories of master and slave (White and Hellerich, 39).

For Rousseau his argument focuses on the apparent equality of all human beings at the point of being born and it is only when outside environmental factors are introduced that the state of inequality among men occurs.

This can take the form of having parents who are more economically well off, being born in a 1st world country or being within an area that fosters better growth and education. Rosseau does not mention factors relating to physical or mental superiority since for him such factors are developed as a result of environmental consequences and are not inherent in a person at the time of birth.

It is only when sufficient environmental influence is enacted on the growth of an individual that true inequality occurs. As such, under the ideas of Rosseau can it can be presumed that if two men were born in exactly the same situation, in the same environment and with the same background and economic circumstances then these men would continue to be equal.

Taking this particular viewpoint to its zenith it can thus be stated if a large enough population were born also under the same circumstances, environment, background etc. then everyone in it would be equal as well. This particular conclusion can be arrived to by assuming that the state of nature mentioned by Rosseau means a state with absolutely no outside interference and letting the natural progression of human growth take its place.

The Master and Slave Concept of Nietzsche

The inherent problem with the proposed concept of Rossaeu is that it fails to take into account the possibility of inequality naturally occurring as a result of the need for concerted effort in order to achieve a particular end.

Nietzsche argues that humans can basically be divided into two distinct categories namely that of the master and the slave which in essence are distinctions used today in the concepts of leaders and followers (White and Hellerich, 39).

It can be stated that from a certain sociological standpoint the concept postulated by Nietzsche does in fact have a basis in the way society is organized.

For example, a progressive society cannot be composed entirely of leaders since someone has to be the one to actually follow the orders of the leaders on the other hand a society composed entirely of followers would be unguided and thus would not be able to actually effectively commit to a goal requiring concerted effort.

While such a concept agrees with the statement of Rosseau that there is no inequality among men in the state of nature it based more upon physical and biological characteristics rather the psychological (Beyond Good and Evil, 1).

By its very nature the concept of leadership places a person above another; Rosseau is actually erroneous in believing that the state of nature does not create inequality when in fact nature itself creates various examples of inequality.

For example, packs of wolves have a leader who is the same physically and biologically as all the other members yet is made a the leader due to the necessity for most groups, human or otherwise, to have a guiding force behind the groups actions.

This notion is applicable to humans as it is to animals since any concerted effort requires a certain dominating personality to be able to control individuals towards a particular goal (Allen, 386  402). Thus it can be seen that the concept of inequality occurs naturally in nature (Allen, 386  402).

In the case of interpreting the state of nature as being an environment with no outside interference towards development inequality will still develop since if there need of any concerted effort in such an environment the concept of a leader will inevitably arise thus resulting in creation of a system of inequality where there is an individual dictating others what to do.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of this paper I can say that I disagree with the statement of Rosseaus since for me inequality is still evident in most states of nature. I can even go so far as state that inequality is even a necessity in the grand scheme of things.

Works Cited

Allen, James Sloan. Nietzsche and Wilde: An Ethics of Style. Sewanee Review. 386-

402. University of the South, 2006. Literary Reference Center. EBSCO. Web.

Beyond Good and Evil. Ethics (Ready Reference series) (1994): 1. Literary Reference Center. EBSCO. Web.

White, Daniel R., and Gert Hellerich. The Ecological Self: Humanity and Nature in

Nietzsche and Goethe. European Legacy 3.3 (1998): 39. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Introduction

John Lockes philosophical framework gives way to what most philosophers term as classical liberalism. According to his school of thought, he brings to fore some ideas that center on the human being and his inherent rights. On the other hand, another body of thought differs on the liberal framework articulated by Locke. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx are some of the greatest thinkers who criticize this framework. According to Rousseau, he advocates for collectivism as opposed to Lockes concept of individualism. Marx takes a more radical approach in his criticism. In his argument, he proposes that an ideal State can only be achieved by reversing the economic class structure. This paper will therefore bring to fore the concept of classical liberalism as a body of thought and thereafter compare and contrast the concept with the criticisms posed by Rousseau and Marx.

Understanding The Classical Liberalism

The principle of classical liberalism concerns itself with innate rights possessed by an individual, private property and unautocratic economy. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke describes the state of nature as one that has freedom and equality (Locke 4). He further argues that individuals should try and emulate that particular state of nature. Further, the autonomy of the state is characterized by its ability to come up with laws and to ensure that the laws are equally administered. The state is therefore placed with a burden of protecting the rights of the individual. Locke holds the same ideology as Hobbes when he argues that individuals have inherent rights that they obtain from the state of nature. However, he takes a different approach from Hobbes view by stating that the power invested on the sovereign being should not contravene the said rights.

According to Locke, the right to private property is one of the most crucial rights that the State should protect. To protect this right among other inherent rights, there must be an impartial judge to determine and adjudicate upon disputes. He emphasizes on the significant of private property and goes on to infer that an individual can only access his rights to private property through labor. This leads to the distinction between common and private property. It is therefore upon the State to defend the hard earned right to acquire that property. According to Locke, the State is placed with the burden of protecting the rights of the individual. It is for this reason that classical liberalism adopts the concept of social contract. The social contract ensures that the individuals of such a State are governed by laws that they have laid down to guide them.

Rousseaus Democratic Social Contract As An Alternative To Lockes Liberalism

As earlier discussed, Lockes philosophy describes a state of nature that is governed by certain laws. According to him, it is evident that man continues to engage in such activities of trade and barter that inherently lead to massive creation of wealth. His liberal social contract provides that an ideal government need to be put in place to protect the individuals rights to private property acquired as a result of this wealth. Accordingly, the individuals come to a consensus to surrender their natural rights to a sovereign State.

Rousseau in some ways differs with the formulations articulated by Locke. In his Second discourse, he argues that Lockes social contract is inaccurate as it lays a stronger emphasis on the protection of mans property rights instead of the need to acquire a government. He views property and money creation as a social evil and thereby disparaging to the natural being. He seems to hold a similar view with that of Locke in regards to the equality of individuals in the state of nature. In his opinion he argues that human society exists through various stages. However, it is impossible for humans to coexist peacefully due to emergence of envy and conceit amongst each other as a result of competition. This therefore gives way to the corrupt stage which he views as the final stage of development. The individuals in this stage live an alienated life and are governed by their own desires. To control this problem, Rousseau proposes the political social contracts as a solution that seeks to reduce the alienation through certain forces (Rousseau 3).

Both Rousseau and Locke seem to agree on the need to have social contracts to remedy the problem of inequality. They however differ fundamentally on the application of the social contracts. Rousseaus approach disagrees with Lockes approach that views social contracts as being purely voluntary. According to Rousseau, human beings surrender their liberty for the good will and not as a protective measure. It therefore becomes the duty of every individual to give up his freedom for all. He also views the social contracts as being formative. According to him, it is imperative to first reunite the government with the natural state of liberty. Further, he proposes that a legitimized structure of government be put in place. This policy will ensure that man will be taken as he is and the law as it might be.

Rousseau argues that this problem can only be solved through general will. In his opinion, the general will will ensure that man acquires freedom and at the same time safeguard the semblance of the State. A significant characteristic of the formative sprain of social contract is the fact that individuals are generally competitive and easily succumb to desire, envy and vanity. It therefore becomes difficult for a normal being to appreciate the general will of the society. It becomes the duty of the legislators to educate such persons. It is however important to note that unlike Marx, he holds a differing opinion in regard to revolutions as he views them as being more destructive due to the powerful influence of the superior powers over the minorities.

Marxs Radical Alternative

It is not in doubt that both Marx and Locke hold a similar view on the need of fairness at the heart of the State. However, Marx criticizes the idea of liberal democratic capitalism as proposed by Locke. According to him, the classical liberalism disregards the significance of social context. This is because the concept of liberalism adopted by Locke portrays an idealistic view of the human being. Accordingly, the human is regarded as a pre-social entity and the presence of the society is necessary to act as an intervention for the individuals and to mould them. The inference of this is that liberalism view freedom as an isolated entity and thereby imbalanced. In his work On the Jewish Question, Marx asserts that, None of these purported rights of an individual goes past the egoistic individual, as an individual detached from the ordinary social life and inhibited into his clandestine interests and caprice (23). In his opinion, this contrasted view on freedom is distinguishable. This is because man look for pessimistic freedom in order to exercise optimistic freedom.

The pessimistic freedom is therefore necessary to achieve an optimistic freedom to ensure equality. It is for this reason that the liberal democratic approach fail to achieve the desired freedom and equality. Further, Lockes approach to classical liberalism fails to bring to fore the importance of common beneficial relations. He concurs with Rousseau on the issue of classical liberalism being a mere voluntarism. In his opinion, the theory of politics is merely abridged to the issues of force. It is therefore imperative that both the pessimistic and optimistic freedom goes hand in hand to achieve the desired level of equality. However, he takes a different approach from that of Rousseau on the issue of general will as a solution to the political problem. According to him, there still exist an unresolved conflict between the normal and clandestine interests of both the government and the civil society.

Further, Marx asserts that the sovereign power invested in the public is bound to lose its political aspect thereby rendering the State useless. In The German Ideology, he argues that the government only cared about the bourgeoisie. According to him, the State ignored the proletariat thereby creating a significant imbalance. In response to Rousseau puzzle regarding chained government, he asserts that the ultimate democracy can only be achieved through the destruction of those economic classes.

Conclusion

In Discourse of the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau is of the opinion that inequality is derived from the rules and regulations that govern the citizens. These laws seem to empower the wealthy citizens and consequently obliterate the natural liberties. Marx on the other hand regards the predicament faced by the society as dwelling on its economic system. Both philosophers criticize the liberal individualistic framework adopted by Locke on the issue of equality. Though they are both in agreement that the issue of inequality poses a challenge, they differ on the mitigating effects required to solve the problem.

Works Cited

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980. Print.

Marx, Karl. On the Jewish Question, London: CreateSpace Publishing Platform, 2012. Print.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men, New Delhi: Global Vision Publishing House, 2006. Print.

The first recognized African-American writer, Langston Hughes became famous for his literary talent and insuperable will to change the society. The poetry of this passionate man had a significant impact on the civil rights movement.

Langton Hughes, one of the most talented writers to emerge from the Harlem renaissance used his poem Harlem to express his feelings toward the inequalities, discrimination and limitations that African Americans have to endure in a presumably free society.

The year 1951, the place Harlem, are iconic symbols because in 1951 the civil right movement was strong in America, and Harlem since the 1920s has been a major residential and cultural center of African Americans. Since the Civil War in 1865, the movement for social changes and equal opportunities had been developed.

Philips says that the events the critic cites here begin at the conclusion of the Civil War in 1865 and actually extend beyond the poems 1951 publication date into the 1970s and 1980s when many Black Studies programs at American universities were eliminated and when reaction against Affirmative Action programs began to escalate (An overview of Harlem).

In 1951, a young writer published his poetry dedicated to all those people who struggle for the equality and freedom. Although African-American soldiers were fighting and defending democracy in the Second World War together with other citizens, after the War, they faced a problem of racial discrimination, frustration and oppression at home (Explanation).

Thus, Bizort emphasizes that the poem reflects the post-World War II mood of many African Americans; the Great Depression was over, the war was over, but for African Americans the dream, whatever particular form it took, was still being deferred (2002).

Langston Hughes expressed his feelings is a special style where he employed his jazz form  with its polyrhythmic texture, quick cuts and extended riffs  to express a deep yearning for freedom (Explanation).

The poem of Langston Hughes has two titles: Harlem and Dream Deferred. As the representative of the Harlem Renaissance, the author describes the life of Harlem community after the Second World War and the civil rights movement. The intolerance and disillusions are the main topic of the poem.

Hughes never abandoned the language of racial protest in his poetry to fight for the rights of the African Americans in a society where they were segregated. The author comprehended the meaning and power of words as a tool of peaceful but effective fight.

From an early age, Hughes started to use word as an instrument of protesting. According to Sundquist, Hughes first came to notice, barely out of high school, with the publication in 1921 of The Negro Speaks of Rivers, a poem composed in a ten-minute flash of inspiration on a trip to visit his estranged father in Mexico (1996).

From his childhood, Hughes faced the racial prejudice and wanted to change this situation, using his talent in order to struggle against the racial intolerance. Sundquist indicates that in the preface to Simple Stakes a Claim (1957), Hughes says, the race problem in America is serious business, but humor is a weapon, too, of no mean value against ones foes (1996).

In this case, literature, poetry can be the powerful tool which can stand against the politicians. Understanding of this power made Langston Hughes the most famous and valuable figure of Harlem literary Renaissance.

Harlem invites the reader to answer the question: What happens to a dream deferred? (Hughes); in this case the dream that Hughes refers to is the American dream of freedom from oppression and liberty. The author asks what happens to a dreams as he wonders why they are postponed and left to dry up under the sun.

The last line is the answer on the question of this poem. Perhaps, these dreams explode. The formalist analysis of the work is based on the rhetorical question why people forget or neglect their dreams.

The main question is opened by other five rhetorical questions while the author offers only one possible answer. The frustrated dream of African-Americans includes dream of freedom, equality, dignity, opportunity, and success (Bizot 2002).

According to Bizort, this particular poem does not define or give examples of the dream (many other poems in Montage of a Dream Deferred do this); it concentrates, instead, on possible reactions to the deferral of a dream, ranging from the fairly mild-mannered (Does it dry up/ like a raisin in the sun?) to the threatening (Or does it explode?) (2002).

Although the author does not indicate the dream, the main idea and the message are evident: it is necessary to remember the dream and to continue fighting for its realization. The author sees people around him, the citizens of Harlem and he wonders why they neglect the dream that is the major sense of life during the centuries.

Hughes says: I didnt know the upper class Negroes well enough to write much about them. I knew only the people I had grown up with, and they werent the people whose shoes were always shined, who had been to Harvard, or who had heard of Bach. But they seemed to me good people, too (Langston Hughes). Growing in a poor area, Hughes cannot comprehend why people stopped fighting, what happened with their dream.

Hughes used metaphors to introduce possible answers to the poems opening question; and compare the dream to a raisin, to a festering sore, to rotten meat, to sugar crust over, and to a heavy load (Hughes). The use of similes compares the dreams deferring with the meat rotting, sugary syrup and heavy loads.

This imagery reflects our daily life activities. Bizot indicates that the most striking features of Harlem are the vivid, even startling, metaphors that Hughes introduces as possible answers to the poems opening question, What happens to a dream deferred? (2002).

Analyzing the metaphors used by the author, one can find that each of them has a significant idea that makes poem deeper and bright.

Thus, drying up/ like a raisin in the sun (Hughes) refers to the person who still has ones dream but it is not evident anymore, this dream seems vague. According to Bizort, To fester like a sore / and then run suggests something considerably more unappealing  and dangerous  than drying up: a wound not healing and eventually a limb or a life may be lost (2002).

The authors technique has its own characteristic that includes the use of the various visions of the psychological ramifications of the dreams deferral: a type of atrophy and exhaustion, dried up like a raisin in the sun, a cankerous wound that stinks like rotting meat, or a type of Uncle Tom sentimentality, where the dream would crust and sugar over / like a syrupy sweet (Explanation).

Vulgar word stink is used in order to emphasize an idea that even the best strivings can be destroyed. The line stink like rotten meat (Hughes) indicates that thought, idea or dream that was abandoned, neglected can be compared with stink meat.

Writing crust and sugar over / like a syrupy sweet, the author wants to emphasize the sweetest way of talking about the racial problems, when the top of the society tries to show that there is no real problem and, in fact, everything is fine.

However, Hughes as the representative of the Harlem Renaissance was acquainted with the reality from inside and knew the real depth of this issue. For Bizort, crust and sugar over / like a syrupy sweet seems anticlimactic at first, after rot; sugar and sweet recall the concentrated sweetness of a raisin (2002).

The final warning question: Or does it explode? proves Hughess poem to be prophetic as violence broke out in Americas inner cities in the 1960s. According to the article Explanation of: Harlem: A Dream Deferred by Langston Hughes, the author does not question the fundamental vision of democracy, but wishes to extend its freedoms to blacks, a dream within a dream (2000).

The last two lines of the poem are different than others. Penultimately, there is the statement, maybe it just sags/ like a heavy load  perhaps the saddest of the responses, suggesting depression and despair, indicated Bizot. However, at the end one still can see and feel the real opinion of Hughes. The author believes that this dream will explode.

The people of Harlem will wake up and raise their flags in order to get the social equality. It is obvious that Hughes reflects about this turn in the peoples mind. Perhaps, this claim can be considered as a simple hope; however, I think that Hughes is sure that this will happen. People just need someone who will conduct them and show how to get the freedom, rights and all opportunities that our life provides.

For Phillips, the final question indicates that the poet is drawing our attention to possibility and toughness as qualities born from the need to survive under an oppressive social, political, judicial, and economic order and the decay-ridden conditions it brings (An overview of Harlem) Moreover, it also underscores, emphatically, that the repressed, but still throbbing, dream of equal treatment will indeed be realized, but in unpredictable and potentially furious forms (Phillips).

Hughes believes that soon the streets of his native Harlem will explode and African-Americans will claim about their rights. However, on the other hand, the author does not say about the violence and fight with the use of weapons. He knows that word can be better and more effective instrument than violence.

The Harlem Renaissance that is also called the New Negro Renaissance or the Harlem Awakening had been occurred between 1919 and 1929. This event had a significant impact on the civil rights movement.

Waldron indicates that whatever they are called, they were years of rich productivity within the black artistic community, and Hughes was an important element in that Renaissance (2002). Concluding, one can notice that Harlem suggests an idea that having to postpone ones deepest desires can lead to destruction and violence.

Works Cited:

Bizot, Richard. Harlem. Masterplots II: Poetry, Revised Edition (2002): 1-3. Literary Reference Center Plus. Web.

Explanation of: Harlem: A Dream Deferred by Langston Hughes. LitFinder Contemporary Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2000. LitFinder. Web.

Hughes, Langston. Harlem. Web.

Langston Hughes. Contemporary Heroes and Heroines. Vol. 2. Gale, 1992. Gale Biography In Context. Web.

Phillips, Harry. An overview of Harlem. Poetry for Students. Detroit: Gale. Literature Resource Center. Web.

Sundquist, Eric J. Who was Langston Hughes? Commentary 102.6 (1996): 55+. Literature Resources from Gale. Web.

Waldron, Edward E. Langston Hughes. Critical Survey Of Poetry, Second Revised Edition (2002): 1-5. Literary Reference Center Plus. Web.

There is a variety of characteristics that can be used by individuals to treat others unjustly, such as race, gender, financial stability, or sexual orientation. Despite many breakthroughs that have been made in different spheres of humans life, inequality remains an acute issue. This theme has always popular with writers, who reflect a variety of aspects related to unfairness in their works. The present paper aims at comparing and contrasting two short stories  To My One Love by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Sweat by Zora Neale Hurston. The central argument of both of these pieces is the problem of inequality, each of the stories covering a different aspect of it.

The purpose of writing the stories was similar for the two authors. Both Adichie and Hurston tried to explain the hardships experienced by African American people as opposed to the whites. Although there seems to exist a gap in time reference, the two pieces serve to demonstrate the inequality between the two races. In Sweat, Hurston depicts the strenuous work of an African American woman who is also constantly abused by her husband.

The protagonist, Delia, collects clothes from white people and washes them by hand. She hardly ever rests, and her husband treats her without any gratefulness or respect (Hurston). Adichies story is different from Hurstons one since no family relationships are discussed in it. However, the problem of racial prejudices is also central in To My One Love since the author mentions how one of the main characters, Nnamdi, was killed during an operation (Adichie). Thus, the authors purpose for writing the stories was not the same, but it was similar, the topic from Sweat relating to the theme raised in To My One Love.

In both stories, the main protagonists are women: Delia in Sweat and Ima in To My One Love. Delia is a perfect example of a dynamic character since she undergoes a serious change towards the end of the story. Having been suffering the abusive conduct of her husband, Sykes, for fifteen years, the woman finally finds enough courage to oppose his mockery and cruelty. In the beginning, Sykes scares his wife with a bullwhip, which she takes for a snake, and says, Ah dont keep how bad Ah skeer you (Hurston).

He throws around the clothes she has planned to sort and remarks, Ah, dont keep if you never git through (Hurston). However, by the end of the story, Delia is transformed: she does not feel the fear she used to have perceived, and she does not help her husband when the snake, which he brought home a few days before to scare her, bites her her her him. In Adichies story, the main character is static: Ima does not experience any significant changes.

The writing style and the tone of both authors have some similarities. The tone in Hurstons story is serious, sinister, and also disapproving, which creates a scary, sympathetic, and judgmental mood. In Adichies piece, the tone is solemn and objective, and the mood evoked by it is sympathetic and sad. The two stories seem to have been created with the descriptive type of writing. Hurston and Adichie employ a variety of stylistic devices to make their stories sound entertaining.

The use of figurative language is rather rich in both stories, despite To My One Love is much shorter than Sweat. Both authors use such devices as:

• metaphor: the strapping hulk, the sun had burned July to August, in a red fury (Hurston); he was an archetype of the <&> student (Adichie);
• simile: like a blown scarf, like a million hot arrows (Hurston); like a hot, moist blanket (Adichie);
• alliteration: drop dead, wash white,  seized the iron skillet from the stove and struck, pretty pass, crisp, clean (Hurston); swaggered and smiled, beggars under bridges, scented satin (Adichie);
• assonance: meekness seemed, pretty lil prick, heat steamed (Hurston); participants in the ritual (Adichie);
• oxymoron: awful beauty (Hurston); terribly attractive (Adichie);
• personification: terror took hold of her, determined silence (Hurston); buses spitting out thick gray smoke (Adichie).

Apart from these stylistic devices, each story has some peculiar ones. For instance, Hurston employs the following elements of figurative language:

• onomatopoeia: humming;
• climax: hoping, praying for an argument, a period of introspection, a space of retrospection, then a mixture of both.

Meanwhile, Adichie makes use of the following devices:

• irony: full of praise for the poems (although she had not read them);
• chiasmus: A sign. I wont leave until you take it. I wont take it until you tell me what it means.;
• polysyndeton: beggars under bridges and children playing football and soldiers by the roadsides, lived on campus and had little money and spoke good English.

The stories under analysis have both similar and divergent features. The major similarity is that the central argument in Hurstons Sweat and Adichies To My One Love is the issue of inequality. The authors use figurative language in abundance, and they both employ a tone that has some shades of seriousness. The detailed analysis allows concluding that the thesis has been proved and that some dissimilarities in the authors tone or use of expressive means do not diminish the resemblance between the stories.

Works Cited

Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. To My One Love. Utne Reader. Web.

Hurston, Zora Neale. Sweat. Biblioklept. 2013. Web.

Introduction: Drug Sentencing

The crack cocaine epidemic has influenced modern sentencing for drug possession or selling due to the severity of the situation at the time. However, the current conditions portray the inefficiency of the system when it comes to combating drug-related problems on a national scale. Instead, the same disparities related to over-policing still affect certain ethnicities and races, the LGBT minority, and people with a record of mental illnesses. The over-policing of vulnerable demographics leads to a dispersed system in which certain communities are more prone to being legislatively punished for the same offense. Needless to say, the crack cocaine epidemic in the 80s and 90s led to the militarization of the police since there were many counter-drug operations that needed more severe approaches.

Factors Creating Inequality in the Legal System

There are several factors that create such inequality in the legislative system. The inequity is evident since the people incarcerated for drugs are primarily represented by minorities such as African Americans, LGBT representatives, people with mental illnesses, and other vulnerable populations. In order for the problem to be mitigated, it is essential to consider all the aspects that lead to such outcomes. First, the legislative system itself was and still is centered around punishing drug offenses instead of preventing them. Moreover, certain groups are being marginalized from how they are being judged to how they are treated in prison. Police officers are often biased when detaining suspects, and corrections officers ignore the injustice that affects these individuals, which is why the rate of incarcerations and remissions is so high.

Marginalized Groups

It is certain that specific demographics were targeted as primary offenders during the war on drugs. However, as the crack cocaine epidemic has mutated into an opioid epidemic, the same minorities remained the most often incarcerated for drug possession. According to researchers, communities of color are disproportionally represented in the category of people sentenced for drug offenses, which is one of the outcomes of the crack epidemic (Charity, 2017). Moreover, research examining the topic has concluded that the LGBT community is also disproportionately affected by drug use and, thus, sentences related to such offenses (Haeder et al., 2021). Last but not least, a study has shown that around 50% of all incarcerated people deal with mental illnesses (Frankham, 2018). Based on this evidence, it is inevitable that drug-related charges have been primarily represented through the imprisonment of minorities, a factor that has not been mitigated since.

Sharanda Jones

A case that has been circulating in the media due to the illustration of unfair policing is Sharanda Jones incarceration. Jones was sentenced to life in prison in the late 90s for a non-violent first drug offense (Rosen, 2021). The situation is direct evidence of the biased policing field decision-making since Sharanda Jones, an African American woman, has not been involved in any illegal activity prior to the one in question. The life sentence is evidently an overly strict punishment for a non-violent offense. However, the racial bias may have been why Jones was incarcerated and then sentenced so harshly. It is essential to point out that the discrimination has not been illustrated by the police officers but rather by the court system overall in this particular situation. Thus, it is vital to examine the multi-layered system, which starts with field decisions.

Field Decisions

The legislation itself primarily impacts field decisions. Thus, police officers investigate cases based on the guidelines implemented on a state and federal level. However, there is a level of bias when it comes to how the situations are dealt with. There are multiple reasons why this may be the case. One of them is the lack of diversity among law enforcement officers. A lack of diversity can lead to disproportionate incarcerations of particular groups that are not represented among police officers. Moreover, another essential factor is targeting specific populations without looking at the broader picture. Thus, communities that are statistically less likely to have high incomes or access to high-level education are vulnerable to being involved in illegal activities. Instead of implementing prevention measures and confronting the core of the problem, the field decisions are based on the outcomes.

Courts Decisions

Law enforcement is a multi-layered entity, which is why it is crucial to address the multitude of actors within the system. Courts are the tools used to decide whether one deserves punishment and how harsh it should be. Based on Sharanda Jones case, it is certain that a life sentence was not only facilitated by the system itself but also the bias that has led to such results. First, it has to be mentioned that there are discrepancies when it comes to the individuals socioeconomic status. Jones financial situation did not allow her to hire a good lawyer that would perhaps be able to minimize the sentence and successfully represent the client in court. Moreover, researchers illustrate that even death sentences are predominately given to black inmates (Shestak & Goncharova, 2020). Also, courts are more likely to sentence people with mental illnesses and LGBT representatives, as mentioned prior, which also refers to the bias of the system.

Corrections

Police officers, judges, and attorneys are not the only people affecting vulnerable populations. It is also vital to point out some of the factors that directly influence the individuals sentenced to prison times. In terms of female prisons, oftentimes, male corrections officers engage in unethical behavior (Stern, 2018). Moreover, transgender women often have to serve their sentences in male prisons, which puts them at high risk of sexual assault (Jenness et al., 2019). Currently, prisons cannot provide the necessary care for pregnant women, disabled people, and those with mental illnesses. Moreover, since drugs are a major part of why people are being incarcerated, inmates are unable to self-medicate and cannot access adequate resources to combat phycological disorders. Such circumstances are often a result of oversight and the lack of intentions to change the situation for the better.

What If?

If Sharanda Jones were a white, wealthy woman without the need to provide care for a paralyzed mother, the situation would have been different. As Jones offense was a no-violent one, and the individual in question had no prior problems with the police, the police officers, judges, and attorneys would undoubtedly be keen to facilitate a much less harsh sentence. The argument is not that a person willing to engage in drug use cannot impose any danger on society. However, the measures with which such people are dealt with only create a dispersed environment with a lack of equal opportunities for all. Jones vulnerable societal position facilitated by racial ethnicity, income, and family situation led to negative outcomes. If Sharanda was a part of the majority and the law enforcement would not have reasons for bias, it is certain that Sharanda would not have received the same punishment.

Diversity

While diversity is not evidently linked to the inequality which is suggested by the rate of people incarcerated for drug-related offenses, it has a major role. Law enforcement is not proportionally diverse compared to society as a whole, which has several adverse outcomes. First, it may create a hostile environment in which bias is not considered a negative factor but rather an undisputed reality. Moreover, a diverse workforce may lead to an improved culture of the entity. Thus, law enforcement officers who are not operating in a diverse environment cannot achieve the same cultural will to maintain a reputation of a safe, lawful, and fair organization. Furthermore, a lack of diversity may facilitate the lack of insight when it comes to how different communities operate and the factors that have to be confronted to create equal opportunities.

Statistics

Statistics show the disparities when it comes to the employees operating in the legal system. White men are certainly the most represented in law enforcement. Specifically, out of all the males, 67% are Caucasian. Moreover, there is a major difference between the number of women and men working in law enforcement. Statistics show that out of all the workers, 700,000 are male, and 120,000 are female, which is not representative of society. Another essential difference is illustrated in the income. Men earn more than $71,000, while women make less than $64,000 (Data USA, 2021). Such a big difference in salaries illustrates that women have lower-paying jobs in law enforcement. The findings suggest why more males are willing to apply for a job in the system and how come there are such enormous disparities in numbers.

Areas that Need Diversity Reforms

Diversity has to become an area of focus since law enforcement is a direct representation of society. However, the system did not effectively mirror society for the reasons highlighted earlier. There is a need for gender equality and equity since the rate of females in this particular area is much less significant compared to the number of males. Moreover, the differences in income also suggest the current lack of gender equity. Another area that needs improvement is ethnic and racial representation. By enrolling more representatives of minorities, the risk of reoccurring bias will be minimized, and the entire system will become fairer in terms of incarcerations and sentencing. Thus, diversity is a vital subject that has to be confronted in order for people such as Sharanda Jones to receive adequate punishment instead of life sentences for a singular non-violent offense.

Conclusion

The crack cocaine epidemic has affected multiple vulnerable communities (African Americans, LBGT, individuals with mental illnesses, etc.). Instead of preventing drug use by providing people with equal opportunities, the system started harshly punishing people most vulnerable to being incarcerated. Police officers are biased when dealing with suspects. Moreover, courts are biased when sentencing people, and the prisons do not adequately address those serving the sentences. The whole system is designed in a way that the environment becomes negative and does not facilitate fairness but instead creates more precedents that continue the cycle. One way of mitigating the adverse outcomes is implementing a more diverse workplace. This would confront some of the challenges connected to inequality and ultimately contribute to a more equal, fair, and equitable system in which each person is treated equally.

References

Charity, M. (2017). Racism in the war on drugs. Pre-Collegiate and International Institutes Journal Silicon Valley, 1(2).

Frankham, E. (2018). Mental illness affects police fatal shootings.Contexts, 17(2), 7072. Web.

Haeder, S. F., Sylvester, S., & Callaghan, T. (2021). Shared stigma: The effect of LGBT status on attitudes about the opioid epidemic.World Medical & Health Policy, 13(3), 414435. Web.

Jenness, V., Sexton, L., & Sumner, J. (2019). Sexual victimization against transgender women in prison: Consent and coercion in context.Criminology, 57(4), 603631. Web.

Police officers. Data USA. (2021) Web.

Rosen, J. D. (2021). Prisons and the consequences of tough on crime policies at home and abroad.The U.S. War on Drugs at Home and Abroad, 97121. Web.

Shestak, V., & Goncharova, V. (2020). Peculiarities of the application of the death penalty in the U.S. in the context of racial discrimination.SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.

Stern, E. M. (2018). Accessing Accountability: Exploring Criminal Prosecution of Male Guards for Sexually Assaulting Female Inmates in U.S. Prisons. University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

There is no us denying the fact that great attention in modern world is given to the issue of health. Current level of development of society allows people not to struggle for their survival. However, they can draw their attention to some other issues such as health, some social conditions or development of humanism. Besides, it is not possible to solve all problems at once. That is why, such issue as health inequality becomes more and more significant. It usually refers to measurable differences in health status and health outcomes (Ask the Experts. Forum #3. Myth about health inequalities, 2008, para. 3). That is why, it is obvious, that appearance of this phenomenon can be avoided. Moreover, there is a great number of different myths connected with this issue. Some of them are true, while other just exist in the minds of people. That is why, analysis of these myths is important for understanding of the given issue.

Resting on these facts, it is possible to analyze one of the given myths. Nevertheless, it is believed that people, who live in poor areas with the high level of crime and violence, suffer from pernicious influence of these factors as they, in their turn, influence these peoples health badly. Taking this statement into account, it is possible to analyze the given issue. It is obvious, that areas where people live in poverty are less safe than some other areas. People, who have to think about their survival every day, have no time for some other issues. Additionally, it is possible to say that communicating with other people from the same area, who are also deprived of high incomes, men can easily become despaired (Ask the Experts. Forum #3. Myth about health inequalities, 2008). Despair and grief can lead to depression, which, in its turn, can result in the appearance of drug addiction. Areas with a high level of crime are characterized by a great number of people who distribute drugs as it is the best place for their work.

People want to run from reality using these substances and destroying their health in this way. That is why, it possible to say that these conditions influence worsening of the life of people and appearance of health inequality. However, it is not the only evidence. According to statistics, people, who live in the poor areas, die an average on 7 years earlier than those who live in rich areas (Royal College of Nursing, 2012). This threatening statistics can be explained by the reduced access to hospitals and medical services, which, in its turn, influences the health of a person (Poverty and Health Inequalities, n.d).

However, it is believed that the change of environment can have positive influence on a person, promoting improvement of the state of his/her health and life in general. It is rather philosophical question whether environment can change a person or not and it is difficult to say it for sure. However, is should be said that different experiments, connected with the improvement of conditions under which people live in their area, show some positive change in the life of people and their health.

With this in mind, having analyzed the issue, it is possible to make certain conclusion. It should be said that the myth connected with the influence of environment on a person is plausible and people, who live in poor areas, often suffer for the manifestations of health inequality. With this in mind, it should be said, that further investigations of the issue are needed in order to improve current situation.

References

Ask the Experts. Forum #3. Myth about health inequalities. (2008). Unnatural Causes. Web.

Poverty and Health Inequalities. (n.d.). Web.

Royal College of Nursing. (2012). Health inequalities and the social determinants of health. Web.