Category: Inequality

Introduction

This essay examines racial and ethnic inequality based on an article by Erlanger Steven. The article indicates that racial profiling by the police in Paris is still a sticky issue that has to be addressed.

Basing on different sociological perspectives, the article is analyzed towards understanding the phenomenon and recommending a policy framework. Good policy and grounded initiatives are the only sure way of dealing with racial and ethnic inequality.

Article Summary

An article by Erlanger reports that police in Paris harass black and Arab men more than their white counterparts. A research done by the “open society justice Initiative” on “ethnic Profiling in Paris” indicates that police in Paris stop and do identity checks on black and Arab men more prevalently than is the case for white Paris men. This study confirms the wide spread accusations or racial profiling leveled against the police. For one white man checked, at least six blacks and 7 Arabs are checked.

Secondly, the study also established that clothing was a major factor used in profiling individuals. Out of the total population checked, those found wearing cloth that is representative of French youth culture formed 47% (Erlanger 1). Thirdly, out of those stopped, blacks and Arabs were more susceptible to police frisking and detention. From interviewees in the study, it is clear that police target youths on a purely racial line.

Article Analysis

Racial and ethnic inequality has been a big challenge or stumbling block in the way people interact around the world. Different sociological perspectives have been proffered to explain the phenomenon of racial and ethnic inequality or discrimination. There are four main sociological schools of thought i.e. the functional theorists, the conflict school, the interactional theorists and the labeling school of thought (Arrighi 105).

The functional perspective focuses on how ethnic and racial inequality advances the interests of different groups in society (Arrighi 107). Theorists in this school of thought although acknowledging the fact that racism or ethnic discrimination cannot be admired, they point out that this phenomenon is sustained by the function it plays (Schaefer 253).

In most cases, racial or ethnic discrimination is sustained by the purpose or role it fulfills especially for the dominant group. In the case of Paris, as presented in the article, discrimination against minority blacks and Arabs serves as a way of asserting dominance of the white majority in society.

Secondly, through discrimination, the dominant group manages to keep the minority checked i.e. it denies them the freedom necessary for self actualization and enjoyment of life in Paris. Largely, discrimination gives the discriminating group a good feeling or airs. The airs that come with understanding the perceived competitor is subdued sustains racial and ethnic inequality and discrimination.

On the other hand, functional theorist points out that racial and ethnic discrimination makes society dysfunctional in many ways (Schaefer 253). The only way of ending racial and ethnic inequality and discrimination is to help people realize how dysfunctional such attitudes and dispositions are. For example, police in Paris belief that much crime is committed by black and Arab youths.

This may be true; however, the major reason why these minority groups resort to crime or delinquency is the frustration from not being able to live in peace like the majority. As the frustration due to denied opportunities and harassment increases, phenomenon like the violent riots that were witnessed in Paris in 2005 cannot be avoided.

The second sociological perspective on ethnic and racial inequality is the conflict perspective. Conflict theorists look into the phenomenon of racial and ethnic inequality in terms of conflict between different classes in society. In line with Marxist thinking, the economically dominant do not want the less privileged to become empowered (Schaefer 253). The bourgeois cannot allow the enlightenment and empowerment of the proletariat.

According to the exploitation theory, proffered by conflict theorists, economic competition and related conflict is the major explanation as to why discrimination persists. The herd mentality and close identification with race or ethnic group results from a self preservation instinct. In the mind of many in society, the other poses an economic threat.

In the case of Paris, many Arabs and blacks are considered largely as unwanted aliens on sorts. As indicated in the article, those perceived as immigrants especially from Africa are targeted most. One reason why they are targeted would be to ensure they do not assimilate and rise within the economic echelons (Arrighi 110).

As the conflict theorists explain, racial discrimination does not serve society. It basically leads to acrimony and dissatisfaction in society. The actions of police make Arabs and blacks see them as enemies. As a result, the two groups cannot work harmoniously for the good of society.

The blacks and Arabs continue seeing whites as oppressors while the whites see the others as unwanted and unworthy competition of sorts. Such like conflicts have precipitated into xenophobic attacks.

However, racial and ethnic discrimination can not conclusively be explained by the conflict perspective. The exploitation and minority is not entirely about them being an economic threat. The findings presented in the article point more towards a labeling perspective or explanation of ethnic and racial discrimination. The blacks and Arabs are not discriminated because they are a threat to the economic well being of the whites but rather because they have been labeled as more likely to do criminal acts.

The authorities, after following historical data, are convinced of prevalence of crime or given characteristics among a given group. This then becomes the label and all members of the group become suspects of sorts. As the study presented in the article indicates, labeling does not help much as it only creates an angry lot. Many black and young Arabs are angry because they feel targeted on the basis of color.

The final perspective on racial and ethnic inequality is the interactional view. Interactional theorists indicate that level of interaction and mode of interaction either fuels or stops racial and ethnic discrimination. As reported by (254), the contact hypothesis, proffered by interactional theorists posits that racial discrimination is lowered by increased interaction between people of different racial groups that are of relatively equal social or economic status.

Interaction with others helps individuals to appreciate that beyond the color difference, human beings are largely the same or similar. Race or ethnicity is a mere accident. As people interact, they are able to challenge their own leaned stereotypes and prejudices leading to acceptance of others.

Conclusion

In conclusion, authorities have to look at the issue of racial and ethnic discrimination a little more carefully. If it is not checked, it leads to conflicts that can turn violent as witnessed in Paris in 2005. Policy guiding police interaction with populace has to be geared towards fairness in the way the treat all citizens. As an official indicated in the report, training can play an important way in changing outlook.

Police and other citizens have to be helped to understand how other groups are functionally important, how the groups contribute in the economy, why the labels against them are prejudicial and stereotypical. Finally, forums and ways of facilitating interaction between police and Arab or black youths can help dissipate the prejudices.

Works Cited

Arrighi, Barbara, A., Understanding Inequality: the Intersection of Race/Ethnicity, Class, and Gender .Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

Erlanger, Steven. Study Says Blacks and Arabs Face Bias from Paris Police. New York Times. 2009. Web.

Schaefer, Richard, T. Sociology. 12^th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.

Huntingdon is a small town in Quebec that does not actually differ from other towns; its citizens use their abilities and ideas in order to improve their lives and provide their generations with safe and sound future. However, August of 2004 was not an ordinary year in the life of this town.

The current mayor of Huntingdon, Mr. Stephane Gendron, offered to accept the law that will ban children’s presence on streets after 10.30 p.m. and till 6.00 a.m. He even presented several rather strong evidences that were able to support his suggestion and prove that his idea was good and effective enough.

Children younger 16 are not actually able to response for each of their actions and cannot comprehend how serious the consequences of their actions can be; the cases of teen vandalism become more and more frequent, this is why it is crucially important to start doing something to stop vandalism and help children find out the right way. Many people rejected this idea and underlined the idea of ageism, inequality, under which teenagers suffer. On my opinion, such kinds of laws are really helpful and have to be offered oftener; it is not very easy to control children nowadays, this is why it is possible to control them, using some legal concepts.

I truly believe that modern youth makes numerous attempts to demonstrate own maturity and life experience by means of power and some abilities, which may be inherent to adults only. For example, some teenagers like to leave some marks on local sights in order to make their words noticeable.

Passing by the monument, where some words or slogans are presented, young people underline the fact that it was they, who put these words on the monument and demonstrate their devotion to the chosen affair. As a rule, such activities are inherent for night times. When it is light, children can hardly break a branch or demonstrate their painting abilities or excellent spelling.

Teenagers should accept this idea as something that may underline their inequality in comparison to elderly people. Of course, youth wants to feel freedom as soon as possible and become involve into the affairs of grown up life.

However, it is also necessary to underline that many children all over the world are deprived of the opportunity to enjoy their childhood and be as naive and irresponsible as possible.

Youth does not want to think about the consequences of their actions, does not want to believe that their interests and hobbies are not that safe, and does not want to accept the truth that their parents are usually right. From numerous psychological and sociological perspectives, the driving forces, which promote young people take risky steps and suffer from injures, are born somewhere inside of human mind and grounded on the relations within a family.

If a family provides a child with the necessary care and support, tries to comprehend teenager’s demands, and wants to help him/her, the child will never consider the idea of being at home at 10.30 as a threat or challenges concerning age inequality.

Adults usually care about children and teenagers, and in their turn, teenagers should be smart and mature enough to comprehend it and support those adults, who help them to take the best from this life.

Online sources

The article by Stephen Fine is a good source about Canadian youth culture and the ideas of how to control teenagers.

The article from the Canadian Press shows how effective the ideas of the current mayor can be.

This paper explores race and ethnic inequality in the US. Racial and ethnic inequality is a global challenge. Hence, in the US, the vice is common because of multicultural. According to Ethnic and Racial Minorities & Socioeconomic Status racial and ethnic inequality in the US is popular at places of work and institutions of higher learning (Karger et al., 76).

Despite government efforts to uproot the issue, through various legislations, human rights group and religious organizations, racial and ethnic inequality continues to engulf the US.

The article, Ethnic and Racial Minorities & Socioeconomic Status, supports the challenge of racial and ethnic inequality in the US. The article indicates that majority of African American children live in severe poverty compared to their Caucasian counterpart (American Psychological Association).

Also, the article draws that the unemployment level of African Americans are lower compared to Caucasian Americans. Similarly, African American working on a full-time job earns an average of 72 percent compared to Caucasian men who earns 85 percent on similar working basis (American Psychological Association).

In the education sector, a huge gap exists between the minority education achievements and the Caucasian Americans. For example, Latinos and African American attends low level schools compared to Asian and Caucasian. Similarly, African American students are deprived of essential resources in schools. This is in contrast with Caucasian students who have superior resources and learning environment (American Psychological Association).

This case study explains weighty issues connected to racial and ethnic inequality in the US. Racial and ethnic inequality is a historical issue in the US; hence various sociological fronts have strove to explore this issue by using different forms of sociological schools of thought. One notable school of thought embraced is the functional theory.

The functional theory explores how racial and ethnic inequality progresses the welfare of various groups in society (American Psychological Association).

Although sociologists’ scholars basing on this school of thought attest racism and ethnic are not a good practice, they note that this facet is supported by the function it plays. Thus, racial and ethnicity is strengthened by dominant group (Ethnic and Racial Minorities & Socioeconomic Status). Moreover, the functional theorist shows that racial and ethnic inequality weakens the society.

Hence, to discourage inequity in the society, people should understand this weakness and devise better strategies in overcoming racial and ethnic inequality (Karger et al., 90). For instance, the view of African American as an economically deprived group may be untrue; they have the means like the Caucasians in living better lives when granted right resources, environment and support. Hence, the situation they are experiencing is because of denied opportunities (American Psychological Association).

On a conflict theorists view, racial and ethnicity is addressed as a conflict that occurs between different classes in the society. In this article, African Americans and other minorities are seen as inferior compared to Caucasian. They have the power of rising beyond their current status of economic prosperity, when granted equal playing field.

Policy to address racial and ethnic inequality among the various minority groups in the US should embrace good practices which integrates inclusiveness. Good practices tailored towards preventing racial and ethnic inequality should be innovative and flexible. Hence, all the minorities should experience fair opportunities.

The opportunities should not be a preserve for the selected few. Creating a free and fair society where people are respected, regardless of their race and ethnicity should be a guiding principle for every person. It should not be left as a preserve of the authorities. Thus, a policy resolving the challenge of race and ethnicity should be all encompassing.

Works Cited

American Psychological Association. Ethnic and Racial Minorities & Socioeconomic Status. Web.

Karger, Howard Jacob and David Stoesz. American Social welfare policy: Apluralist approach, Boston: Allyn and Bancon. Print.

Introduction

The widespread use of the Internet is one of the most characteristic features of the 21st century. Managers use it to connect with clients, families, and friends prefer staying connected in social networks, and students often learn through online classes. In education, high-speed and affordable Internet tends to become especially important to ensure remote learning. Although impressive opportunities provided by the Internet imply better access to education, many students still struggle to do their homework due to a lack of broadband.

Bridging Educational Digital Divide

While the majority of students living in large cities have broadband access, those from rural areas and distant locations lack appropriate connections, which makes it difficult for them to learn. According to recent research, “40% of schools lack broadband” in the US (Winslow). At the same time, “70% of American teachers assign homework” that should be completed online (Wong). Low income and remote location are the main issues that create this digital inequality in education. In addition, African-American students are found to have greater challenges doing their homework due to a lack of high-speed connection in their houses (Wong). The existence of these challenges means that some students have lower opportunities to finish school and succeed in the future.

While big telecom providers are often resistant to providing the Internet to remote areas, local players can be targeted. Small telecom providers can partner with local businesses to invest in equipping communities with broadband. For example, counties near the Canadian border can be noted as those that need high-speed connections (Winslow). On the local level, small telecom providers should work as change agents to convince businesses that their efforts would improve students’ access to education. To succeed with their learning, students need equal opportunities since a lack of connectedness makes it almost impossible to thrive. Moreover, the overall life of communities would be better because healthcare, police, fire, and other facilities would become more accessible.

Investments from public companies are another way to bridge the digital divide in education. Wi-Fi hot spots and public libraries can be noted as examples of supporting students with their online studies. AT&T is one of the largest investors that initiate such efforts (WP Creative Group). However, libraries often limit the free time for connection, and Wi-Fi hot spots are usually located in noisy places. The value of the mentioned means of overcoming inequality in education seems to be ambiguous. On the one hand, they are called to support students so that they can upload their essays and contact teachers (WP Creative Group). On the other hand, the convenience and quality of Wi-Fi hot spots and public libraries are limited. It would be better to invest more in providing technology to low-income and rural communities. Therefore, policymakers and leaders are to advocate for improving the opportunities of students.

Conclusion

To conclude, the role of technology in education is considered to be important. The digital divide in education is a problem that places some students in a disadvantaged position, when their chances to do homework and learn effectively are limited. Therefore, there is a need to not only promote digital education but also make sure that students are equipped with broadband. Partnerships with small telecom providers, local businesses, and large public companies can be useful to bridge the digital divide.

Works Cited

Winslow, Joyce. “America’s Digital Divide.” Pew Trust Magazine, 2019, Web.

Wong, Alia. “Why Millions of Teens Can’t Finish Their Homework.” The Atlantic, 2018, Web.

WP Creative Group. “How to Bridge the Digital Divide in Education.” The Washington Post, 2021, Web.

Introduction

The society focuses so much on us as individuals, blaming us for the conditions in our lives then forgets about the forces at work against us to succeed in life. It has an outright role to play in the molding of our lives, but it is only to a certain extend. It defines us through our ego and determines our destiny. However, whether or not one can rise from poverty to riches does not depend on the circumstances around him/her alone, but also on the potential within the individual. It is the ability and will to succeed in life that matter.

There may be challenges on the way, but when taken positively, challenges prepare us as we move towards our destiny. The society forces us to give in to the notion that the elite few; the rich, are there to rule and the poor will always be there, causing some of us to shut the door of opportunities to success. How should we then strike a balance between the structural arrangements and our efforts to make the best of our lives?

Inequalities

The wealth and income inequalities undeniably affect and dictate the economic structure of any society together with its social framework. It is interesting how the relationship between these areas change over time, shaping a certain society into different groups and classes of individuals. An imbalance of opportunities and resources arises posing more questions than answers in general.

No human being is an island; we live in a society. This is a fact I am fully aware of, bearing in mind that the society’s role is significant. My sense of worth comes from a set of standards the society has laid down for me. In creating my status symbols, those things that characterize my identity and my surrounding had the greatest impact.

The symbols had to distinguish me from other people. Just like the rich have a way of defining their own standards, creating standards, which distinguish themselves from the rest. This includes what to drive, the suburb to live, clothing, housing, and all other aspects concerning lifestyles. The wealthy dictate what fashion is, and what is not in fashion. Nevertheless, as an individual, fitting in such a lifestyle disparity, presents the ultimate consequence of wealth inequality.

There is and should always be a limit to the extent the society influences my attitude, will to succeed, and ultimately destiny. It may have tremendous pressure on me as an individual in my journey to join the elite in the society. In fact, there are circumstances beyond my effort, but this does not mean I relinquish my ability to succeed. The society presents inequality in resource distribution, with the rich seemingly being favored.

I find personal identification to be of crucial importance in overcoming all forms of inequalities. Social inequality defines people into categories or classes, mostly based on their economic status, political inclination, and education. My personal identification is the only tool that can surpass any of these challenges. It determines whether I will succumb to any class prejudice regardless of my current position.

This kind of approach is vital in mitigating the socioeconomic inequalities in our societies. It is of no use to have amidst us, people going hungry while others have immense wealth within our reach. Although not all of our lives can be the same, the inequalities can be minimized if the society became more selfless. To put in a simple and clear illustration; no one can travel in two cars at the same time, or sleep on two bedrooms at the same time.

Therefore, this demonstrates the importance of defining who we are, and what we need in life. Failing to do that, implies we will grab whatever we can get our hands on just because we think we need it, even if we do not. The result is the emergence of extremely wealthy people in the society while others suffer.

I cannot escape the inevitability of social inequality, but the beliefs it comes with, are not to instill despair or drive me into a comfort zone, a state that stops any progress and compounds the issue of inequality. The society maybe capitalistic; nevertheless, this should act as a form of positive competition towards equality.

In a capitalistic society, the means of production are privately owned by a few while the majority works for them. The owners have right to protection of their properties. Whether I own any means of production or I am just an employee, success depends on the extent of what I achieve rather than wanting to have more than others do. Wanting to have more than others opens the door for greed, which later on, destroys the balance of class on the society, inclining it at an acute angle of both social and economic inequality.

Conclusion

Structural arrangements are not to be ignored. The status segregation created within the society is a fundamental truth we can also not ignore. The wealthy have a way of stereotyping the low class as part of their property; people of another species or having no right whatsoever, to be like them.

To them, being unable to make much out of life is a consequence of not putting enough effort. The rich know how to become rich and maintain wealth. They own the means of production, and the poor are part of that. If the poor get rich, no one would work for them. To some extent, it is a question of morality. A small percentage of the rich own more than they need at the expense of others, hence the issue of societal inequality is a matter of morals.

Introduction

Social inequalities seem to typify the American society. The federal government is desperately attempting to raise the debt ceiling to cover up for high debt due to insufficient revenues. That notwithstanding, it is now apparent that myriads of billionaires and millionaires rarely pay their income taxes.

This is despite making huge incomes from their investments. Conversely, tax evasion amongst the middle and lower class is an offense that invites horrendous punitive measures (Kourvetaris, 1997). How do the rich avoid paying income tax to the government? Have people banded together to counter this source of social inequality?

Tax Avoidance by Billionaires

There are various ways that the rich are able to avoid taxation. In 2009, the IRS revealed that almost 1,500 billionaires and millionaires in the country did not pay a single dollar as income tax (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). First, the billionaires seem to be very philanthropic by contributing to charities and donating to ‘worthy causes’.

However, the tax regime dictates that such amounts that go directly to charity and other philanthropic activities are not subject to tax. Hence, many billionaires use this loophole to evade some significant percentage of their income from inviting taxation. Philanthropy has now become a way of improving the billionaires’ public image. Since they are the faces of their establishments and companies, they begin to make more sales and subsequent more profit in the name of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

On the other hand, the middle class seldom make enough income to direct huge amounts to charitable events and organizations. The little they donate contributes a meager percentage of their income implying that the larger portion of their income is subject to taxation. According to Wilkinson & Pickett (2009), a middle class and lower classes are subject to an estimate of 35% in tax rate while the wealthy individuals only pay amount less than 17%. Besides, the middle and lower classes are not endowed with incredibly huge business ventures and companies that can invite higher returns because of improved public image (Chowning, 2001). This depicts the class disparities that fuel social inequalities within the American society.

The billionaires also evade income taxation by investing in foreign countries. In fact, they are well advised to which country they ought to locate their business. Mainly, they consider countries that charge least amount of income tax on their companies (Shapiro, 2004).

According to economists and tax experts, a company operating in foreign land pays the income tax to the host country and is not subject to paying tax in the United States (Bhim & Salvatore, 2009). The rationale is that a single company cannot pay twice in terms of income tax. They claim that, if that were to happen, it would result to double taxation.

Sidaneus & Felicia (1999) explain that the billionaires capitalize on this loophole and invest in countries with high return on investments and low income tax on foreign direct investments. This does not only increase their wealth, it also exempts them from income tax.

Take a scenario of a middle and lower class citizens whose wealth cannot allow them to invest in foreign countries. Hence, they invest locally where tax regime is significantly high. They end up paying more income tax for their companies (in terms of percentage of their income) than the billionaires and millionaires.

Third, the rich have a tendency of investing in statutory and government bonds. Bhim & Salvatore (2009) explicate that such investments bring immense income for the billionaires in the long term. However, the income is not a subject of taxation and therefore, all the millions that the wealthy make go untaxed. It is worth noting that the government and treasury bonds are very expensive costing millions of dollars.

This is dependent on their nature of the bonds. Subsequently, the low-income earners and middle class are unable to afford such bonds that are never a subject of tax (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). As such, the wealthy continue to become rich while the poor continue to struggle with high rates of inflation, unemployment and high tax rate. This is a source of social inequality.

Finally, the billionaires continue to wield huge influence on the policy making process of the government. While government economists and tax experts agree that there is a need for a change in the tax regime, there has been a momentous challenge in introducing the bill to the house.

In fact, President’s Obama articulated that it is only reasonable that the billionaires pay more tax than the lower income earners. The unseen hand of the billionaires has been apparent, owing to their resistance to agree with Obama’s assertion. The Republicans have opposed the move vehemently saying that it is sparking class wars. This has been acceptable amongst the society’s rich who find no problem with the continued social inequalities that are clearly entrenched in the current tax regime.

Have the people banded together against this inequality?

At the outset, numerous citizens mainly from the middle and lower classes have criticized the tax regimes. In 2011, numerous civil rights groups announced ‘Occupy the Wall Street Campaign’. There have been other calls to protest against the influence of the rich on the American society.

While the campaigns have been hugely unsuccessful, there has been debate about the authenticity of their protests. The budgetary team following the continued calls for change in government and tax policies came with budgetary estimates that seem to have the billionaires pay more taxes than the lower class and poor people in the society.

Although this is an indication that the people might win the war in the end, huge challenges remain on the way. The rationale is that not all the billionaires are in agreement with the government’s new directive. This means that they will continue to manipulate the policy-making processes.

Conclusion

In sum, the United States’ tax regime is a characteristic of social inequality. While the middle and the lower classes of the society struggle to make ends meet, they pay more taxes than renowned billionaires and millionaires. The billionaires have invested in foreign countries where income tax is low and the return on investments is extremely high. Thus, they evade paying income tax to the federal government due to the current tax regime principles of no double taxation.

Besides, they contribute significantly to charitable organizations and give donations, none of which is subject to tax. The billionaires continued investments in statutory and government bonds have seen them make more income that is not taxable. All this coupled with their growing influence on the policy making process has seen massive protests against the rich. The most notable one was ‘Occupy Wall Street Campaign’.

References

Bhim, A. & Salvatore, D. (2009). Social Inequality, Local Leadership and Collective Action: An Empirical Study of Forest Commons. European Journal of Development Research, 21(2), 178-179.

Chowning, D. (1971). When Men Revolt and Why: A Reader in Political Violence and Revolution. New York: The Free Press.

Kourvetaris, G. (1997). Political Sociology: Structure and Process. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Shapiro, T. (2004). The hidden cost of being African- American. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sidaneus, J. & Felicia, P. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. Boston, Massachusetts: Allen Lane.

Chrystia Freeland’s article

According to Chrystia Freeland, a Member of Parliament for Toronto, Canada, economic inequality is rising at the same pace as technological advancements, not only in Canada but also from a global standpoint (Freeland par. 2). She portrays the rise to power of the extremely wealthy plutocrats, suggesting the causation of this ever-enlarging gap between the rich and poor as globalization and technological advances (Freeland par. 4). The capitalist nature of human beings has resulted in inequality, which is a global issue. In the contemporary world, humanity commands an egoistic relationship directed towards one another all over the world (Firebaugh and Goesling 283). Inequality has developed in different forms such as social, gender, racial, economic, and political inequality. These inequalities have instituted diverse implications for all people across the world.

Social inequality covers diverse facets of humanity, such as race and gender. It has resulted in enormous social problems, not only in the US communities but also in communities in other parts of the world. The implications of the global social inequality extend to the existing gap between people of different colors globally Social divide should be addressed in the context of employment opportunities, social class in terms of income generation, increased crime with inequality in the legal framework and justice systems. Besides, healthcare service delivery for primary health should be addressed when attempting to avoid inequalities in society. From an economic standpoint, in the US, income inequality has been on the rise in the recent past, and is seen to be higher than in any other global society at any given time. As purported by some economists such as Thomas Piketty, inequality levels of income among US citizens, as measured using the Gini coefficient, elicits disparities in all states.

“Super Story” by Friedman

According to Friedman, in his “Super Story” on globalization and global inequality, globalization is regarded as the primary reason for inequality. In actuality, globalization has elicited excruciating implications leading to the elevation of inequality, especially in the developing world (Firebaugh and Goesling 294). It has resulted in an ever-increasing global interdependence in the economic sector due to the expansive volume and diversity of cross-border financial flow, and interchange of goods, services, and investments, and the associated diffusion of new technology. Rather than closing the gap, globalization is seen to fuel the equality divide. This cause of inequalities would be difficult to address because it would require a lot of resources across the world.

“Broken Contract” by George Parker

As stipulated in the “Broken Contract” by George Parker, the reason for the economic gaps between the rich and poor people in the US is the poor performance of the American economy. The engagement in civil and political wars has led to the emergence of other economies such as China, the United Arab Emirates, as well as that of Korea, and Japan. Even with the oncoming rise of these new economies, inequality is evidenced by the fact that the rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. In the US, for example, the economic gap between the richest one percent of the population and the majority 99% in 2012 was the widest, with their incomes rising by over 20% and 1% income rise for the remaining 99% of the population. The expanding global economic interdependence is characterized by asymmetrical attributes, which create losers and winners with risks such as the prevailing inequalities and opportunities. Thus, the government needs to address the gap between rich and poor people.

Works Cited

Firebaugh, Glenn, and Brian Goesling. “Accounting for the Recent Decline in Global Income Inequality1.” American Journal of Sociology 110.2 (2004): 283-312. Print.

Freeland, Chrystia. Plutocrats vs. Populists. 2013. Web.

Inequality is justly recognized as a complicated term since this social phenomenon has a complex structure and comes from multiple sources. As is demonstrated in the experiment by Walters, inequality has many looks and is viewed through the prism of people’s unique experiences. My understanding of this concept is influenced by Ellen Rosen’s photo of a chairbound woman who needs help to deal with everyday tasks.

The selected photo depicts a middle-aged woman with a physical disability, her daughter, and five bypassers who do not seem to notice that there is a person who cannot walk at all. It was taken by Ellen Rosen in 2018 and received a few enthusiastic comments (see fig.1). The photo reminds me of my online friend who has a disabled mother, and it has helped me to finally formulate my understanding of inequality. As for me, it can be defined as being deprived of something so basic that other people even fail to recognize it as an advantage.

The woman is waiting for the transport to get home, whereas other people are just passing by without looking at an unusual person and asking if everything is good or if she needs some help. Unlike her, they do not need others’ assistance to get to another place safely, and this manifestation of inequality remains unnoticed. Living with a disability or a visible deformity immediately involves a range of everyday struggles, doubts, fears, and issues that the majority of people do not understand. In many countries, there are resources to make city architecture decisions concerning physically challenged people’s needs, but comfort for all people does not always become an official strategy. For instance, my penfriend from an East European country lives in an apartment building with no wheelchair ramps, and she struggles a lot when helping her mother to go out. Unfortunately, despite local improvements, we, humanity, continue to see a perfectly healthy person as the first category that deserves attention and recognition.

Works Cited

Rosen, Ellen. “Waiting for Her Ride Home.” Your Shot (National Geographic). 2018, Web.

Walters, Helen. “Gallery: What Inequality Looks Like.”TED. 2014, Web.

A recent development in the study of inequality shifted the focus from individual instances of racism or sexism to structural and system-wide deficiencies that maintain the traditional power distribution in the society. As Peggy McIntosh said in her article: “I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group” (1). This change in the paradigm has important practical implications for eradicating racial inequality as it not only challenges the existing cultural or linguistic rules and customs but also calls for a revision of political and social institutions.

The purpose of the present paper is to review and evaluate the arguments presented by the authors writing about the concepts of racial inequality and oppression. In spite of the shortcomings of some of the arguments put forward by these authors, their analyses, nevertheless, provide comprehensive evidence that systemic oppression is the main cause of racial inequality in the United States. Consequently, the politics of difference model provides a solution on how racial inequality can be reduced and even eradicated.

While some authors focus specifically on the problem of racism, others examine the concept of oppression, in general, identifying certain underprivileged groups such as racial, sexual, or gender minorities. Iris Young, in particular, engages in theory-building in an attempt to identify the different forms that oppression can take. She contrasts the traditional meaning of oppression as “the exercise of tyranny by a ruling group” to the new liberal definition of the concept at a structural level (Young 40).

The new view describes oppression as “systemic constraints” imposed on groups of people not as a result of some tyrannical actions, but as an unintended consequence of a “well-intentioned” society (Young 41). This definition shifts the focus from the causes of the oppression to its consequences – namely, the resulting injustice and limitation of freedom. Young then proceeds to propose a comprehensive classification of particular manifestations of oppression: violence, exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, and cultural imperialism (42).

Violence is, perhaps, the most obvious and evident source of oppression. While traditionally, violence is considered an immoral, yet not necessarily unjust practice, the key difference of systemic violence is that it targets individuals based on their belonging to a particular group (Young 62). In the case of racism, violence manifests itself, for instance, through police brutality that gained particular salience in the light of recent events in Ferguson and other cities. Exploitation, on the other hand, is a subtle category which Young defines as a “process of the transfer of the results of the labor of one social group to benefit another” (49).

While exploitation is less present in the contemporary society, Young cites Black and Latino workers’ prevalence in and association with menial labor as an example (52). Marginalization refers to the expulsion of categories of people from “useful participation in social life” (Young 53). Indeed, this is one of the most common forms of oppression which, to a large extent, stems from the deficiencies of the criminal justice system. Racial minorities are disproportionately represented among the incarcerated population, meaning that a person belonging to one of these groups is far more likely to experience the consequences of incarceration, be it felon disenfranchisement or limited access to employment.

The fourth dimension of oppression is closely linked to that of exploitation. Young calls it powerlessness, or lack of participation in decision-making at different levels (56). It is primarily connected to one’s occupation: professionals have the “authority, status, and sense of self” that working class people largely lack (Young 57). Racial minorities do not get to experience the autonomy and respectability that come with a white-collar profession. Finally, the last form of oppression, according to Young, is cultural imperialism, or “universalization of a dominant group’s experience and culture, and its establishment as the norm” (Young 59).

The result of it is two-dimensional and paradoxical: the oppressed minority’s culture is rendered irrelevant and invisible, except for when it comes in direct contact with the dominant group when it is perceived as different and exotic. Such an encounter often results in cultural appropriation, when the members of the dominant group select the elements of the oppressed group’s culture on the basis of their “otherness,” and take them out of context for personal use. Thus, given the examination above, one can see that the conceptual framework proposed by Young has a twofold significance. It is, first of all, its contribution to the theory of inequality and allocation of power in society. Perhaps, even more importantly, the deconstruction of the concept of oppression helps identify those contemporary trends and phenomena that disadvantage certain social groups and, as a consequence, undermine the individual freedoms of their members.

While Young, to a considerable extent, refrains from identifying the “oppressor,” McIntosh’s analysis is largely centered around the premise that oppression is a direct consequence of power dynamics between different social groups. She refers to it as “privilege” (McIntosh 1). Contrary to the original meaning of the word – that is, some special right or even honor – McIntosh uses this word as an umbrella term for different, most frequently mundane, instances of how one group enjoys a more constraint-free living environment. While McIntosh originally developed this concept in support of the feminist theories, she came to discover that unknowingly, white people also benefit from a privilege granted by their race.

Privilege concerns social interactions, access to education and healthcare, representation not only in government but also in entertainment, and experience with law enforcement, to name a few (McIntosh 32-35). McIntosh’s approach is highly effective as a tool to reach broader audiences: she names understandable and relatable activities to demonstrate how racial minorities are deprived of certain individual freedoms. This method allows her to draw attention to the fact that oppression is far more omnipresent than one may imagine. By identifying the white privilege, she also assigns responsibility to the members of the privileged group to work toward reducing the gap (McIntosh 1).

Where McIntosh in her analysis focuses on the individual level, Glassner, on the other hand, considers how one particular institution – the media – contributes to sustaining and perpetuating the oppression of racial minorities (Glassner 109). He examines how selective reporting, framing, and vocabulary choices influence and shape the public opinion. Even though Glassner refers to anecdotal evidence in his analysis, his main method of demonstrating the contradiction between real events and their media coverage is the juxtaposition of the media discourse and statistical evidence.

For instance, the growing prevalence of drug use and consequent violence in New York City in the late 1980s and early 1990s caused a widespread panic. The general perception was that anyone at any given time could become a victim of drug-related violence while it was true for only about two percent of all cases. Drug violence principally affected racial minority youths, especially Black men (Glassner 110-111).

Ironically, opinions similar to this one became the reason behind the failed War on Drugs which also had a disproportionate adverse impact on the Black community. Glassner’s argument has one particular shortcoming: by identifying the media as a “culprit” of racial prejudice and stereotyping, Glassner somewhat dismisses the complex and systemic nature of oppression by ignoring the intricate links between the media and the public opinion. While the media certainly has significant power over the public opinion, it is, in turn, also controlled by it. Thus, the media creates the content that is interesting to the reader, meaning that the Black narratives are largely irrelevant to the general public.

Yet another approach to the problem of racial inequality was undertaken by Edna Bonacich, who looked at it as a natural and even unavoidable consequence of power distribution in a capitalist society (198). As a consequence, the main argument in her writing refers to the wealth distribution in the American society, and it heavily relies on statistical data (Bonacich 191-195). While the specific figures that she quotes are no longer up-to-date, the general trend remains true: wealth is significantly concentrated in the hands of a small affluent elite, so wealth distribution is considerably skewed in the American society.

Racial minorities, given their limited access to education and employment, largely represent some of the poorest social groups in the United States. Yet, if one defines capitalism as a free-market economic model, Bonacich’s argument about the racial inequality being an inherent quality of capitalism does not hold true for other developed countries – at least not to the same degree. However, the predictions that she makes in the last section of her work have been confirmed: in recent years, the Black community has unified in its movement to demand justice and equality for racial minorities in the United States (Bonacich 205).

These authors, among many others, provide some compelling arguments demonstrating the reality of systemic oppression in the American society. On the one hand, these accounts are strikingly dissimilar, as these authors observed the same phenomena through a prism of their personal backgrounds and experiences. Conceptually, some of them even offer somewhat competing paradigms: for instance, their examination of the dominant group, as evident in the differences between the works of Young and McIntosh. At the same time, these analyses are internally consistent and mutually reinforcing: even though they examine the problem from a different angle, they identify the fundamental cause of the existing racial inequality rather similarly.

Even though it is quite thought-provoking to examine these works separately, they construct an even more interesting picture when they are put together. In fact, these analyses provide a comprehensive account of when and how oppression originated and how it was transformed and sustained throughout history up to the present day. These works examine the issue at the systemic, institutional, and individual levels of analysis, thus highlighting how the problem, stemming from structural constraints, permeates every sphere of social life.

Overt racism and systemic oppression can be compared to customs duties and non-tariff barriers: both ultimately hinder trade even if by overt or covert measures. Similarly, different forms of racism hinder inequality, even if through different methods. While it would be impossible to imagine such overtly racist legislation as the Jim Crow laws in contemporary America, currently, other pieces of legislation and, particularly, the design of the criminal justice system disproportionately affect the racial minorities. Besides, oppression is not only systemic – it is also cyclical and self-perpetuating: for instance, the unequal access to education creates unequal employment opportunities in the future.

Given the nature of the problem, the politics of difference model provides a more suitable solution to improving the racial relations in the American society, as opposed to liberal individualism. The latter model, as the name suggests, tends to focus on individual grievances which is equivalent to treating the symptoms rather than the cause of a disease. It is, undoubtedly, important to alleviate individual suffering and pain, but it should be accomplished by targeting the structural deficiencies leading to inequality.

Some may claim that the politics of difference approach is based on generalization and stereotypes, or that it only furthers the existing political and social cleavages. However, such a claim is unfounded since the politics of difference model has a different objective: social groups are identified because the system’s flaws concern the power distribution and dynamics between the dominant and minority groups, and the division is necessary to examine how power can be transferred between different groups.

Thus, the literature analysis revealed the convincing arguments and evidence demonstrating how the current sociopolitical infrastructure contributes to the oppression of racial minorities at the systemic level. Even though the individual instances of overt racism are still present these days, they are not the gravest concern when it comes to racial inequality. To achieve racial justice, the society and its members should strive to eliminate the structural constraints imposed on the racial minorities, and the politics of difference model presents a viable solution to this problem.

Three theoretical perspectives may be applied to discussing social factors: functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist theories. It seems reasonable to analyze the problem of inequality and factors perpetuating it from the point of the symbolic interactionist perspective. According to this outlook, society is regarded as an entity created by interactions between people. Hence, it is viable to investigate how these interactions, or the lack of them, can contribute to the problem of inequality.

Symbolic interactionism is the perspective used to study people’s ways of communicating. The adherents of this approach think that “face-to-face, repeated, meaningful interactions” among people form and maintain societies (Carter and Fuller 931). The trend appeared as opposing to the earlier established top-down view on society, which presupposed that macro-level structures affected individuals. Contrary to this perspective, symbolic interactionism supporters argued that society operated by the bottom-up approach, meaning that micro-level processes among individuals shaped major societal relations (Carter and Fuller 932). According to Blumer, there are four main premises of symbolic interactionism:

1. individuals’ actions are governed by the meanings they give to objects;
2. communication happens within concrete cultural or social contexts, where all people and objects are categorized “based on individual meanings”;
3. meanings appear from cooperation with other humans or society;
4. meanings are constantly formed and reshaped through understanding processes during communication with others (qtd. in Carter and Fuller 932).

The foundational principles of symbolic interactionism allow singling out several factors that are responsible for allowing inequality to persist in society. First of all, the problem is people’s tendency to assign meanings to objects. Such meanings can be highly subjective, based on one’s personal beliefs or experiences, or governed by a single occurrence. Meanwhile, if individuals’ decisions were controlled by reliable statistical data, there would be much less space for bias. For instance, if a native-born American citizen has been robbed or otherwise offended by an immigrant, he or she will treat all immigrants with suspicion, although there are no grounds for such a sweeping conclusion.

Another problem is that communication occurs with people or groups that are categorized by a person. Again, such categorization cannot be accepted as objective, which illustrates another connection between symbolic interactionism and inequality. Every human being should have the possibility to show their potential and their true worth. If being put in some category deprives the individual of the right to self-expression, there is yet another indication of prejudiced treatment.

Finally, there is a problem of forming meanings about others through cooperation in society. Some people do not have an opportunity to meet the ones whose decisions determine their lives. For instance, many clever and eager young specialists cannot receive the position they want because human resources departments do not forward their applications to companies’ managers. As a result, due to the lack of interaction, which is the core idea of the symbolic interactionist perspective, many individuals are neglected opportunities.

There is a variety of conditions and circumstances perpetuating inequality. Some of these are discussed and analyzed in different social theories. Among them, the symbolic interactionist approach produces a considerable effect on promoting inequality by allowing people to govern their opinions by choosing with whom to communicate and whom to respect. Because of focusing on one’s subjective opinions, people frequently undermine the potential of those who have effective ideas and valid solutions.

Works Cited

Carter, Michael J., and Celene Fuller. “Symbols, Meaning, and Action: The Past, Present, and Future of Symbolic Interactionism.” Current Sociology, vol. 64, no. 6, 2016, pp. 931–61.