Category: Social Class

The given selection of the articles has been chosen based on two criteria: they deal with the youth and they explain different aspects and issues connected with media education. There is no denying the fact, that technological progress and the changes in political, economic and cultural spheres of society affect people of all ages, but it is evident, that the youth should receive special attention, as young people in the future of the world. Our task is to analyze the youth as a social class and to consider the phenomenon of media education.

It is not by chance that the article by P. Lestina comes first in the list of articles we have to study. The author presents the general information on the way class structures and struggles influence the youth of the world as they face a history of, and increasing subjugation to, the economic, political, and cultural logic of capital (Lestina par. 1.1). The author throws light on hard economic conditions that are created in contemporary society: unemployment, which is the result of capital flight and global outsourcing, absence of government protection, and exploitation of labor (Lestina par. 1.5). It is commonly known that children and the youth are the most vulnerable social layers that require special treatment and care. The seriousness of the current situation is proved by statistics: about half of the population of the earth is under the age of 25, 11 million of the young die each year because of such problems as lack of food, bad sanitary conditions and unsatisfactory housing conditions.

Lestinas article deals with the same problems that are discussed in the article by H. Giroux. The latter enlarges on obstacles that are faced by the youth, he elaborates on the way how conservatives are dismantling the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority of the American populace (Giroux par. 1.1). He also stresses the problem of militarization of schools, which may be evidenced by such measures taken as the adoption of security systems and the carrying out of raids in American public schools. Giroux also disapproves and stresses the harmful influence of zero-tolerance policies and criminalization of problem young people, which is the main focus of the authors work (par. 2.1  par. 2.3). Both researchers mention racism as a socio-political construction that hampers natural development of society and contributes to the exploitation of labor (Lestina par. 2.7), (Giroux par. 2.4).

One more problem, which is elucidated in Lestinas article and, is, certainly, of great importance, is the problem of class warfare, which is the result of new conservative agenda (par. 3.1). Its essence is in the fact that all participants of the educational process (parents, teachers, teacher unions, etc.) are deprived of the slightest possibility of making decisions. The only aim of the creators of this agenda is to sell it and gain considerable profit; what is more, this marketing operation is being held under the hypocritical cover of globalization, competitiveness, and efficiency. To struggle against these oppressive conditions of contemporary society, the author suggests fostering the development of political consciousness among the younger generation, which may be implemented due to cooperation of teachers and students, and by means of the students participation in political bodies.

On the whole, the main message of P. Lestinas article is that there is vital necessity of the victory of politics over the tyranny of market force and the creation of theoretical approach to life for the youth (p. 5.2). We agree with the author on the idea of the paramount importance of class awareness and political awareness for the young. They are starting points for them to establish control over various spheres of life.

The central concept of the youth as a social class and the urgent problems of the young people are also discussed by S. Aronowitz in the article Against Schooling: Education and Social Class. The approach of this researcher may be characterized by more practical orientation in comparison with the above-mentioned authors who present theoretical points of view. The authors main contribution to the concept of the youth as a class, that supplements the views presented above by his colleagues, is that he suggests abolishing high-stakes standardized tests that dominate the curriculum and subordinate teachers to the role of drill masters and subject students to stringent controls (Aronowitz par. 7.1). However, the scientist has no intention to eradicate the necessity of evaluation and evaluative tools in educational process. In fact, he offers certain innovations for the curriculum, such as the integration of etymological issues, the application of historical approach and perspective to the studying of exact sciences, such as math, that include rote-learning as a necessary element. We believe that this approach is sure to be productive; it will replace boring rote learning and bare drills with deep understanding and strengthening of motivation for learning, which is absolutely necessary for students to be successful.

One more idea of Aronowitz that has claimed our attention and has got our definite approval is his statement of the preference of earned authority of teachers instead of the assumed one (par. 7.2). The necessity of the cultivation of critical skills among the students is obvious, but it should be taken into account that any criticism should be based on a certain cultural background that should be provided by the curriculum. This is why the current school curriculum needs absolute reformation which will be aimed at intellectual endeavor. This is why serious and radical changes should take place in teachers training that will enable them to eliminate warfare state.

Carlsons article also deserves attention, as it introduces several terms that are useful for us. The author operates such terms as outsider stories, insider stories (par. 5.5). The article is aimed at progressives whose task is to challenge current hegemonic discourse (Carlson par. 5.8). Thus, it can be concluded that all scientists claim that there is vital necessity for the reformation of contemporary educational system.

The articles, which were analyzed above, create necessary basis for correct perception of the question of media education at school. This matter is discussed with much detail in the report of Kate Domaille, who presents the analysis of the global survey of media education, which focuses on its application at schools. The results have proved to be impressive and reliable as they cover the vast range of responses of the citizens of 35 countries.

The report suggests the shift of approaches in media education: from inoculation to empowerment (Domaille 3). A very important fact is worth mentioning: the authors point of view differs from Lestina and Girouxs points of view, as she says that the main aim of media education is not to protect young people, but to develop critical awareness. However, we came across the similar information in Girouxs article.

Domaille draws our attention to the fact that in most cases media education is included in the process of assessment of other subjects, and it has to struggle in order to become recognized as a self-efficient and independent form of education. The author states that, though the circumstances of the development of media education are rather complicated, it is in the process of constant development now, due to considerable support of enthusiastic teachers and publication of materials on the topic.

The unquestionable merit of Domailles report is that it throws light on the obstacles that are faced by media education. The most important and topical of them are as follows: the necessity of the recognition of the value of media education; absence of specialized training courses for teachers; too complicated approach to media education on the basis of high tech, especially in Japan; and, on the contrary, poor financial and technological basis of schools. Thus, it can be stated, that Domailles report creates a perfect image of the current global situation concerning media education.

In his turn, Jenkins also throws light on certain aspects of media education and media literacy. The advantage of this work is detailed description of the reasons for teaching media literacy: participation gap, transparency problem, and ethic challenge (10). Because of these issues, it becomes evident, that teachers task is to take into account new media landscape and specific skills and competencies that are engendered by it. Among the skills that form media literacy of students, the author mentions the following: play, simulation, performance, appropriation, multitasking, etc. (Jenkins 56). Besides, the author suggests possible ways of practical application of skills.

Drawing a conclusion, it should be stated that all the authors agree on the importance of the social class, called the youth, and all of them also agree that definite social changes are necessary to ensure healthy existence of the youth. Media education can provide young people with media literacy and other necessary skills, which may make a great contribution to successful development of their personalities and may give them many opportunities to become good citizens.

Works Cited

Arnowitz, Stanley. Against Schooling: Education and Social Class. 2004. Web.

Carlson, Dennis. Leaving Children Behind: Urban Education, Class Politics, and the Machines of Transnational Capitalism. 2004. Web.

Domaile, Kate. Youth Media Education Survey. 2001. Web.

Giroux, Henry A. Class Casualties: Disappearing Youth in the Age of George W. Bush. 2004. Web.

Jenkins, Henry. Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. 2009. Web.

Lestina, Pepi. Introduction: Youth as a Category through which Class is Lived. 2004. Web.

It goes without saying that stratification was the huge topic to discuss over the ages and still have a great relevance in today’s world. The definition of stratification is the process in which people are divided into different groups and level of living according to their visual aspects, occupation, wealth, income and so forth. So, it’s a term that describes social inequality. In my essay I’m going to discuss why stratification is an inevitable and desirable feature of human societies.

The fact that individuals are unequal, separate, and concrete people is an absolute truth. It is well explained by the Clyde Klaukhon. The idea of ​​Clyde Klaukhon is that from one point of view, all people are similar with other people, from the second point of view – only some are related, and from the third, for instance, are not related to anyone else, exclusive and unique. Each of us has much more signs of the third type. There are different people existed in the world: tall and short, fat and thin, smart and unintelligent, old and young, and so on. Each person has a unique composition of genes, biography and an irreplaceable personality warehouse. However, social inequality is related more to the situation where developed unequal social groups of people and different social statuses but not according to any of their physical attributes. Everybody exist in different social groups and have different statuses. For example: the student group is different from the sports team, the work team is from the military, the family is from the group of friends and so forth. As the status of a student is different from the status of agrarian, the status of a doctor differs from that of a teacher, and the status of a pilot is from a hundred sailor’s status.

Besides, people from wealthier social groups have higher opportunities. For example: people of wealthy families tend to be healthier, live longer, attend better college compared to the children born into poverty.

This brings up another aspect of social stratification – social mobility. Social mobility is persistent in positions across social hierarchy. It can be upward and downward. In upward societies it is almost impossible to change the status and individuals stuck in the same position and spend lives in that status. For instance, in capitalists societies system of stratification is upward and it is more dependent on personal achievements and knowledge than the status of their parents. When it comes to social hierarchy it will be unfair not to mention that, in the modern world, is divided into 4 classes: materialism, corporatocracy, government and people. This hierarchy system leads to the constant tendency where the rich people get richer and the poor get poorer. Furthermore, people from the same stratum of social hierarchy have similar interests, lifestyle, social groups, activities, places for shopping and so on which is make division between people even more.

According to Marx’s theory of stratification class is a group of people with the same means of production that they use to secure their lives. He believes that the reason for social inequality in capitalist societies is division between those who owns the means of production and those who do not own them and can only sell their labor. For the reason that the people from classes have different interests he argues that it is impossible to eliminate contradictions between the owner’s class and the class of employees because it can lead to class conflict and even communist revolution.

Weber took a lot of inspiration from marx’s theory, however he was completely against communism as he believed that it would need more bureaucracy than a capitalist society and would therefore be harder to deal with. Weber’s theory, like marx’s includes the concept of class, however, the weberian theory also includes the concepts of power and status. He defines power as the ability to get one’s way even though they are facing backlash or are in the wrong, for example, Donald Trump allegedly bought his votes to win the presidency, implying he had the power to do so. Power comes in the form of wealth and connections that a person, or family, may have in order to exercise their power. Status in his words is – a person’s prestige, social honor, or popularity in a society. Unlike Marx, Weber did not see the supreme stratification in terms of class. Weber also argues that political power comes from one’s class, social status, prestige and popularity within their society.

Having social stratification motivates people to work harder – in order to become CEO, usually you have to start at the bottom of the spectrum and work your way up. Unless we consider the very few privileged elite who are born into inheritance, normal people have to work their way to the top. Different sorts of jobs are also an incentive for people to work, as no job is one fit all. It also increases a person’s value of their own self worth once they reach a certain position they were working after. The difference in social class forces people to want to move up the ladder rather than staying stuck in one place, which helps people progress as a society.

Nothing in our society is equal, different job positions have different statuses and pays, you cannot compare and level the job of a president and the job of a janitor, because one clearly overpowers the other and may even be considered to be more important in general cases.

This creates healthy competition within a society that allows it to progress and thrive to achieve the highest place in the hierarchy possible.

Taking everything into consideration, I would like to say there are three types of the most important goods that never be enough for anyone: material goods (wealth), power and prestige. These help individuals strive for to earn more of each one which creates competition within a society that helps in progress. In reality social stratification is as natural as it can be, as hierarchies exist within every aspect of our lives, and even in the animal kingdom, which creates balance and structure and encourages progression.

References

1. Marx’S View Of Class Differentiation’. Social Sci Libretexts, 2020, https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Book%3A_Sociology_(Boundless)/8%3A_Global_Stratification_and_Inequality/8.6%3A_Sociological_Theories_and_Global_Inequality/8.6E%3A_Marx%E2%80%99s_View_of_Class_Differentiation.
2. Weber’S View Of Stratification’. Social Sci Libretexts, 2020, https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Book%3A_Sociology_(Boundless)/8%3A_Global_Stratification_and_Inequality/8.6%3A_Sociological_Theories_and_Global_Inequality/8.6F%3A_Weber%E2%80%99s_View_of_Stratification.
3. Kluckhohn, Clyde. ‘THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF VALUES AND CONTEMPORARY CIVILIZATION’. Zygon�, vol 1, no. 3, 1966, pp. 230-243. Wiley, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1966.tb00459.x.
4. ‘Social Stratification: Crash Course Sociology #21’. Youtube.Com, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlkIKCMt-Fs.
5. Society, Top. ‘Top 12 Importance Of Social Stratification To The Society – Unlocking-The-Future.Com’. Unlocking-The-Future.Com, 2020, https://unlocking-the-future.com/top-12-importance-of-social-stratification-to-the-society/.

Class Conflicts

Class conflict which is also known as class struggle and class rivalry is the political tension and economic antipathy that exists in society subsequent to socio-economic competitions and battles among the social classes. The types of class conflict can involve direct violence, for example, fighting over resources and cheap labor and assassinations; indirect violence, for example, deaths from poverty (poorness) and starvation, ailment (illness) and perilous working environment. Economic coercion, for example, the risk of unemployment (joblessness) or the withdrawal of investment capital or ideologically, by using the political literature. Furthermore, political forms of class warfare may include legal and illegal lobbying, and buying off (bribing) of legislators (officials).The social-class conflict could prove to be direct, such as in a dispute between labor and management, for example, a single employer’s industrial lockout of their employees in making an effort for weakening the bargaining powers of the analogous (corresponding) trade union; or social-class conflict can also be indirect, like in a workers’ slowdown of production in protest against the unfair labor practices, such as low wages and poor workplace conditions. Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, in their political and research and theories regarded class struggle as a central belief and a practical way for effecting the radical social and political changes for the social majority to establish supremacy.

These conflicts are mostly truth, a crisis that can weaken or strengthen it, a critical event that may bring lasting resentment, smoldering hostility, psychological scars. Few people accept the fact that conflicts are part of life and not necessarily important assumption of conflict theory is that human relationships and social structures all experience inequalities of individuals and groups that can benefit from a particular structure of society tend to work to maintain those structures so as to retain and to enhance their power. The results suggest that people across income levels experience a range of positive emotions. As the frequency of certain feeling vary with social class. Top earners experienced more self-oriented positive emotions, such as pride, contentment, and amusement. A person’s social class has a significant impact on their physical health, medical care and nutrition, and their life expectancy. Additionally, people with less SES have to experience a much higher rate of health issues than those of higher SES. It matters to sociologists because the fact that it exists reflects unequal access to rights, resources, and power in society what we all call social stratification. As such, it has a strong effect on the access an individual has to education, the quality of that education, and how high a level he or she can reach.

The sociologist Marx’s conflict theory focused on the conflict between two primary classes. Every class consists of a group of people bound by mutual interests and a degree of property ownership, often supported by the state. The bourgeoisie represents the members of society who hold the majority of the wealth and means. Marx’s most popular theory was ‘historical materialism’, arguing that history is the result of material conditions, rather than ideas. Marx’s believed that religion, morality, social structures and other things are all rooted in economics. Conflict is often something that we try to avoid. Positive conflict is constructive in nature. It produces new ideas, solves continuous problems, provides an opportunity for people and teams to expand their skills, and fosters creativity. When opposing ideas are explored, a breakthrough of thinking can occur. There are many types of societal conflicts throughout history can be explained using the central tenets of conflict theory. Some theorists, including Marx, believe that societal conflict is the force that ultimately drives change and development in society.

Conflict theories tell us that competition is a constant and, at times, an overwhelming factor in nearly every human relationship and interaction. Competition is always the scarcity of resources, including material resources–money, property, commodities, and more. The material resources, individuals and groups within a society also compete for intangible resources as well. They can include leisure time, dominance, social status, sexual partners, etc. Conflict theorists assume that competition is the default.

Conflict theorist’s assumption that conflict occurs between social classes, one outcome of this conflict is a revolutionary event. The idea is that change in a power dynamic between groups does not happen as the result of a gradual adaptation. When it comes about as the symptom of conflict between these groups, this way, changes to a power dynamic are often abrupt and large in scale, rather than gradual and evolutionary

Inequality

Inequality (unfairness and discrimination) is defined as the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards by performing different roles (behavior expected out of someone) or for different statuses (social positions, a person holds at a given time period) inside a group or society. It can include many structured and recurrent patterns of uneven or unjust divisions of goods, wealth, opportunities, rewards, and punishments, etc. History has proven that huge inequalities in wealth and income persist and do not usually cause rebellion and warfare. In fact, very regularly they do now not. Thus, the query of the way inequality relates to battle remains. An overview of the literature indicates that some inequalities count greater than others. Inequalities can arise between individuals, growing social lessons, but additionally between international locations and among cultural or ethnic agencies.

Inequalities could be of several things as the common problem faced by several economies which are inequality of distribution of income. As there are different classes in a society and mostly higher class and middle class are capable to pay tax and so there tax is collected and distributed in poor and needy people however, this is not the reality as first of all people do tax evasion which is they try to escape from paying tax by showing their values and wealth with low market value which enables them to pay less tax thus the less income is generated to government and so the distribution could not be possible.

Therefore, the second thing in which way tax is collected some of the government created regressive tax collection method in which the tax is collected as the lower the income the higher the tax which created in equalities. Lastly, the distribution of income is unequal as the percentage stated is also unequal in that way rich get richer and poor get poorer.

Therefore, this was the economic inequality thus there is another type of inequality which is social inequality. Social inequality is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society. As it could be unequal distribution of rewards, punishment, jobs and wealth. These inequalities are the causes of power and status as people using their power in negative way and providing jobs to the people with good status, in a society people with more power and status is awarded and are provided jobs instead of whom they deserve.

Inequalities cause several problems as poverty, as if the income or wealth would be not distributed equally so the people might not get their rights and it would lead to poverty. Thus, providing jobs and reward unequally would lead to suicide and increase in death rates. As unequal distribution of income wealth and unequal taxes collection or tax evasion would lead to economic instability and financial crises as inflation also. As it would not be fair pay or inequalities pay as workers with same job or same task assigned might be offered different pay this might lead to workers being jealous and not satisfied thus it would lead to unemployment increase or the productivity would be affected and inefficiency also.

As social inequalities would affect education as if there would be improper or unequal distribution so the people could not afford to educate their children and it would also increase crime as if there would be nothing to eat or no resources so they would commit crime so they could live. Therefore, Health is an important factor and with inequalities poor or low class people could not afford that and there health is affected which leads to diseases and result in decrease in happiness factor.

The sociologist Max Weber uses social classes to examine wealth and status. According to max Weber, social class is strongly associated with prestige and privileges. Over here it explains that social reproduction, the tendency of social classes to remain stable across generations maintaining most of their inequalities as well. These inequalities include differences in income, wealth, access to education, pension levels, social status, and socioeconomic safety-net. In general, social class can be defined as a large category of similarly positioned people located in a hierarchy and distinguished from other large categories in the hierarchy by such traits as occupation, education, income, and wealth.

Inequality between International locations

Looking at inequality between nations basically manner looking at poverty. Research via across the world famed professionals like Paul Collier and Nicholas Sambaing has shown a sturdy link among the wealth of a country and the chance of it laid low with civil struggle. The threat of civil warfare is an awful lot better in poor than in rich countries. USA with a GDP according to capita of $250 has a 15 percent risk of descending into warfare at some point within the coming five years even as, in a rustic with a GDP of $1250 consistent with individual, the probabilities are less than 4%. It is a whole lot less expensive to recruit rebels in a negative use, wherein wages are low and unemployment high, than in a wealthy country, in which prices are a great deal better and the kingdom is probably to have greater resources to deter a likely rise up. For instance, inside the Democratic Republic of Congo, a senior officer’s profits are less than $100 a month and often go unpaid. One of the commanders of a rebel organization in the east of the United States of America recalled the instant he turned into recruited: “I had spent five months in a schooling camp in Kinshasa without profits. My family changed into going hungry. When [General Laurent] Nkandla started out recruiting, I noticed I didn’t have any alternative.”

Inequality inside Nations

But can inequality within a rustic also motive war? A renowned concept, nonetheless influential today, is Ted Gurr’s Relative Deprivation Theory. Gurr argues that a massive gap between collections’ predicted and actual economic and dwelling conditions can gas conflict. While Gurr does not talk explicitly about gaps between wealthy and terrible, arguably, frustrations approximately the space between expected and actual residing situations are in all likelihood to growth even greater when the poor are constantly faced in their everyday lives by the conditions of the rich. The Occupy motion originated from such frustrations, and a survey inside the United States determined that a growing percentage of Americans see struggle among the rich and the poor.

Social Cohesion

Recognizing the rising expectancies of growing middle instructions in growing nations, the OECD’s document Perspectives on Global Development 2012 centered on social brotherly love: “Social cohesion is likewise a way that permits residents to live in societies in which they enjoy a sense of belonging and believe. The inference is that the absence of social brotherly love may also bring about instability”. Tunisia and Thailand are cited as examples of countries wherein salaries are rising and schooling improving, however wherein enhancements in equalities and political participation are lagging at the back of. The unrest in Thailand in December 2010 and the Tunisian revolution that sooner or later brought about the ousting of President Ben Ali display that this will result in violence.

An important element of the OECD’s idea of social cohesion is as a consequence the degrees of inequality in a society and the capability of humans to conquer them. The OECD argues that social cohesion is a treasured purpose in itself and allows hold long-time period monetary growth. The report focuses strongly on rising inequalities in developing nations, which have to be leveled through economic regulations and thru employment and social safety. Other coverage areas which might key to social brotherly love consist of schooling, gender and migration.

Class Conflict and Inequality in Pakistan

The issues of class conflicts and inequality are justified with the increasing gaps between the populations of Pakistan. Different classes exist in Pakistan. Therefore, it is because of this variety of different people in Pakistan, there is clearly a lot of present class conflict and inequality between the classes in the Pakistani society. There a lot of difficulties and challenged faced in the Pakistani society because of class conflict and inequality and out of these few are given below:

1. Educational Issues: Many people belonging to different classes face many educational issues because other people consider these people as low level people and so, they are not given any education. Therefore, their knowledge and information does not increase and they are unable to build their personality properly.
2. Badly Mistreated: In Pakistani society, many people belonging to different are made fun of and are mistreated like for example, other people throw something like drink or water on them and run away. In the same way, they beat up people from other class level for no reason and give them insulting remarks. They take wrong advantage and completely mistreat people of low class level.
3. Poor Health System: In the Pakistani society, people from low class level are not provided with good health system. If they get sick, there health is not given proper attention as other people in the society consider some like pathetic and weak people and think of them as a joke. So, people belonging to low class level face many health issues in the society as well.
4. No Justice: People belonging to low class level are also treated unfairly when it comes to justice in the Pakistani society. They are not given equal rights like if some normal people from higher class do something bad, he might put blame on people belonging to low class level and as a result, they are severely punished for no reason. Therefore, there is no equality for weak and poor people of low class level when compared to other people of higher class level in society.
5. No Social Interactions: People give no importance to low class level and do not interact with them often. The higher class level gives them little importance. They consider them as weak and pathetic people and completely ignore them. In other words, no one wants to be friends with a person who belongs to a low class level.
6. Unemployment: A major challenge faced by people belonging to low class level in the Pakistani society is that they do not get much employment opportunities. They are considered worthless people and they are also underrated. Other people do not consider them capable of doing any work and tasks and they are not given any job opportunities and it is very difficult for the people belonging to low class level to earn money and look after their family. Therefore, unemployment is a very major issue in Pakistan that needs to be controlled.
7. Upward Mobility: One more very major difficulty due to class conflict and inequality in the Pakistani society is upward mobility. It means that rich remain rich and poor remain poor. So, people who are poor, they are considered as low class level people and no value is given to them and once again inequality becomes a major factor. The rich people do everything they can to make sure that the poor people stay poor and not improve their lifestyle.
8. Gender Inequality: Gender Inequality is yet another major issue in Pakistan. Gender inequality is a deep-rooted menace in Pakistan where men are masters of women’s future as women are not allowed to get education and even if they do, it is up to around class 7 or 8 and they are considered to be responsible for performing house activities like washing, cooking, and cleaning instead of doing studies. The women are considered inferior by men and they show them no respect. So, gender inequality is yet another major issue in Pakistan for which a solution is required.

Conclusion

As researchers use quantitative variables such as income or wealth to measure inequality, on an examination of the data, patterns are found that indicate these other social variables contribute to income or wealth as intervening variables. Important inequalities in income and wealth are found when specific socially defined categories of people are compared. As the most pervasive of these variables are sex/gender, race, and ethnicity. This is not to say, in societies wherein merit is considered to be the primary factor determining one’s place or rank in the social order, that merit has no effect on variations in income or wealth, and these other socially defined characteristics can, and often do, intervene in the valuation of merit. Investment of capital leads to returns on investment (ROI) and increased capital accumulation. The hypothesis that economic inequality is a necessary precondition for economic growth has been a mainstay of liberal economic theory. Latest research, particularly over the first two decades of the 21st century, has called this basic assumption into question. While growing inequality does have a positive correlation with economic growth over here is under specific sets of conditions, inequality in general is not positively correlated with economic growth and, under some conditions, shows a negative correlation with economic growth.

“You know something, Scout? I’ve got it all figured out, now. I’ve thought about it a lot lately and I’ve got it figured out. There’re four kinds of folks in the world. There’s the ordinary kind like us and the neighbors, there’s the kind like the Cunninghams out in the woods, the kind like the Ewells down at the dump, and the Negroes’ Through an innocent child, Jem in ‘To Kill a Mockingbird”, Harper Lee awakens the thoughts and feelings of the reader on the injustice delivered by the society in the form of social status. Social status divides people and their hearts into social classes based on their economic status or family lineage rather than their character or behavior. Though the word, social status looks small and has a straight meaning, it is soaked in the blood of several innocent lives for generations. With the innocent tone of an innocent child, Lee cleverly directs the story towards the fact that innocent people are… Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” is a symbolism of innocent black people who are very friendly with the whites but mistakenly punished just the same way as killing the mocking birds.

To start, Lee chooses Scout, an eight-year-old girl, as the narrator of the inspiring story of To Kill a Mockingbird. The story takes place during the unfriendly times of Great Depression in the 1930’s, when the Nation was hit by poor economic conditions and social tensions. The beginning words from Scout, which actually are from Lee, are delivered to the reader with this intention. One would understand this from Scout’s words, “There was no hurry, for there was nowhere to go, nothing to buy and no money to buy it with, nothing to see outside the boundaries of Maycomb County. But it was a time of vague optimism for some of the people: Maycomb County had recently been told that it had nothing to fear but fear itself.” When we dive deeply into Jem’s thoughts about social class, one would derive the social organization of Maycomb, a small town in Alabama, based on their color, economic conditions and family lineage. Though Maycomb is not the only place practicing this culture, Lee used it as an example to illustrate the negative effects of racism and social inequality prevailing in the country in those days. Blacks are considered as slaves and in other words they are the last level of social hierarchy. Whites are always assumed superiors to the blacks and there’s a social structure within whites too. Atticus is a lawyer working in the legislature and as a result he falls into the higher class. Cunningham’s, who are poor farmers fall into the second level. The bottom level of the social class in the whites in Ewells and for that reason they live in the outskirts of the town with the Negroes. Scout’s first finding about the differences in treating the people by social class is when she comes across a student named Walter Cunningham in her class who belongs to Cunninghams. Scout learns from Atticus that Cunninghams are the respectable farmers in the society who get along with their earnings and never borrow money from others. Atticus helps Cunninghams in resolving one of the Land cases and he doesn’t accept money from Cunninghams. Cunninghams always try to payback the help that they get from others and henceforth, they return more than what they owe to Atticus in some other form. As an innocent child with more immature feelings, Scout Asks Atticus ‘Are we as poor as the Cunninghams?’ (Lee 27). From the words of Scout, Lee, tries to inform the reader how social class reflects economic status of Cunninghams. Though Scout is the Protagonist of the story, Atticus Finch is the driver of the story and in addition he’s an anti-racist. Atticus, without delay, tries to correct Scout’s vision by making her understand that Cunningham’s economic status is not the cause for their social class. It is important to realize that Cunninghams are respectable farmers who own lands but they are going through tough times. According to Atticus, Cunninghams are rich compared to the other professionals since there is less scope of earning for the high-level professionals in the small town like Maycomb. This implies that the social structure is derived not only based on the person’s economic conditions but also based on their occupation.

Meanwhile other characters aid in adding more fuel to the burning issue of social injustice and build more curiosity in the story. ‘Jean-Louise, there’s no doubt in my mind that they’re good folks. But they’re not our kind of folks. (Lee 299) ‘ Aunt Alexandria says these words when Jem wants to invite Walter Cunningham for dinner. People are hesitant to invite lower class people for dinner since they strictly adhere to the rules of the society and never go against them. But subconsciously, every person knows that men are born equally on the earth but not everyone is brave enough to express their thoughts. With this in mind Aunt Alexandria, though having good opinion on Cunninghams, shows her concern about inviting them for dinner. Scout, being a child with unbiased thinking sees equality in human beings ““I think there’s just one kind of folks. Folks.” Jem too thinks the same and couldn’t understand why people have prejudices towards others. ‘If there’s just one kind of folks, why can’t they get along with each other? If they’re all alike, why do they go out of their way to despise each other? ‘ At this instant, Lee, once again stresses existing problem of Social inequality. Ewells are at the bottom of whites and are almost equivalent to the blacks. Atticus refers to as “White Trash”, since they have very poor social skills, ill manners, indecent language, unhealthy habits, rude public behavior and they add no value to the white society. Their children very rarely attend school. They live on the other side of the tracks with Negros community. Bob Ewell, being the Antagonist in To Kill a Mockingbird, becomes the cause of the conflict in the story by accusing a Negro for raping his daughter Mayella Ewell on false grounds. Bob exhibits his villain characteristics in many occasions thereby strongly getting disliked by the reader.

With attention to Ewells, Lee, slowly drives the story towards a more serious mode when the problem of social inequality becomes monstrous and takes the life of an innocent Negro. Tom Robinson is a black man who works in the cotton fields in Maycomb and is a person with good heart. Helping people in need is a Tom’s daily duty and for the same reason he was at Bob Ewell’s house to help his daughter Mayella Ewell. Due to a series of unfortunate events, he is accused of raping Mayella Ewell and attends trial. Atticus names the case as an “impossible” since the accused is not guilty. Not only Atticus, everyone in the courtroom knows that this is a case caused by the social inequality and discrimination. Whites always win over blacks. “In our courts, when it’s a white man’s word against a black man’s, the white man always wins. They’re ugly, but those are the facts of life.” Atticus says this since no evidence or medical examination are considered during the trial and there are extremely high chances of pleading Tom Robinson as guilty. If the case is filed by a white on a black, then everyone knows the verdict in advance. This is the major flaw in the law due to social layering and the people supporting the social class. Being at the bottom level of the social hierarchy, blacks have no right to speak the truth or complain about the pain caused by the whites. “She was white, and she tempted a Negro. She did something that in our society is unspeakable.” Atticus’ irony in his words points at the fact that the whites can override the social rules and in contrast, blacks have no option but to strictly follow them. Though Atticus tries his best to bring social inequality due to social divisions into light and prove that it is the cause for Tom Robinson’s accusation, the Jury being made of whites pleads Tom Robinson as guilty. Tom Robinson tries to get out of prison and gets shot by the authorities. He is dead for two reasons. One for being shot and second for being black. “. Cry about the simple hell people give other people- without even thinking. Cry about the hell white people give colored folks, without even stopping to think that they’re people too.” Atticus’ closing argument in the court makes the reader think, think again and rethink about evil nature of social class and how it caused distress to an innocent person’s family. Tom Robinson’s story is just one of many painful deaths caused by the unwritten social laws.

“I think there’s just one kind of folks. Folks.” Scout says this to Jem when they noticed differences in the Maycomb’s social hierarchy. Scout is always being brainstormed by Atticus about human values and relationships with the fellow beings on this earth. Her words came straight from her heart this time. She tells what she thinks. She expresses what she understands but adds a little innocence to the way she expresses. When a child, without any thought, expresses her feelings about human inequality in this society, why does Maycomb worry about social classes. People are born alike and share resources of the planet. Why are there differences in their privileges then? Mockingbird is a metaphor used by Lee that represents innocent people who have no idea about the social classes and divisions in Maycomb. All they care about is humanity. Though blacks have no place on the social organization of Maycomb, they are treated as below lower class in the society.

Social class in the Victorian era is often envisioned as a strict structure made up of the working, middle and upper classes: difficult to climb up but easy to fall down. However, in Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, that strict class structure is turned upside down, with characters gaining a higher social position just as easily as they lose it, showing the fragility of the class system. The structure of class in Wuthering Heights is therefore more complex and more, if only slightly, malleable than that of the Victorian era which makes the ‘social positions of characters seem[s] elusive.’ (Marsh, 1999). We see this ‘elusive’ social position most clearly in the characters Heathcliff and Hareton, both of whom have volatile statuses which swap and change throughout the novel. They are made to suffer this confusion over their belonging at the hands of others with power over them (for example, Hindley’s power over Heathcliff as head of the family and Heathcliff’s power over Hareton as the owner of Wuthering Heights, Hareton’s home, later on in the novel) and this abuse of power proves that the social structure of Wuthering Heights is perhaps not as relaxed as it seems. Power over other characters also plays an important part in the portrayal of social class in ‘Wuthering Heights’, as it shows how the story and its characters conform to, but also how they rebel against, the social norm. Examples of this is Joseph’s influence over Mr. Earnshaw through his religious beliefs, Nelly Dean’s interfering nature and the reversal of power between Hindley and Heathcliff. Do the ideas in society portrayed by Bronte mirror that of the time she was writing? What do the perceptions of characters lead us to believe? And how does Bronte show the fragile nature of an individual’s class?

To start, it is important to know that Emily Bronte’s own experiences with social class are very different to that seen in ‘Wuthering Heights’. Her father was a reverend, and due to their father’s work, the family likely mixed with different classes within the parish. They would have had a respectable and steady position in local Haworth society, where their Father’s parish was situated. Emily’s sister, Charlotte, eventually accepted curate Arthur Bell Nicholls’s hand in marriage, which illustrates that for the Bronte sisters it was only acceptable for them to marry a man in the Church but not to marry above or below their position. In ‘Wuthering Heights’, characters marry both above and below their social position, the complete opposite to the Bronte sisters, who either married within their class or did not marry at all. Their parish was in Haworth in Yorkshire, surrounded by miles of moors, which is where Emily Bronte’s love for the moors came from. Teodorescu describes Emily as ‘a lonely person, she liked to wander on the moors, to write, draw, or play the piano.’ (Teodorescu, 2007). Unlike Emily Bronte’s other sisters’ novels, ‘Wuthering Heights’ was not autobiographical. Teodorescu explains how ‘all the three sisters had some experience as governesses or teachers, positions they bitterly disliked. Their life was harsh, as in some houses the conditions were unpleasant and they were treated badly’ (Teodorescu, 2007). Both Anne and Charlotte Bronte use their experiences as governesses or teachers as influence on their novels. Emily Bronte did not, but instead, it seems, took more influence for her characters from the moors that surrounded her. In terms of Emily Bronte’s own life, social class is portrayed as fixed, with little movement from the class that you were born in to. Social class in ‘Wuthering Heights’ is very different, with social positions of characters swapping and changing throughout the novel, and individuals that are not in powerful social classes able to control those above them.

Heathcliff’s social status is an ambiguous one. He begins life as a low-class orphan, possibly the child of vagrants, who ends life as the richest man in the town in which ‘Wuthering Heights’ is set. Referring to his ambiguous social status, Rylance explains that Heathcliff was ‘degraded and abused as a child and adolescent, he becomes, by his own efforts, a man of property, interest, local influence, wealth, success, iron willpower, even cultivation’ (Rylance, 2002). Heathcliff is a perfect example of social mobility, going from a poor vagrant to the son of a gentleman, however between the start and end of Heathcliff’s life, he ascends and descends the social ladder multiple times. There are multiple reasons why Heathcliff climbs and falls through the social ladder so often, and all of these link to his treatment by others and how they perceive him. One key moment in the novel which shows how characters are prejudice against Heathcliff, is when he and Cathy are caught trespassing on Thrushcross Grange. Although both children are caught trespassing on the Linton’s land, the family view Cathy and Heathcliff in two differing ways. Cathy is seen as the social status that she is, the daughter of a gentlemen, while Heathcliff, who should be viewed with the very same status, is seen as a low class ‘gipsy’ (Bronte, 1848, pg. 50) who has corrupted Cathy. Emily Bronte shows the feelings of the Linton’s when Mrs. Linton says, ‘’a wicked boy, at all events,” remarked the old lady, “and quite unfit for a decent house…”’ (Bronte, 1848, pg. 50-51) This mistreatment of Heathcliff automatically lowers his status which has been suppressed by the Linton’s for failing to recognise him as the son of a gentleman. This proves that although it seems on the surface that Heathcliff has socially mobalised by joining the Earnshaw family, he is still not viewed as the gentlemen’s son that he rightfully should be viewed as, which is due to the fact that he is originally from a poor background.

This brings up the topic of Heathcliff’s race, as the descriptions that Heathcliff is given by other character in ‘Wuthering Heights’ suggests that he is not white or, at the least, has a different appearance to Mr. Earnshaw’s other children. He is called a ‘gipsy’ and ‘the son of a fortune teller’ by the Linton’s, suggesting that he could potentially be from Romani decent. Rylance says that ‘Commentators have speculated, he was black (Liverpool was a slave port); perhaps, like Patrick Bronte, he was Irish.’ (Rylance, 2002). Later on in the novel, Nelly says to him, ‘You’re fit for a prince in disguise. Who knows but your father was Emperor of China, and your mother an Indian queen…’ (Bronte, 1848, pg. 58). It is clear that as well as an ambiguous social status, Heathcliff’s race is ambiguous. However his race is prominent enough to affect how he is treated by others, arguably due to racism. This dismissal of status from the Linton’s is seen again when Cathy chose to marry Edgar Linton, arguably for social status and wealth, rather than marrying Heathcliff for love. This is due to the fact that ‘Catherine is left unable to express emotion towards Heathcliff or recognize him as a viable prospect for marriage because of her inculcation into the ideal of social betterment.’ (Poklad, 2017). Hindley is another character, who, once his father dies, treats Heathcliff as a servant. Again, this treatment could be seen as racist, as Heathcliff was raised as a brother to Hindley, who clearly doesn’t view Heathcliff in that way. This means that Heathcliff is essentially demoted to a worker for the Earnshaw household rather than a family member. The fact that the main character of a British nineteenth century novel could potentially be a person of colour, and the fact that Heathcliff can be seen as not just a villain but also the hero of the novel, makes ‘Wuthering Heights’ unique and perhaps gives reason to why the book got some negative reviews on the character of Heathcliff. ‘Most readers were baffled – and angry. Wuthering Heights was offensive and incomprehensible to most…’ (Rylance, 2002) and ‘In October of that year, the North American Review was repulsed by the ‘animal brutalities’ on display in this book, and considered the ‘hero’ of the novel, Heathcliff, a ‘brute-demon’ made up of a ‘compendium’ of fierce animals…’ (Cooper, 2015). This could be possibly why Bronte left Heathcliff’s race as ambiguous and up to the reader to decide, as it is likely that having a POC hero in the novel would not necessarily be as popular as if the hero was white. Bronte could have also left Heathcliff’s race as ambiguous as she wanted to show how Heathcliff is discriminated against by other characters, who ultimately keep him down in a lower class.

Hareton, who’s life seems to mirror that of the character Heathcliff’s, is more example of the delicacy of social status within ‘Wuthering Heights’. His character is used by Bronte to give Heathcliff a form of revenge towards Hareton’s father, Hindley. Like Hindley to Heathcliff, Hareton is made to suffer a similar impermanent social status. Once his father is dead, Hareton goes from the social status of a gentlemen’s son to merely a servant, just as Heathcliff did. Poklad says that Heathcliff’s ‘intention to ensure Hareton grows in…the same neglectful domestic atmosphere to shape him, is founded on his ownership of Hareton’s domestic atmosphere, and his subsequent dictation of its terms’ (Poklad, 2017). This suggests how Heathcliff uses his power and influence, as owner of Wuthering Heights, as a way to control and lower Hareton’s social standing, just like how other characters such as Hindley and the Lintons did to Heathcliff. Heathcliff’s aim in the second part of the novel is clearly to have revenge on the people that wronged him, for both losing his love, Cathy, when she decides to marry Edgar Linton, and losing his status through Hindley, when he demoted his status to servant. The most intriguing part of Heathcliff’s revenge is his social mobility and how he returns to the town as a wealthy man, which he uses to take advantage of Hindley. Bronte uses this reversal of power to show the lengths Heathcliff was willing to go in order to have revenge on the characters in the novel that did him wrong. It also proves, in terms of social class, how Heathcliff feels that wealth and owning Wuthering Heights, a house owned by the middle class Earnshaws, is what will give him status and therefore power over the character he wants revenge on. Although Hareton’s life seems to mirror Heathcliff’s, there are some major differences. One being the fact that Hareton has a higher-class background than Heathcliff; Hareton is from the white, middle class Earnshaw family, while Heathcliff was adopted, was homeless at the start of his life and is potentially from a minority. This helps Hareton eventually attain a happy ending, where he is the owner of Wuthering Heights and marries young Catherine, who he loves (just like how Heathcliff loved Cathy but could not marry her due to his poor social status). Emily Bronte portrays social class as malleable, with her character in ‘Wuthering Heights’ constantly falling and climbing up the social ladder. However, she does also show how these movements cover up the fact that characters, ultimately, stay in the class that they were born in to. Although Heathcliff is raised by a gentleman, he is not viewed as a gentlemen’s son.

A prominent piece of evidence of Hareton’s decline into a lower status is his illiteracy. His illiteracy makes him an angry character, who is embarrassed of his lack of education. An example of this is when he throws his books on the fire, after young Catherine mocks him for attempting to learn how to read. Bronte adds, ‘his endeavors to raise himself had produced just the contrary result’ (Bronte, 1848, pg. 303) in order to remind the reader that Hareton is only trying to better himself, but is forced down again when he is embarrassed by another character. This is further evidence of how Bronte portrays social class as being forced upon someone. Once Hareton is mocked by young Catherine, a character of higher social class, he no longer attempts to better himself on his own, and its only until she begins to encourage and assist him that Hareton begins to study again. The characters in positions of power within ‘Wuthering Heights’ are always those that push social status on others, the only exception to this is when Heathcliff returns to town a wealthy self-made man. Hareton’s attempts to teach himself how to read are also an indication of a refusal to be oppressed. Bronte shows moments of tenderness from Hareton, indicating that the angry character which he comes across as is not his natural behavior, and that really, he is a tender gentleman. However, Heathcliff’s attempt to ravish the tender does not last long, as Abraham says, ‘Hareton, who bears an uncanny resemblance to, and association with, Heathcliff and all that Heathcliff represents, gradually charts a movement towards the genteel and refined patriarchal world of Thrushcross Grange and the Linton family’ (Abraham, 2004). By the end of the novel, a full circle is seen, with characters that were controlled by Heathcliff, for example young Catherine and Hareton, ‘able to reclaim their former positions’ (Meier, 2013). Hareton is back to his status of a gentlemen, while young Catherine is no longer under the control of Heathcliff as her guardian. Here, Bronte portrays social class in two ways; the first is that social class is malleable and can be changed and manipulated by the people in power. The second way is that as much as it can be changed, a person will always return to their original social status, Hareton and Heathcliff both return to the gentlemen status once they are no longer under the control of another character. Although Emily Bronte moves away from the traditional social class system seen in England when she was writing, the tradition of social class is still seen within the novel, with characters being returned to their ‘rightful’ social standing by the end. The example of Hareton’s illiteracy also shows the traditional idea that being able to read and write means the character must be from a higher status, and that through attempting to learn, Hareton is also attempting to socially mobalise. As Hareton is from a middle-class family, he is, unlike Heathcliff, able to ‘socially mobalise’. This is because really, he never left his middle-class status in the first place and was being pushed down by a character (Heathcliff) who was from a lower class.

There are two prominent working-class characters within ‘Wuthering Heights’, Nelly Dean and Joseph. Nelly, who is first the Earnshaw’s and then the Linton’s servant, as well as one of two narrators, has a steadier position in society than Heathcliff and Hareton, remaining as a working-class character throughout the novel. However, she does often go past her roles as a servant, acting as more of a friend to her employers and interfering with their lives. This is most likely due to the fact that she grew up with the Earnshaw children (Cathy, Heathcliff and Hindley), and therefore ‘her dislikes and hatreds have familial roots’ (Goldfarb, 1989). Her close relationship with the Earnshaw children is made clear to the audience when Nelly says, ‘I got used to playing with the children…’ (Bronte, 1848, pg. 35). Meier describes Nelly’s status as ‘unnatural’ as she was ‘reared as a member of the family by Earnshaw’ (Meier, 2013). Bronte uses this slightly different social status as a means of using Nelly’s character later on to go past her servant duties and instead interfere, as well as betraying the trust of, her masters. For example, when she allows Heathcliff to visit Cathy even though her employer Edgar Linton strictly tells her not to. However, even though Nelly is an educated servant and grew up with the Earnshaw children, even as a child, she was still given the duties of an employee. ‘I ran errands too, and helped to make hay, and hung about the farm ready for anything that anybody would set me to.’ (Bronte, 1848, pg. 35). This proves how social class is even forced onto the children in ‘Wuthering Heights’ and meant that even though Nelly grew up and played with the Earnshaw children, they all knew that she was from a different social standing. This close upraising to the Earnshaw’s still gives Nelly a slightly higher status than other servants, however never enough to be very significant. In ‘Wuthering Heights’, Heathcliff and Hareton’s roles within the story, in terms of social class, are to show the delicacy and ambiguity of social status as well as indicate how power lies with the highest class of society. Nelly Dean’s role in ‘Wuthering Heights’ is to perhaps give some insight into the working class and employees of the audience reading the book. At the time Emily Bronte was writing, the main audience of her novels would have been middle to upper class people, meaning that potentially Nelly’s character represented the servants working for them.

Nelly’s other role in the storyline of ‘Wuthering Heights’ is as narrator. She is a particularly biased narrator, as she often sweeps over her role in the story, for instance going against her master’s orders when she allowed Heathcliff to see Cathy. She also admits to Lockwood in chapter four that he should ‘follow my story in true gossips fashion’ (Bronte, 1848, pg. 63) and it is her gossip that tells the majority of the story. Nelly is also revealed to be a gossip through her relationship with Zillah, another minor working-class character in ‘Wuthering Heights’, who is a servant to Heathcliff. Often Nelly retrieves information about Heathcliff and his household, which she uses to continue her story to Lockwood. In this way, Bronte portrays the serving class as gossips, interested in their masters’ lives more than their own. Perhaps this is influenced by what Bronte saw herself, as she would have naturally come into contact with many working-class people through her father’s profession as a pastor. However, Nelly Dean had to made a gossiping character in order for the story to be told, as it could be said that if she was not, the story would never have existed.

Social class is defined as, “A system of ordering society whereby people are divided into sets based on perceived social or economic status” (Oxford dictionary). In The Kite Runner, written by Khaled Hosseini, social class plays a significant role. Throughout the centuries humans continue to find ways to divide themselves into categories such as ethnicity, gender and culture. The Kite Runner establishes that society uses social class as an additional way to divide humans into categories. Although Amir has negative experiences related to social class, culture, and gender he learns to grow and become his own individual who believes in equal morals.

Due to the separation of Hazaras and Pashtuns, Amir experiences social barriers at a very young age. In the novel there are two major ethnic groups, Pashtuns are the superior ethnic group and are Sunni Muslims; Hazaras are the minority and are Shi’a Muslims. Hazaras work as servants for their entire life and are not given the opportunity to stand on their own feet due to their ranking in the hierarchy. In The Kite Runner, Hassan is a servant for Amir because he is a Hazara. Though both boys are around the same age, only Amir is allowed to attend school. Education puts many walls between Hazaras and Pashtuns, “School textbooks barely mentioned them and referred to their ancestry only in passing.” (9) Hazaras are erased from history in Afghanistan and do not have a voice in their own county and are treated like “load-carrying donkeys.” (10) Pashtuns believe that Hazaras “dirty [their Pashtun] blood.’ (43) and ‘Afghanistan is the land of Pashtuns.” (43) However, this is morally wrong because Hazaras are Afghans and should not be erased from history. Hence, this situation makes Amir see a barrier between him and Hassan “because history isn’t easy to overcome. Neither is religion. In the end, [he] was a Pashtun and [Hassan] was a Hazara, [he] was Sunni and [Hassan] was Shi’a, and nothing was ever going to change that. Nothing.” (27) This is upsetting because Amir feels the tension in his relationship with Hassan due to the separation between ethnicity and social class. Furthermore, it is clear that education acts as an invisible boundary between Amir and Hassan because he takes advantage of this situation, by playing little tricks on Hassan. Since Hassan does not have the education to be able to read, Amir makes “up [his] own.” stories. (32) Amir acknowledges the fact that Hassan is oblivious and uses this against him because “Words were secret doorways and [he] held all the keys” (32) This is disturbing because at such a young age Amir is fulsome of his social class and wrongfully benefits from his privilege. Finally, Assef a Pashtun rapes Hassan and Amir watches and comforts himself when he says, “He [Hassan] was just a Hazara, wasn’t he?” (82) This essentially proves that even though Hassan is a loyal friend to Amir, he only takes Hazara ethnicity and believes that Hassan should be treated as such. This is cruel because even at a young age, children like Amir believe that ethnicity and social class are far more important than being humane. This situation establishes another barrier between Amir and Hassan because Amir cannot relate to the pain Hassan goes through for being a Hazara. This makes Amir feel guilty and results in him pushing Hassan away from his life. Amir’s experiences build an invisible separation between him and Hassan which is irrational because children should not have to go through this at such a young age. However, the protagonist later grows as he sees the separation but uses his newfound knowledge. When Amir goes back to Afghanistan he sees the demolished conditions of how people are living due to the Taliban, “the beggars [are] mostly children now, thin and grim-faced, some no older than five or six.” (257) He starts to feel more empathetic and this results in Amir being eager to save Sohrab, Hassan’s son. When Amir brings Sohrab to America, General Taheri questions his decisions. He refers to Sohrab as “a Hazara boy” and Amir furiously says to not refer to Sohrab as a “Hazara” in his presence. This demonstrates that Amir understands that social classification should not come between individuals. This overall shapes Amir into a better individual by removing the idea of the separation of ethnicity and learning to accept people for who they are.

Amir goes through cultural differences between Afghanistan and America throughout his life. During his childhood, he attempts to understand the situation between Ali and his wife, Sanaubar since she is forced to marry him simply for honour’s sake. Sanaubar is forced to marry Ali to, “restore some honor to [her] uncle’s blemished name, even though Ali, who had been orphaned at the age of five, had no worldly possessions or inheritance to speak of” (10). This is alarming because she is married off like a piece of property. Though, this is normal in Afghan culture since women are not respected compared to men; Sanaubar is forced to marry her first cousin and suffers from a marriage she does not want. Amir goes over this in his childhood and does not fully understand Sanaubar’s situation. However, he comes to understand the cultural situations between America and Afghanistan through Soraya. Due to culture, Soraya is continuously controlled by her father. She is considered a rebellious Afghan because she goes against her father’s rules and runs away with her boyfriend. This is forbidden in Afghan culture and Taheri “showed up with a gun that night.” and “made [her] come home.” (173) This is tremendously disappointing because due to cultural expectations, her own life is threatened to be taken away by her father. This is outrageous considering the fact that she is not causing harm, she simply wants to live with the man she loves. She returns home with her father and is again forced to live under Afghan culture. This includes not being able to drink, because Taheri “[does] not approve of women drinking alcohol and Soraya does not drink it in his presence.’ (193) However, this is morally wrong because it should be her decision as an individual to make her lifestyle choices. Instead, she is forced to follow cultural expectations and adjust herself into being someone she is not. Throughout Amir’s childhood and adulthood, he learns that Afghan cultural expectations are too strict and he modifies his morals. He also starts to develop in the American society which alters his perspective. He proves this by giving Soraya the benefit of the doubt and he does not judge her based on her past actions. Amir also does not control his wife and permits her to drink alcohol and have an opinion about their life decisions. He also notices that he is “different” compared to other Afghan men because he “[has] never been exposed firsthand to the double standard with which Afghan society sometimes treated them.” (190) He understands that the Afghan culture is almost impossible for women to live by. This consciously demonstrates that Amir slowly alters his lifestyle around American culture, however, does not completely let go of his Afghan culture. When Amir and Soraya bring up the topic of adoption General Taheri says, “Now if you were American, it wouldn’t matter. People here marry for love, family name and ancestry never even come into the equation.”, and, “When you adopt, you don’t know whose blood you’re bringing into your house.” (198) Though, Amir still decides to follow American culture and adopt Sohrab. He learns to intertwine the good morals from both American and Afghan culture to be a better person and a better husband for his wife.

Finally, Amir understands the concept of gender through Baba and General Taheri. At a very young age, he experiences gender discrimination because his passion is continuously looked down upon on by Baba, “Real men didn’t read poetry – and God forbid they should ever write it! Real men – real boys – played soccer.” (21) Throughout the novel, Baba influences Amir to be a “real man” however, this is extremely sexist because men should be allowed to become whoever they want to be. Consequently, Amir starts to feel shameful because he cannot win his father’s approval to become a writer. Moreover, Baba continues to attack Amir, ‘A boy who won’t stand up for himself becomes a man who can’t stand up to anything.’ (24) It is crystal clear that Baba is narrow-minded and has a specific idea about a man. He fails to understand that men do not have to be or act a certain way to be a man. This idea influences Amir at a young age because he looks up to Baba and therefore, he believes his father’s words. Furthermore, Amir experiences differences between genders in his adulthood when he sees how General Taheri has a narrow mind about women. His expectations are that a “proper” Afghan woman is to be quiet and he limits the freedom of women because he believes that they should follow a number of rules. One of the conditions he places before marrying his wife is that she would never sing in public. This is extremely upsetting considering the fact that she was a famous singer in Afghanistan. Moreover, The General controls his wife even in her elder ages, “Soraya told me that her mother had wanted to sing at our wedding, only one song, but the general gave her one of his looks and the matter was buried.” (176) This reveals that Taheri is sexist as he limits his wife’s freedoms. This is morally wrong but because she was born a girl, she suffers to live under the power of a man. This continuously establishes that Taheri is simply sexist because he puts women below him and makes them feel unworthy of being equal to men. However, General Taheri teaches Amir that gender is just another social classification. Amir proves this by calling his wife, Soraya when he is in Afghanistan and confesses to his mistakes of betraying Hassan. Furthermore, he asks for her input and permission to adopt Sohrab because he respects her opinions. Amir begins to think on his own and thinks “past” what people have previously told him. He starts to develop from his negative experiences and grows into an individual who believes in equal morals between men and women. Consequently, he pursues his passion by becoming a writer and accepts his wife to be equal to him.

In the novel The Kite Runner, Amir’s experiences consistently are based on an invisible separation due to social classifications created by mankind. Humans remain to find ways to split themselves into categories such as ethnicity, culture and gender. The issues that surround him teach Amir to respect an individual for more than their social classification. When Amir goes back to Afghanistan he sees the destroyed conditions of how people are living due to the Taliban. This overall shapes Amir into a better individual because he eliminates the concept of the separation and accepts others for who they are. Amir decides to follow American culture and learns to intertwine the good morals from both American and Afghan culture to be a better person. He calls his wife, Soraya to ask for her input and permission to adopt Sohrab. Amir begins to think on his own and thinks “past” what people have previously told him and starts to develop from his negative experiences. This demonstrates that he comprehends that social classification should not come between individuals. Finally, he grows into an individual who believes in equal morals, this is extremely vital because he rises to be more humane.

In The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton, there is a common theme of class divide rich vs poor and greasers vs socs. In the novel The Outsiders is about two gangs on each side of a town. The socs and the greasers, who have a destructive rivalry and are very different. However throughout the course of the novel their true characteristics are proven to be fundamentally the same. Each side has its differences, for example, their opposing dress codes. The Greasers are generally stereotyped as no good, rotten to the core hoods, while the Socs manage to become away with their crimes since they are on the social ladder.

While the Socs and the Greasers see the world quite differently; their backgrounds are dramatically different, however they during the novel, the reader begin to see how much they have in common underneath all the clothes and cars. Both gangs become involved in crimes and trouble but the image of the Socs help to keep them safe. The Greasers often take blame for the crimes of the Socs, purely because it is assumed that they are the culprits by the people. The Socs were causing a lot of trouble in the school cafeteria, throwing silverware and stuff, everybody tried to blame it on the Greasers.

The Greasers rarely even eat in the cafeteria. This is because of the Socs calmer image, they cause as much trouble as the Greasers but their social status makes them less likely to be accused. They have a clean look compared to the Greaser rebellious look. The obvious differences in the dress code of the gangs further their separation. But they still maintain similarities; they are both violent gangs, with a particular style and look that they default to. They both have an anti-authoritarian approach to life.

They both find pain in money, the Greasers face issues with poverty, while the Socs face problems that are tied to wealth. “Things are rough all over” cherry says to Ponyboy, summing up the issues that each side faces. Both groups are simply teenagers trying to find their way in life. Pony notices that the sun in the east sets just as the sun in the south, signifying that they all The Greasers and the Socs are, at the end of it all; ultimately the same and very little separates them. They fight, rebel, and stay loyal to each other no matter the circumstances or the situation.

While on the surface, Kafka’s ‘The Metamorphosis’ appears to be just a tale of a travelling salesman who one day wakes up transformed into a monstrous vermin, this far fetched plotline is only the tip of an iceberg concealing beneath the surface a wealth of societal criticism. The novel carefully explores and critiques the dehumanizing nature of the system of capitalism and the effect it has on laborers. A trenchant analysis of the character Gregor Samsa provides a window into the deep rooted flaws of the dark corporate world.

Kafka’s novella carefully unveils an overarching metaphor built upon an outrageous plotline designed to expose critical flaws of the structure of society in the eyes of Marxists. Gregor Samsa, a travelling salesman and the central character to the text, not only provides an improbable story but is representative of a laboring class devoid of production possibility and symbolizes a proletariat (term used by Marxists to label lowest socioeconomic class). Gregor was forced to survive under inhumane conditions, with his work consuming every aspect of his life. “Human beings have to have their sleep”, (Kafka 4) Gregor said, thinking to himself about the loathing resentment he had towards his job. Laying in bed in a state of confusion, he thinks “O God…What a demanding job I’ve chosen day in, day out on the road. The stresses of trade are much greater than the work going on at head office, and in addition to that, I have to deal with the problems of traveling, the worries about train connections, irregular bad food, temporary and constantly changing human relationships which never come from the heart. To hell with it all!” (Kafka 4). Prior to opening the door, Gregor says “Mr. Manager! Take it easy on my parents! There is really no basis for the criticisms which you are now making against me, and really nobody has said a word to me about that” (Kafka 15), unearthing the vulnerability of lower economic classes, and their dependence on upper economic classes. His manager, representative of the bourgeois class, was concerned exclusively with Gregor’s output and upon the sight of his metamorphosis “had already turned away and with curled lips” and “without letting Gregor out of his sight, backed toward the door” (Kafka 16). Gregor’s instantaneous unemployment is gestures towards the impersonal, rude, and dehumanizing structure of class relations. Gregor unmasks his new self and clearly reveals his vulnerable proletarian state.

In addition to employing characters to signify tensions between economic classes, the novel judiciously details how Gregor’s transformation encumbers his labor and due to that, eliminates his place in society and even his own family. Even before his metamorphosis however, Gregor can be seen as more trapped in his torturous job, working only to support his family. “If I didn’t hold back for my parents’ sake, I would’ve quit ages ago. I would’ve gone to the boss and told him just what I think from the bottom of my heart” (Kafka 5) Gregor says, revealing one of the primary thematic conflicts of the novel: Gregor’s job was killing him, yet what killed him in the end was his inability to do that very job.

Gregor’s manager, present only in the first climactic scene of the novel, is described as insensitive and impersonal, with his anonymity serving as an indicator to the lack of humanity he held for Gregor and presumably other prolaritats. Gregor specifically highlights the fact that the manager “sits on the desk and talks down from the heights to the employees” (Kafka 5) clearly defining the rigidity in class structure present in society. The manager holds a well-defined superiority over the laboring class, because of his further economic reach. When Gregor is a few hours late after being on time for work every day for five years, the manager travels all the way to his home and consults with his parents to personally reprimand him, because, as with the bourgeois class, the manager possesses no labor of his own and relies exclusively on workers such as Gregor.

Gregor’s new verminous is described only in vague terms, with the only specific details, such as his “animal’s voice” (Kafka 16) highlighted only to explain how his transformation has affected his productivity and diminished his ability to conduct labor. The obvious interpretation of the manager fleeing after seeing Gregor’s new form was one of fear, but in line with the overarching metaphor of the novella, the manager instantly saw that Gregor no longer has any productive value so he was fired on the spot. To the bourgeois class, the worker is worth nothing more than the value of their labor, and so without any labor to offer, Gregor was worthless and expendable.

Gregor worked years to pay off his family’s debts, but as soon as he is no longer earning wages he is so quickly discarded by his father. After Gregor becomes unable to support his family financially, they all eventually abandon him as well. Gregor’s family is also representative of the bourgeois class, as when Gregor was no longer able to provide his family with money, his relationship with them was severed. Gregor’s father, with whom he had little emotional attachment, was the harshest in dealing with Gregor. He is nothing but hostile after the transformation. Upon first seeing his transformed son, he “clenched his fists, as if to drive Gregor back into his room” (Kafka 19). Then, one day when his son is trapped outside of his room, he attacks him by throwing apples. Upon being attacked, “Gregor stood still in fright, paralyzed in fear as ‘his father had decided to bombard him’” (Kafka 51). Although this scene appears almost comical, the apple he threw left Gregor with a ‘serious wound, from which he suffered for over a month”. This act of aggression from Gregor’s father reveals Gregor’s role in the family: the sole income earner and nothing more.

Introduction

The Safavid Empire, which reigned over Persia from 1501 to 1736, had a complex social structure that shaped the lives of its inhabitants. Understanding the social hierarchy and organization within the Safavid Empire provides valuable insights into the power dynamics, societal norms, and daily lives of its people. This essay aims to provide an informative overview of the social structure of the Safavid Empire, highlighting the roles of different social groups, their privileges, and their interactions.

The Shah and the Nobility

At the top of the social structure stood the Shah, the ruler of the Safavid Empire. The Shah held absolute power and was considered the spiritual and political leader of the empire. The royal family, including the Shah’s immediate relatives, enjoyed immense privileges and lived in opulence within the royal court.

Directly below the Shah were the nobility, consisting of high-ranking officials, governors, and military commanders. These individuals held significant positions of power and influence, serving as advisors to the Shah and governing various regions within the empire. The nobility enjoyed vast estates, received generous land grants, and had access to substantial wealth and resources.

Religious Leaders: The Ulema

Religion played a crucial role in the Safavid Empire, and the Ulema, the religious scholars and clergy, held considerable authority and influence. They were responsible for interpreting and enforcing religious law and played a significant role in shaping social and cultural norms. The Ulema were well-educated and enjoyed privileges such as tax exemptions and control over religious endowments. They also had the power to issue fatwas (legal opinions) and were responsible for maintaining religious orthodoxy within the empire.

The Bazaar Merchants and Artisans

The Safavid Empire had a vibrant commercial class centered around the bazaar, which served as the economic and social hub of the cities. Bazaar merchants and artisans formed an important segment of the social structure. Merchants engaged in domestic and international trade, importing and exporting goods across the empire and beyond. They amassed wealth through commerce and contributed to the empire’s economic prosperity. Artisans, such as craftsmen and skilled workers, produced a wide range of goods and played a vital role in the empire’s artistic and cultural development.

Peasantry and Rural Population

The majority of the Safavid population consisted of peasants and rural communities who worked the land. They provided agricultural produce, essential for sustaining the empire’s economy and supporting the urban centers. Peasants lived in rural villages and were subject to the authority of local landowners and nobles who owned large estates. Although their living conditions varied, the peasantry generally lived a modest and labor-intensive lifestyle, relying on agriculture for their livelihood.

Slave and Servant Class

Slavery was an integral part of the social structure in the Safavid Empire. The slave class comprised individuals captured through military conquests and slave trade. Slaves served various roles, including domestic labor, agricultural work, and military service. They had limited rights and were considered the property of their owners. Slavery was not limited to individuals of a particular ethnicity or background, and slaves could be found in various social and occupational roles within the empire.

Social Mobility and Interactions

While the Safavid Empire had a structured social hierarchy, social mobility was possible to some extent. Individuals could rise in status through military achievements, royal favor, or successful entrepreneurship. Marriage alliances between noble families also played a role in social mobility.

Interactions between social classes were necessary for the functioning of the empire. The nobility relied on the support of the peasantry for agricultural production, and the commercial class facilitated economic transactions and trade. The royal court provided a space for the convergence of various social groups, fostering cultural exchange and political maneuvering.

Conclusion

The social structure of the Safavid Empire was characterized by a hierarchical organization that reflected the distribution of power, wealth, and privileges. The Shah and the nobility occupied the highest positions, followed by religious leaders, merchants, artisans, peasants, and slaves. Despite these divisions, social mobility was possible, and interactions between different social groups were integral to the functioning of the empire.

Understanding the social structure of the Safavid Empire allows us to grasp the dynamics of power, economic relationships, and societal norms during that period. By examining the various strata of society, we gain insights into the complexities of life and social interactions within the empire.

Social class refers to the hierarchical categorization of individuals within a society based on a number of variables including wealth, income, education, occupation, and social network. While there are a number of models describing social class, the most commonly known model includes the upper-class, the middle-class, and the lower-class. The higher one’s position within the social hierarchy, the more advantages and opportunities they will receive. On the other hand, the lower an individual falls within the social hierarchy, the more disadvantages or consequences they will experience. Although social class can affect many aspects of an individual’s life, inequality when it comes to access to education is the one that stands out the most.

This clear form of inequality starts out at the preschool level. By age three, most children are old enough to attend an early-education program or preschool. However, many preschools charge tuition and the ones that are publicly funded typically have long wait-lists and are located in middle-class neighborhoods. This leaves lower-class children unable to access the necessary early education that can prepare them for elementary school. According to research done by Stanford University, children that do not experience formal education until the kindergarten level start off a year behind in math and verbal skills and, they will likely never catch up to their preschooled peers (Long, 2017). Lack of access to preschool also creates a problem for the parents due to the cost of private childcare. While middle and upper-class parents can send their children to preschool while they go to work, lower-class families either have to come up with the cash to pay for childcare while they work or, one parent must stay home. Either way, there is a substantial cost or loss of income associated with children who cannot attend an preschool, making it nearly impossible for families to save money and potentially move up the class hierarchy.

The educational consequence of being in a lower-social class comes from the typical K-12 system in America. In kindergarten, students are “tracked” which refers to being placed in a specific type of learning program based on perceived skills and potential. The tracking is done based on the opinion of a teacher and not necessarily a student’s true intellectual ability. Students that are perceived to have higher potential are placed in more rigorous programs while students that are perceived to have less potential are placed in less challenging courses of study. This leaves lower-income students at a great disadvantage because, many of them were unable to attend preschool thus, leaving them with lower math and verbal skills. Additionally, because tracking is susceptible to bias from the teachers, black and brown students are more likely to be “tracked down”, or placed in a path that is less rigorous than what they are capable of, while white students are more likely to be “tracked up”. Finally, once placed in a track, a student is generally held in that track for the entirety of their K-12 career. Higher tracks offer more advanced courses that better prepare students for college while lower tracks lack these sorts of courses, leaving lower-class students disadvantaged and undereducated.

A second educational consequence of being in a lower class comes from the quality of education one receives throughout the K-12 levels. While upper-class families can place their children in prestigious private schools, lower-class students are subjected to poorly funded public education. In these less-funded schools, students often face overcrowded classrooms which in result allow the teachers less time with each student to address their unique educational needs. Additionally, due to improper staffing, low-income public schools often cannot provide school counselors to address behavioral issues or other problems that a student may face at home, causing many students to face educational discipline such as suspension and expulsion at higher rates than those who attend wealthier schools. School libraries have few books and many of them are outdated and, students often have to share computers for research and other assignments. Because of this, many students suffer from low grades affecting their overall chances of getting into college. Honors or AP classes that prepare students for college are often unavailable and so are skill-building elective classes such as home economics or auto-shop. Low-income schools additionally fail to provide extracurriculars such as clubs or sports. Furthermore, the high-school drop out rate is significantly higher in low-income areas than it is to middle or upper-class neighborhoods. All of these factors severely limit the opportunities available to children that come from lower-class families and overall disadvantage them for the rest of their lives.

Lastly, the consequence of being in a lower social class is seen at the college level. Because of the undereducation low-income students face in the K-12 system, many of them are turned away from universities, if they even apply. For those that do get accepted into university, their options are limited due to the astronomical cost of higher education. While wealthier students can afford the high tuition of prestigious private universities, lower-class individuals do not have this privilege.