The role of class in American society is rather significant as it delineates the opportunities people can achieve and the amount of power they can access. Class may be defined as a set of perceptions focused on social categorization where people are assembled in hierarchical social groups. Most commonly, classes are divided into the lower, middle, and upper. Class division is illustrated rather well by the access to education and employment for people with different possibilities. For instance, children from lower-class families do not have the same possibility to receive education as children with middle- and upper-class backgrounds. As a result, there is a further distinction in job opportunities based on education divergences.
One of the best examples of class division in the system of education is the existence of boarding schools, the so-called “elite” schools for privileged young people (Cookson and Persell, Privilege and the Importance 15). Some scholars define academic failures as personal and not sociological problems and argue that education should be “blind to race, religion, sex, or national origin” (Cookson and Persell, Privilege and the Importance 14). However, it is a well-known fact that upper-class families can afford to send their children to elite educational institutions, graduation from which can later guarantee them better life opportunities.
Randall Collins argues that even if prep school graduates do not all belong to the upper class, they formulate a separate class by themselves (qt. in Cookson and Persell, Preps at Play 190). Alumni of such schools organize regular meetings and dedicate a lot of time and financial support to their alma mater. As Cookson and Persell mention, high society may be considered out-of-date by some people. However, for those who make large contributions to the development of their social status, hierarchy is not a “laughing matter” (Cookson and Persell, Preps at Play 191). Marriages between upper-class families strengthen the societal value of recognition and grow people’s understanding of the importance of being acknowledged and respected. The classical curriculum at elite boarding schools has always aimed at bringing up a real gentleman whose distinction from uneducated men was seen (Cookson and Persell, Cultural Capital 74). Explaining the issue of culture and society has been among the most crucial elements of such education.
In his article about investments in education, Porter expresses a rather interesting opinion. According to him, children’s disposition to being smart greatly depends not only on their family’s financial situation but also on their parents’ educational background (Porter). Thus, according to his research, no matter what elite school a child is sent to, his or her achievements are delineated by family educational history (Porter). Meanwhile, scholars’ attention is driven to the issue of social media’s role in education. According to Kimmons, media and digital literacy depend on people’s socio-cultural background (93).
While access to an education belongs to the crucial issues in the class division, it is not the most important one. In his article about the life of immigrant families, Toobin discusses the problems of employment and medical services along with education. The author describes what difficulties immigrant families are exposed to and how socially unprotected they are (Toobin). Toobin notes that to reach the same results as an average American family, immigrants have to work several times harder (Toobin).
Therefore, class distinction, even if not admitted by some people, exists, and it has a great impact on the lives of many people, especially those belonging to unprivileged classes.
Works Cited
Cookson, Peter W., and Caroline Hodges Persell. “Cultural Capital: Curricula and Teachers.” Preparing for Power: America’s Elite Boarding Schools, edited by Peter W. Cookson and Caroline Hodges Persell, Basic Books, 1985, pp. 73-93.
“Preps at Play and in the Power Structure.” Preparing for Power: America’s Elite Boarding Schools, edited by Peter W. Cookson and Caroline Hodges Persell, Basic Books, 1985, pp. 190-207.
“Privilege and the Importance of Elite Education.” Preparing for Power: America’s Elite Boarding Schools, edited by Peter W. Cookson and Caroline Hodges Persell, Basic Books, 1985, pp. 13-30.
Kimmons, Royce. “Social Networking Sites, Literacy, and the Authentic Identity Problem.” TechTrends, vol. 58, no. 2, 2014, pp. 93-98.
Plastic pollution primarily affects fresh and salt water supplies. While ocean plastic mostly impacts marine life and human populations living along the coast, the contamination of fresh water supplies poses a danger to all social groups and classes. Nevertheless, impoverished and vulnerable populations are the most exposed to the negative effects of plastic pollution. At the same time, the individuals within the subgroup have the potential of negatively affecting one another, further exacerbating the issue. The purpose of this paper is to analyze formal and informal group pressures within socially-disadvantaged populations.
Formal Group Pressures
The primary type of formal group pressure within the disadvantaged population groups and coastal settlements comes from the local governments. Since poor communities are associated with higher rates of crime and vandalism, governments often do not embark on ecological initiatives in favor of other infrastructural needs (McKinnon & Alston, 2016). The effects of plastic on human health are generally long-term, mostly associated with infected tap water. According to the analysis of tap water worldwide, 83% of it is polluted with plastic, while in the US, that number rises to 94% (Singh & Cooper, 2017).
This type of formal group pressure can be exemplified by the refusal of local governments to enforce bans on plastic cups and bags and the failure to provide appropriate recycling containers to be used by the general populace. As a result, impoverished and coastal communities have no way of reducing their own ecological footprint, which contributes to various health concerns.
Informal Group Pressures
Impoverished communities have notorious lower standards of education as well as lower healthcare, environmental, and social awareness. As such, individuals are less likely to realize the dangers of plastic pollution and its influence in their everyday lives. According to Singh and Cooper (2017), 80% of all plastic refuse, which consists of bags, plastic cups, and bottles, ends up in the water. At the same time, having a conversation on an informal level about these topics is extremely difficult. Individuals will dismiss it in favor of much more pressing personal problems, such as poverty, unemployment, criminality, and racial discrimination (McKinnon & Alston, 2016). These issues have an immediate and substantial effect on the communities when compared to distant and uncertain issues related to pollution.
Thus, informal group pressure forces individuals who are aware and care about the environment to remain quiet about it out of fear of looking irrelevant and blind to the more pressing matters (McKinnon & Alston, 2016). This prevents the spread of information in the most affected communities, leaving the majority of people in the dark about plastic pollution. Social nihilism, which is often the result of low expectations and subpar life standards, makes people care less about the next day and the distant future. Many individuals living in impoverished communities are apathetic towards what they would leave their children and focus on the present instead.
Conclusion
Impoverished and coastal communities face a plethora of challenges and group pressures from their own members as well as the government. These pressures result in lower awareness of plastic pollution, higher rates of contamination, and a lesser degree of social concern. With a plethora of other problems present in these communities, the scope of environmental issues fails to attract attention. Formal group pressures are the dominant force in this equation, as poverty and social stratification is often a result of poor governance. Until the overall situation improves, it is unlikely for people to care about plastic pollution.
References
McKinnon, J., & Alston, M. (Eds.). (2016). Ecological social work: Towards sustainability. London, UK: Macmillan International Higher Education.
Singh, J., & Cooper, T. (2017). Towards a sustainable business model for plastic shopping bag management in Sweden. Procedia CIRP, 61, 679-684.
Social class refers to the social differentiation of people within a society depending on their social status, which is majorly determined by their economic status. People of low economic status usually belong to a low social class and vice versa.
Karl Marx presented a two class model of society comprising the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the capitalists who are few in number and are the owners of capital.
They are also rich, powerful, oppressors, exploiters and they always win elections in democratic countries (Lareau, 2002).
On the other hand, the proletariat are the workers, owners of labour and they are the majority in numbers but are powerless since they are oppressed and exploited by the rich and they always lose in elections in democratic nations.
The proletariat can be described as a class in itself in the sense that they share same objectives and relationships to the means of production, that is, they are laboures who are paid in wages (Lareau, 2002).
The two classes are always in conflict with each other because their interests are incompatible.
While the bourgeoisie have the interests of maintaining the status quo which ensures their dominance, the proletariat are interested in changing the status quo which deprives them of good life.
However, the two classes are not aware of the nature of the circumstances which they live in but assume that the situations which they find themselves in are natural and nothing can be done to change them, a situation Karl Marx calls false class consciousness (Irving, 2004).
In order to explain the differences in education attainment between the children of the rich and those of the poor, it is important to decompose the social origins of the children into parental status, parental education and parental class.
These are the three main mechanisms that link children’s social class origins to their educational attainment. The three are viewed as separate entities but are interrelated in many ways.
They can be contextualized using the theory of cultural deprivation and compensatory education, a theory which is applied in the study of education attainment. It refers to lack of appropriate cultural resources like language or knowledge.
It is used to explain the limitations the minority groups in the society face in education attainment. In the theory, the working class sub-culture, that is, the culture of the poor is portrayed as a substandard version of the mainstream culture.
According to the theory, the sub-culture of the low income earners is deficient in certain important ways and this explains the low educational attainment of the members of this group. The theory attributes low education attainment to poor family background.
A culturally deprived child is deficient in important skills, attitudes and values which are essential for educational attainment.
The environment in which poor children live is poverty stricken in economic and cultural ways. The deprived children are isolated from those rich experiences found in the culture of the rich.
The isolation is enhanced by poverty, poor intellectual resources in their homes and surroundings, incapacity, illiteracy, or indifference of the elders and of the entire community.
The children of the poor are also poorly traveled with probably one trip outside their home and thus they may know very little or nothing in music, arts, poetry and current affairs. They are also linguistically deprived, have a wide range of substandard attitudes, norms and values.
Cultural deprivation is therefore a stigma and compensatory education is a form of positive discrimination preferred in cases of attaining uniformity in education attainment within a society.
Parental status
The status of parents refers to the way parents are perceived within a society. They can either be of high or low social status, depending on their levels of income. Parents who have high income enjoy a higher status than those who earn little or no income.
Parents who are of high status are able to take their children to good schools which are fully equipped with excellent learning infrastructure. Due to this, their children are able to do well in education.
On the other hand, parents of low social status are not able to take their children to school or in other words, they take their children to schools which are poorly equipped with learning infrastructure.
As a result, the children have minimal chances of doing well as compared to those of parents of high status (Saltiel, 2013).
Parental class
It refers to the social class of parents. As explained above, there are two social classes in the society namely the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Parent’s social class is closely related to parent’s social status. Parents of low social class enjoy a low social status.
They are literally the poor or low income earners in the society. Due to their poverty, the proletariat are not able to take their children to good schools. Some are not even able to take their children to school at all.
Those children of the poor who are lucky enough to do well even under the poor learning conditions are given some affirmative action by their governments. An example of affirmative action is the sponsorship of children to pursue higher education (Lareau, 2002).
On the other hand, parents of high social class are able to take their children to the best schools. The reason is that they are able to afford the high fees charged in those schools.
The schools themselves also enjoy high social status within the community, with majority being owned by individuals and others belonging to governments.
The learning environment is therefore very conducive and this makes the children do very well in exams as compared to their counterparts in the poor schools.
Parental education
This refers to the amount of education attained by parents. It is closely related both to parental class and status. Parents of high social status are more likely to have attained a higher education than those of low social status.
Similarly, parents who belong to the bourgeoisie class are more likely to be more educated than their proletariat counterparts.
However, there are some parents who may belong to a high social status and social class but not necessarily have attained higher education.
Similarly, there can be some parents who are relatively educated but may not enjoy high social class or social status due to various reasons such as lack of employment or simply by choice.
The amount of education attained by the parents has a direct relationship with that of their children. Children of parents with low levels of education are more likely to be poorly educated than those of parents with higher education.
One of the reasons is that poorly educated parents may not know the importance of educating their children because to them education does not matter a lot in life.
Poorly educated parents are also likely to be poor and of the low social status. They are therefore not able to afford to pay for the education of their children due to low incomes (Kohn, 1977).
On the other hand, parents who have higher education are likely to have their children attain higher education. The reason is that the parents know the importance of education, having tasted the fruits of good education.
They are in a position to understand that educating their children has a direct relationship with their bright future. Well educated parents are also likely to have the resources to educate their children because they are likely to be employed and enjoying high social and economic status.
Well educated parents are also socialized through the education system and therefore are more likely to socialize their children through the education system than their uneducated or poorly educated counterparts (Beller, 2009).
The three components of social origin of the children, namely the parents’ class, education and status therefore influence the attainment of education for the children.
Children of the poor parents should not be blamed for not attaining education but rather, they should be viewed as being marginalized.
Children of the rich on the other hand should not be viewed as brighter than those of poor parents but rather, they should be viewed just as being privileged to belong to well to do families. In other words, any child can do well in education if all factors are held constant.
That is, if all children were to be exposed to similar social, cultural and economic backgrounds, then the variations in education attainment would be very minimal (Edin and Lein, 1997).
References
Beller, E. (2009). “Bringing Intergenerational Social Mobility Research into the Twenty‐first Century: Why Mothers Matter”, American Sociological Review, 74(4), 507-528.
Edin, K., and Lein, L. (1997). Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low‐Wage Work, Chapter 3 portion of Chapter 8, 103(3), 224‐227.
Kohn, L. M. (1977). Class and Conformity: A Study in Values, With a Reassessment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lareau, A. (2002). “Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families”, American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747-776.
Social class can be defined as a manifestation of structural inequality in the present day social system which creates different “classes” of individuals based on their economic status. This is commonly manifests as the following social classes:
Upper Class
This class within society is normally associated with individuals who have accumulated considerable amounts of wealth and social influence (Ritzer 2007). In most cases, this group consists of individuals who are business owners, land owners or have inherited their wealth through the endeavors of their parents.
This social class has the greatest amount of opportunities available to them in terms of wealth generation, health and education by virtue of their economic status and connections.
Middle Class
The middle class in society consists of individuals with more opportunities than the lower class but fewer opportunities than the upper class.
This section of the population normally consists of individuals with useful skill sets or levels of educational attainment that are valued by companies resulting in people from this class obtaining high paying jobs that allow them to maintain a relatively “well off” lifestyle in terms of wealth generation, health and the ability to provide opportunities for the same kind of life to their children (Ritzer 2007).
Lower Class
The lower class within society has the least amount of opportunities available to them due to a lack of economic means and social connections (Howarth, 2007). This class consists of individuals with low levels of education and they have fewer job prospects and opportunities for promotion due to a lack of skills and aptitude.
People belonging to the lower class, by virtue of their limited opportunities, have relatively little economic power and usually subsist on a “paycheck to paycheck” basis (Ritzer 2007). Unfortunately, the lower class is the largest portion of the current population in society and is commonly known as the “working class” since they are part of most manual labor operations (Howarth, 2007).
What is Structural Inequality and how does it impact social determinants of health?
Structural inequality, in essence, is an inherent bias within social structures which can provide some advantages to a select group of people within society while at the same time marginalizing others (Robert & Booske, 2011).
This can be seen in instances related to racism, education and discrimination wherein certain segments of the population are categorized and marginalized depending on their economic situation and their particular race (Baum et al., 2013). For example, the law involving illegal immigration passed by Arizona has in effect created a form of discrimination against many Mexicans living within the U.S. who are in fact there legally.
Structural inequality is one of the main reasons behind social determinants of health due to particular individuals having limited opportunities towards leading healthy life styles as a result of their economic class which leads to a limitation of opportunities (Keng-Yen et al., 2013).
What you have to understand is that the capacity to become healthy is based on an individual’s ability to be able to eat the right kind of healthy food and find enough time to exercise (Schofield, 2007). However, healthy food is often far more expensive than their fast food counterparts resulting in a limitation of the capacity to eat healthy based on how much money you can actually spend.
The same can be said for the need to exercise wherein a person needs to have sufficient time and the opportunity to do so (i.e. by joining a gym).
Such opportunities are often limited to people belonging to particular economic thresholds due to the fact that those belonging to the lower end of the spectrum simply cannot afford to buy healthy food or exercise due to their jobs while those belonging to the upper end of the spectrum can do so due to higher amounts of money and free time.
Other forms of structural inequalities which impact health can be seen in the form of community marginalization wherein particular types of races and economic classes are concentrated in certain communities (Obeng-Odoom, 2012).
What this causes is an imbalance in the distribution of wealth where money is consistently isolated in particular populations while minorities and people of low economic means are made to stagnate in their respective income niches. With fewer opportunities to obtain wealth, this causes stagnation in lower social classes wherein they have to subsist on cheaper types of food (normally junk food) in order to survive (Obeng-Odoom, 2012).
Other issues related to social class as a determinant of health is the inability of the lower class to access proper healthcare which severely limits their capacity to diagnose and treat a variety of possible conditions (Hunter et al. 2011).
Social Class leads to greater health risks
People belonging to the lower class of society are often considered less healthy than their middle class and upper class counter parts; however, the main reason behind this is connected to the type of food they consume which leads to detrimental health outcomes.
Junk food in the form of food from Mc Donald’s and Burger King have become a staple of the American diet for many decades, yet, despite its ubiquitous consumption there are considerable issues that need to be taken into consideration involving the nutritional value of the products being sold.
In nearly every town and city, fast food restaurants carry some form of junk food that is rapidly consumed by a voracious public that enjoys the taste and convenience of such products. Unfortunately, the reason behind this consumption has been related to the fact that it is simply the most affordable means of feeding a family.
As noted by the Baum et al. (2013) study, the dollar menu seen in Mc Donald’s as well as the various cheap and instant foods that are available in most grocery stores, while affordable, are lacking in sufficient nutritional diversity which contributes to health problems amongst the population that normally consumes it which normally consists of the lower class.
Such types of food have considerable levels of sodium, fat and carbohydrates resulting in the development of high caloric contents. While this would seem perfectly fine for someone that is trying to feed their family on a budget, the fact remains that while the caloric density is high, the nutritional value is low.
The recommended daily allowance of nutritional calories that a body should have in a single day, as stated by the American Medical Association, is roughly 2,500 to 3,000 calories a day. The problem with junk food that is consumed by the lower class is that due to their convenience and serving size, most people are not aware that on average they consume more than 3,000 calories a day from the various forms of junk food they eat.
An average adult male in the U.S. should consume only 65 grams of fat and 2,500 calories in a single day yet a burger and fries combo meal with a large coke available at the local McDonald’s is equivalent to more than 50 grams of fat and 1500 calories in a single sitting.
This would not be a problem should that be the only large meal they eat however this meal is supplemented by various chips, sodas and various other unhealthy options throughout the day which brings the total calorie count to 4,000 calories or more.
While the most obvious solution would be to buy healthier types of food, the problem, as mentioned earlier, is the fact that healthier options are economically unfeasible for members of the lower class of society (Alexander, 2013).
As such, due to their limited access to money as a result of structural inequality, this prevents them from rising from their current positions inevitably creating a social system with social class based categories of health wherein people at the lower end of the social spectrum are normally unhealthy while those belonging to the upper end of the spectrum are fit (Germov, 2009).
Conclusion
Based on the given information, it can be seen that while junk food is behind the current health problems of people belonging to the lower class, it is not the only cause. The structural inequality that exists in society is actually a prime contributing factor towards the social determinants of health that society now faces.
The combination of higher prices for healthy food, the lower cost of unhealthy food, and the limitation of economic opportunities for the lower class brought about through structural inequality are actually the primary reasons behind the prevalence of problematic health cases among the lower class since they are not getting the types of food and the opportunity to exercise that they need in order to be healthy.
Reference List
Alexander, K. (2013). Social Determinants of Methadone in Pregnancy: Violence, Social Capital, and Mental Health. Issues In Mental Health Nursing, 34(10), 747-751.
Baum, F. E., Legge, D. G., Freeman, T., Lawless, A., Labonté, R., & Jolley, G. M. (2013). The potential for multi-disciplinary primary health care services to take action on the social determinants of health: actions and constraints. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1-13.
Germov, J. (ed.) (2009) Second opinion: An introduction to health sociology (4th ed.), Melbourne: Oxford University Press, Chapters 1, 4, 5 and 6.
Howarth, G. (2007) Whatever happened to social class? An examination of the neglect of working class cultures in the sociology of death, Health sociology review, 16, 5, 425-435.
Hunter, B. D., Neiger, B., & West, J. (2011). The importance of addressing social determinants of health at the local level: the case for social capital. Health & Social Care In The Community, 19(5), 522-530.
Keng-Yen, H., Cheng, S., & Theise, R. (2013). School Contexts as Social Determinants of Child Health: Current Practices and Implications for Future Public Health Practice. Public Health Reports, 128(Supp 3), 21-28.
Obeng-Odoom, F. (2012) Health, wealth and poverty in developing countries: beyond the State, market, and civil society, Health sociology review, 21, 2, 156-64.
Ritzer, G. (ed.) (2007) Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology, Oxford: Blackwell, pp.2086 -91.
Robert, S. A., & Booske, B. C. (2011). US Opinions on Health Determinants and Social Policy as Health Policy. American Journal Of Public Health, 101(9), 1655-1663.
Schofield, T. (2007) Health inequity and its social determinants: A sociological commentary, Health sociology review, 16, 2,105-14.
The recent rise in crime incidents highlights the social problem of youth crime in the Western countries, including the United States. While the rise in crime rates can be attributed to many factors, the broader economic and social forces shape youth crime in these countries. In particular, factors such as social inequality, poverty, and social exclusion influence, directly or indirectly, most of the criminal activities and youth violence.
In the same context, White and Cunneen in the chapter, ‘Social Class, Youth Crime and Justice’ discuss these social problems and their implications for policy. The discussion in the chapter revolves around two main issues: the impact of social class on youth criminalization and the impact of globalization on social inequality.
The authors argue that the prevailing social and economic structures are creating an “impoverished and socially disadvantaged” youth contributing to a rise in crime (White, and Cunneen 17). A connection between social exclusion, economic inequality and the rise in crime is established in this chapter. The problem of social exclusion and economic inequality, influence the youth criminal tendencies.
Social Class and Crime Tendencies
The chapter provides an analysis on how social classes arise among the youthful population. Most importantly, it enhances our understanding of how social stratification arises in a political, social and economic context especially with regard to the formulation of legislations and distribution of resources.
This entrenches class exclusion in two ways; economically and through biased criminalization practices. The class issue among the youth depends highly on resource availability at family or community level. The resources allow the family or community to provide adequate social support to the young people, which in turn reduce their tendency to engage in crime.
In particular, resource availability determines the youth lifestyles, their level of education and their type of employment. However, the state, the market and the social networks influence resource availability hence their impact on social class. Most notable is their impact on youth employment. Most often, the problem of youth unemployment breeds other social problems especially crime. The prevalent political and economic factors lead to increased economic polarization between the rich and the poor.
As a result, most communities are increasingly becoming impoverished characterized by high unemployment rates among the young people (White, and Cunneen 19). The current restructuring in the labor market coupled with an economic slowdown has had devastating effects on employment opportunities that increase youth crime.
The chapter examines the relationship between economic inequality and criminal tendencies among the youth in industrialized nations. This helps to understand the reason why violent crimes are committed by youth from poor economic backgrounds or minority communities.
Consequently, justice system screening of the young people emphasizes on economic and social characteristics of the offender ethnic community. In light of this, the authors argue that criminal tendency in young people is not only dependent on prevalent economic and social inequalities but also on the processes of criminalization of marginalized youth by the state agencies (White, and Cunneen 22).
State intervention through social support programs tends to be disproportionate, which has a damaging effect on marginalized groups. This entrenches the practice of social exclusion among economically disadvantaged youth.
Social Aspects of Youth Offending
The authors identify two aspects of offending among the youth in the chapter: unemployment and poverty. The authors argue that for a proper understanding of the extent of offending in a particular location, the analysis of the two social aspects is crucial.
Further, the authors explain that youthful offending is a result of the interplay of social factors specific to a social group such as unemployment or inequality. Instead, factors such as societal influence on youth behavior and demographic factors such as the high number of unemployed youth determine the patterns of youthful offending in a particular community.
In particular, a high number of unemployed youth in a particular geographic location entrenches social exclusion. In addition, certain neighborhoods, characterized by high unemployment and poor housing and perceived as crime prone, frequently face repressive government interventions (White, and Cunneen 24).
Additionally, crime-prone neighborhoods influence the tendency of the young people to engage in offending behavior. In this regard, community context influences the social exclusion and criminalization of disadvantaged youth.
The chapter also discusses the negative perception of the marginalized groups as being morally corrupt especially by the criminal justice agencies.
The young people from low economic and social classes are perceived as crime prone and deserve reformation. As a result, they face stiff coercive state interventions, which serve to reinforce the aspects of social inequality. The authors also argue that criminalization and state coercive actions often involve some form of geographical segregation. This group faces repressive interventions to deter antisocial behavior instead of social support interventions.
The authors highlight the implications of social exclusion on social identity, among the youth. Marginalization of the youth based on economic and social factors leads to disintegration of social connections that lead to loss of social identity. Lack of resources and prevalent criminalization affects the social networks.
The high youth unemployment coupled by exclusion from mainstream economic activity means that the youth cannot engage in any legal consumptive activities. Consequently, the youth engage in antisocial alternative economic activities, which lead to loss of social identity.
Further, the authors explain the implications of social exclusion on social policy. They single out the concentration of the economically disadvantaged in one location as responsible for high crime rates in these neighborhoods. Even in times of restructuring in the labor market or economic recessions, the ethnic minority face the worst effects through job losses and deterioration of basic infrastructure and amenities (White, and Cunneen 25). Consequently, the neighborhood develops a poor reputation including that of a high zone.
For the youth in these neighborhoods, opportunities become increasingly limited. This contributes to the rise in crime and illegal economic activities.
In my opinion, understanding of this chapter is particularly relevant to criminology in many ways. In particular, the relationship between social exclusion and crime is essential in management of crime among the youth. Intervention efforts should focus on enhancing economic equality and creating employment opportunities to mitigate the effects of social exclusion.
In addition, misperceptions and criminalization by intervention agencies only serve to increase criminal tendencies and anti-social behaviors among the youth. In my view, therefore, interventions should focus on social support to improve the youth’s economic welfare as well as reduce social exclusion.
Conclusion
The chapter mainly highlights the class issue among the young people and the relevance of the state intervention policies. In essence, the economic structures in industrialized economies propagate social exclusion of minorities. Additionally, the state support efforts often involve criminalization and misperceptions, which advances social inequality and exclusion of youth from poor neighborhoods. This serves to increase crime as the young people lack employment or opportunities to advance themselves.
Work Cited
White, Rob, and Cunneen, Chris. “Social Class, Youth Crime and Justice.” In Barry
Goldson and John Muncie, (Ed.), Youth Crime and Justice. London: Sage publications, 2006.
Though most Americans believe that there is no social difference among people, scientists claim that all people have relatively fixed positions in their lives. Moreover, these positions can be simply measured. The most common approach to assess social class is to utilize various indicators. The difference between the indicators used determines the various views on the problem of social class inequality. There exist two main trends in the study of the class difference: subjective and objective. The objective approach presupposes calculating the person’s income, educational achievements and occupational status, whereas the subjective one is based on the evaluation of attitudes and values, class identification and consumption abilities.
Also, there exist different theories that treat the problem of class inequality in various ways. Two theories, namely, conflict theory and functionalism theory, seem to be the most persuasive in their attempts to explain the origin of social class inequality.
The conflict theory is based on the principle of the classic “pyramid structure”, where there is a clear distinction between the social classes. The main feature of this “pyramid” system is that elite dictates terms to the larger classes. According to this theory, people who have conventionally been in power determine the work of major institutions, the establishment of laws and keeping to the traditions. Each of them serves as a means of support to the existing power. The rules which the people in power establish are expected to be followed by the rest of the society. Those who break the rules are considered to be deviant. The conflict theory outlines various ways used by authoritative people to stay in power. Karl Marx was the forefather of the conflict theory, and it was developed then by Max Weber, Max Gluckman, John Rex, Randall Collins and other theorists.
The supporters of the functionalism theory (Herbert Spencer, Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton), on the contrary, claim that each individual has a specific role in the society; he or she is considered like an organ in the body. The main concept related to the problem of class inequality suggested by the functional theory consists in the following: society is a system where the interdependent parts overlap.
As we can see two theories contradict one another in their approach to the problem under consideration. C. William Domhoff, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in the selection of his book tries to combine both approaches. He claims that the way of life of the rich differs from that of the ordinary people. The status of the powerful people influences their lives. They need to keep to certain traditions which correspond to their status: participation in various social institutions is one of the most distinctive traits of life of wealthy people. The research conducted by professor Domhoff proves that though most of the wealthy people do not realize the necessity of the social activities they take part in, they strictly follow the rules that their status dictates them.
If we imagine, for example, that this status changes, the lives of the ex-wealthy people will also change completely. We suppose that this modification will be determined by the very change in the wealthy people’s assumption of the outside world. We consider that a real revolution in the life of ex-wealthy people will take place. Participation of these people in the social activities will be canceled, not only because of the material factor which seems to be the main condition of the existence of these activities, but because of the traditions that poor people will not see the necessity to keep to.
The educational system so closely examined by Domhoff in his work is a very important feature that distinguishes wealthy people. We believe that this system influences our view of the world and our general aspirations in life. Therefore, our involvement in the educational system should be given a proper consideration. One of the laws of the society is that the quality of the education got depends on the social status. Fortunately, my social status allows me to get the education I need. And, the education, in its turn, helps me to work out my own set of principles to be ruled by in this or that situation. In other spheres of life the social status I have is also beneficial for me. I really appreciate my social position and try to do my best to make use of it when the situation requires it.
I like the Domholf’s idea about the absence of tensions between the confirmed members of the powerful class and those newly arrived. My cherished dream is to observe the same situation in the whole society and not only between the rich people. The social status has its impact on every person, his or her own beliefs and principles, therefore, the equality between people, I mean the moral one, will influence positively both the members of the upper class and those who have different ranks. Needles to say that the classes are extremely different, but what they have in common may simply outweigh the existing differences.
Works Cited
Domhoff, William. Who Rules America Now? Touchstone Books, 1983.
According to Karl Marx, analyzing social classes and structures as well as variations in the structures are critical in understanding modern capitalism other social systems or even modes of production.
Marx and Engels argue that the communist in the manifesto ‘…the history of all hitherto existing in the society is the class struggles” (Marx and Engels 35).
Analyzing class distribution and struggles is relevant in establishing knowledge about capitalism. Social classes are divided into two main classes with distinct features one comprises the owners or possessors of property as well as the means of production.
This group performs the role of production. The other factor is concerned producers and controllers of the surpluses in relation to human social labor.
The economic factors in the modern world govern social relationships in capitalism than it did in ancient times. This paper therefore discusses stratification and conflicts that exist in society. It bases on the statements made by Marx in scholarly works.
Relevance of Marx Ideas
Divisions in Capitalism
Earlier societies consisted of several sections or clusters that can be perceived to be classes. They were not classes parse but elites not specifically based on economic factors but also incorporated other things such as priesthood, knights or military elite.
In the modern society, other classes of people such as capital owners, petty bourgeoisie and peasants are incorporated in the production process.
In spite of Lumpen proletariat existing, they are not primarily in terms of the dynamics of capitalism or its expansion and development.
Bourgeoisie
The bourgeoisie controls the means of production such as capital and labor. The capital exploit the workers by misusing their labor meaning that they produce much but are paid less.
They utilize the surplus value created from employment of labor to accumulate and expand their capital. Owning massive resources is not equivalent to possessing capital power and labor; it does not make an individual to be bourgeoisie.
To be a capitalist or member of bourgeoisie class entails the ownership of huge capital, active participation in capital accumulation, using capital to organize production, employ and exploit labor and finally make the capital self regulating by using the surplus value to continue the cycle of capital accumulation (Marx and Engels 48).
Bourgeoisies began in cities of medieval Europe. This was during the development of mercantilism, artisans and manufacturing. The main aim of economic survival for the people was increase wealth through trade and commerce.
The bourgeoisies needed much freedom in marketing activities and economic expansion activities. Capital ownership was achieved by labor employment (industrial capital) while for some it was acquired through trade (merchant capital).
Those who employed workers to create and expand capital succeeded in acquiring capital consequently leading the sector of bourgeoisie.
The proletariat
The workers only own their labor implying that they earn their living through their ability to work. They do not own any resources in form of capital meaning that they own nothing apart from their hands, bodies and minds/skills.
The Proletariat works hard to sustain their lives and provide basic needs to their relatives and other dependants. They have to seek employment if they are to continue coexisting in the society.
For an employee, working for a capitalist is not peaceful instead; the kind of relation that exists is exploitative in nature because the worker performs many activities with insufficient returns.
The exploitative relationship between the worker and the employer is cumulative meaning that it keeps on repeating itself. The capitalists accumulate wealth by underpaying the worker (Marx and Engels 50).
The workers produce goods and services that belong to the capitalist meaning that workers are also properties of capitalists. They produce goods that create surpluses to the bourgeoisie but they remain in poverty.
Exploitation occurs in every day’s production process, which ends up restricting workers from acquiring wealth and regenerates the best working environments for further exploitation (Marx and Engels 50).
The existing mode of production is arranged in such a way that the property owners continue enjoying better opportunities while workers continue occupying their current positions.
Capitalists accumulate the excesses obtained in the production process by workers. The intersection point between workers and capitalists is the production process. The capitalist who create struggles and intrigues hence causing tension in the society exploits the workers.
Alienation of Proletariat
Although the workers are the direct producers of goods, they are slaves of the goods they produce. The produced good has more value than the worker does because they are offered maximum security and stored in safe places.
The workers produce goods that they do not consume, they produce for others. The increase in product value decreases the viability of the workers. The worker ends up being treated the same way goods are treated, treated as equals.
Workers are perpetually pushed to the periphery leading to alienation from the process of production. The way workers relate to the whole process of production leaves a lot to be desired because the relationship is unnatural and uncalled for.
The workers never find satisfaction because they satisfy the interests of other individuals (Capitalists). The worker views the whole process of production as forced labor because actually it is inhuman.
The worker ends up being alienated from the self because of the last two forms of alienation. The worker portrays two personalities; one is the feeling of belonging to capitalism because the worker is separated from real consciousness. In the other hand, workers perceive themselves as human beings ((Marx and Engels 54).
The last form of alienation that dissatisfied Marx is alienation from others implying that the worker is separated from other people. Workers cannot relate normally to others because individuals with separated self cannot interact in accordance to societal norms.
They view others as properties of capitalism. It is at this point that Marx noted with finally that only a revolution would salvage humankind from all these troubles.
Social Stratification: Marxist Perspective
Marx observed in his statements that capitalism brings about differentiations in society. The rich are at the top while the poor are at the bottom perishing in great poverty. In modern capitalistic societies, classes differentiate people.
According to Marx, the capitalistic culture is a divisive force not an integrating one. The existing social groups are differentiated in property meaning that some benefit more than others do.
The owners of the means of production who enjoy power, prestige and luxurious life occupy the higher positions. Social stratification basing on property is found in all human societies.
For societies to survive therefore role allocation is indispensable. Society attaches unequal rewards to social positions because people differ in ability and positions differ in terms of importance. Unfortunately, the important positions benefit the elite (Marx and Engels 56).
There is a heated debate on whether unequal rewards function to motivate talented individuals. Generally, social stratification basing on capital is a mechanism in which some exploit others.
The elite uses the institutions of the state to advance their interests, in fact Marx termed the state as the committee of dominant class. Those with highest rewards enjoy superior life chances such as access to high education, quality housing and special Medicare.
Those who occupy important positions erect barriers to recruitment of others into comfortable positions. They use capital power to restrict access to their positions by creating unnecessary demands to the position services.
The different rewards exist to propel hostility, suspicion and mistrust. It gives the low class the feeling of exclusion from larger society leading to formation of solidarity, which might cause tensions and more conflicts with threats of revolutions.
Conclusion
The statements made by Karl Marx serve to describe how people should liberate themselves. Liberation would be achieved through people’s consciousness.
People will arise up against the existing mode of production because of its social injustices. The mode hands a few the power of investment while the majority survive at the mercy of the owners of the means of production.
The state cannot liberate the masses because the capitalist to enhance self-interests uses it. Exploitation and alienation are the most pressing issues among the workers; they are the same things that disillusioned Marx to an extent of calling for a revolution to guarantee mass happiness.
Work Cited
Marx, Karl and Engels, Fredrick. The Communist Manifesto: introduction by Martin Malia, New York: Penguin group, 1998, pg. 35.
Although the term ‘apartheid’ was coined from an Afrikaans word meaning ‘apartness’ in the 1930s, and only became the National Party’s mainstream political slogan in the early 1940’s, the policy attached to it was in place from as early as 1652 during the dawn of white settlement in South Africa (Alonford). But in 1948, marking the rise of Afrikaner Nationalists to power, the policy of apartheid became law; the apartheid system created and enforced a racial hierarchy in which the white had control over all social and economic privileges (Alonford). Only the whites for instance had the right to vote, this was made even more possible through the policy of ‘separate development’ enshrined in the Population Registration Act of 1950 (CSStudents). This Act classified South Africans into three main racial groups: Whites, Colored (those of mixed races) and Bantu (black Africans), and only years later was the fourth group, Asian (Pakistanis and Indians) added (Alonford).
This, along with a series of other laws restricted non-white races to specific areas, gave the whites control over 80 percent of South African land, enforced separation of standards of education, enforced segregation of public facilities, created and enforced job categories for specific races, restricted the roles of nonwhite unions, and did away with the participation of nonwhites in government (Alonford). It is such discriminatory policies that eventually led to the rise of apartheid regime and thereby triggered revolution of black’s political groups against this discrimination. The opposition as far as mainstream cause for anti-apartheid went was largely against racism which also included class distinction.
Because class segregation was an element of racism and in this case the flagship of apartheid system in South Africa, thus the rise against apartheid by Blacks was also a revolt against the social segregation as well. The objective of the revolution was therefore intended to attain socio-economic equity, although that was only implicit within the anti-racism opposition.
This paper intends to explore the question of racial and class segregations using Apartheid as our case study in order to investigate the link between these two forms of discriminations, the challenges involved in overcoming them and how the Black Economic Empowerment policies compare to the concept of Emiritization in the UAE.
Discussion
Racial and Class Segregation in South Africa’s apartheid
No doubt, the anti-apartheid movement was found and directed mainly to oppose the racial segregation in South Africa, but racial segregation in the country defined everything else notably; the economic and social status of the whites against those of other races (more conspicuous among blacks who were the majority) (South Africa Tours and Travel). And so in the explicit fighting against this racial discrimination and segregation, there was an implicit inescapable fight against the class segregation. There was belief that in defeating racial segregation, the living standards of the people would rise, in other words, the other races would have the chance to acquire a better social class.
Historians have always wondered if the Blacks revolution in South Africa against whites racial discrimination would have occurred had the class and social segregation not been there, or so obvious for that matter. But the very fact that the apartheid deprived them of vital social and economic facilities was definitely the impetus that triggered and fueled the apartheid revolution. And because racial discrimination is inherently mixed up with social and class segregation, which was even made starker in South Africa, then it is clear that this revolution was started by blacks to protest for all aspects of racial discrimination taking place in the country. Indeed, where there’s racial segregation their always is class and social segregation (South Africa Tours and Travel).
But class segregation is not usually as a result of racial segregation, as such it is easy to address racial segregation, and in the process implicitly address class segregation than it is to address class segregation independently in a racial segregation setting.
The aftermath of the apartheid demonstrates this inherent entanglement between class segregation and racial segregation; for instance, while apartheid is believed to have been eliminated, white domination in many sectors of the economy is still there, albeit at a much lower degree despite the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policy being in place for years now (Economist). In fact current statistics indicate that the richest people in South Africa make up 4 percent of the total population, and only a quarter of these are blacks (Alistair). The whites take up three-quarters of senior private business jobs compared to blacks who only hold 12 percent (Economist); this is replicated everywhere such as in the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) where out of 295 listed companies, black CEO’s only comprise 4 percent of the total (Economist).
These statistics reflect the white people’s relative dominance of South Africa’s economy at this present age despite the many years in trying to address the same; so it will appear that the apartheid apprising only addressed the racial discrimination while social segregation which is an element of apartheid continues to take place. This is clear evidence of how easy it is to address racial segregation than it is to address class segregation especially in countries that embrace capitalism system.
Is it easy to address racial segregation than class segregation?
As already mentioned above, the current status quo is evidence enough that it is easier to address racial segregation than it is to address class segregation, perhaps this is because race is more conspicuous and has become less tolerated in modern day. Besides, color makes it possible to notice segregation and as such easy to address and overcome as well; in the case of apartheid in South Africa racial discrimination is more pronounced than class segregation which unfortunately is also a function of capitalism system that makes it more tricky to isolate and therefore address. This is because social segregation can and is known to be caused by the capitalism system that exists in many countries including SA.
The capitalist concept of personal effort shows that by one’s hard work one can rise beyond the present social status; while it is not real or practical that all people have access to the same resources which they can use to rise beyond their poor social status, it is true that there are those who have managed to do so even with limited resources. In a sense, therefore, addressing class segregation is probably seen as fighting hard work and personal effort in modern societies. This is further complicated by the fact that class segregation is less clear even within particular societies because social segregation tends to exist in different forms that is at times just a perception; and when it becomes obvious capitalism is usually used to explain and justify it.
Finally, the results obtained from addressing racial segregation are clear-cut and obvious whereby the end results can be measured and discrimination eliminated. But addressing class segregation is not that simplistic since it is most likely that this will only end up substituting the drivers of the class segregation instead of accomplishing equality. So the question then is what can be done to the existing classes in order to achieve a class harmony and the answer is probably nothing. This is because people can’t just be moved between social classes since the concept of social class is a psychologically defined phenomenon which everyone is a victim. The people in the ‘higher’ classes are as much victims of their superiority complex as the people in the ‘lower’ classes are victims of their inferiority complex.
Black Economic Empowerment (BEE)
After the fall of apartheid, the ruling government under the African National Congress implemented the BEE, this was not meant to be an effort at redressing the wrongs of apartheid against black people but was described as an effort to “realize the full economic potential of the country” (South Africa Info) through integration of the Blacks in nation building. The main objectives of the policy included empowering black people to not only own, but also manage enterprises; an enterprise was to be considered black-owned if “51 percent of it was owned by the blacks” (South Africa Info). Other objectives of the BEE were meant to facilitate black women’s access to skills training, economic activities and infrastructure, promote black people’s access to finance, ensure fair racial composition of management structures and ownership, and promote access to economic activities, infrastructure and land (South Africa Info).
More importantly this policy was aimed at promoting the native South African nationals who until the end of apartheid had been economically and socially sidelined, not to mention it has been criticized for no achieving the same (South Africa Info). But that notwithstanding, it was a step towards addressing the need for the inclusion of the South African black nationals in the running of their country.
In this sense this policy is similar to the Emiritization of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) since in UAE too Emiritization is meant to encourage the employment of its native citizens in the private and public enterprises and therefore reduce its dependence on foreign workers (Elance). For instance, Abu Dhabi national Oil Company (ADNOC) has gradually been raising the percentage of the UAE nationals on its workforce; it has done this through training programs for its internal employees and those who aspire and wish to be part of the ADNOC staff (Elance).
This is meant to improve economic and technical knowledge among UAE nationals by training them to acquire equal opportunities at skilled employment; the intention is to put the UAE back to the hands of its own native nationals. Indeed, these objectives are in their own ways the same as the ones in South Africa’s BEE; although BEE does not explicitly make it obvious that it hopes to give South Africa to its native blacks. Unfortunately for South Africa, racial diversity remains a decisive element in the achievement of that goal especially given that the various tribes in South Africa can all claim nativity.
Works Cited
Alonford, Robinson. Apartheid, Social and Political Policy of Racial Segregation and Discrimination Enforced by White Minority Governments in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. 2009. Web.
The stratification of society is actively discussed within the contemporary environment. In a way, it has always been an integral part of society, as at least some of a hierarchy has been embedded into it across centuries. The current paradigm of stratification has become the product of capitalist relations. In the United States, this paradigm traditionally comprises five major social classes, which are lower, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle, and upper. They represent the contemporary view on stratification, which has made sufficient progress in comparison to the obsolete forms. For example, the caste system, not to mention earlier feudal frameworks, divide people by the principle of innate rights. In other words, some people are privileged, and others are marginalized simply by being born into a specific family. The current system relies on the principle of social mobility, meaning that a combination of subjective and objective factors determines a person’s class and ensures the possibility of changing it.
As far as I am concerned, my current position allows me to attribute myself to the upper-middle class. In fact, this category represents a subclass of the middle class. According to Griffiths et al. (2014), the contemporary understanding of the middle class is too broad, comprising an array of households with profoundly different living conditions. In general, one of its uniform characteristics is described by the notion of comfort. In other words, middle-class people possess the required number of instruments that ensure a comfortable way of living in most respects. Such households usually have one or several vehicles, as well as a spacious apartment. In addition, middle-class people can afford good vacations that do not limit basic activities. In the upper end of the middle class, these aspects are prevalent, allowing for a highly comfortable life. It usually implies an education of at least Bachelor level with a subsequent successful career. In the lower middle class, the presence of such benefits often implies the lack of savings. People can afford fairly expensive goods or services, but they amount to nearly all of their earnings.
The upper end implies a different situation, in which families can realistically save money for major purchases, such as children’s education or new housing. The economy of the country dictates a certain range of professions usually held by the representatives of the upper-middle class. Griffiths et al. (2014) say that it includes law, medicine, business, and management degrees of the Bachelor or Postgraduate levels. Furthermore, it is implied that the careers within these fields are to be fairly successful. This is the case of family, as well, because my husband is a surgeon with a good reputation and profound experience in his field. Since graduating from medical school, he has been making serious efforts to excel at his primary area of expertise. This way, his standard of living has seen a steady increase across these years.
Ultimately, we have been able to attain the level of income and comfort that corresponds to the upper-middle class level. For us, it has become the product of continuous efforts and hard work, which reflects the principle of social mobility. While the current pandemic has had a damaging impact on our lives, the possibility of savings increased our resilience in the face of the crisis. This case is a vivid example of the current state of social stratification in the United States. Overall, it does not limit an individual’s ability to rise from one class to another. Simultaneously, the lack of effort and expertise may lead to an opposite situation, in which a person may lose their fortune through inconsiderate behavior. Evidently, some people have a better starting point through inherited privileges. However, the absence of the metaphorical ceiling is the primary difference between the stratification today and prior.
Reference
Griffiths, H., Keirns, N., Strayer, E., Sadler, T., Cody-Rydzewsky, S., Scaramuzzo, G., Vyain, S., Bry, J., & Jones, F. (2014). Introduction to Sociology (2nd ed.). 12th Media Services.
Social classes exist in modern America, and this notion is connected with inequalities in the power division. It is problematic to state that all people in the United States have the same opportunities and quality of life. American society seems to have a rigid division into social classes that live in various districts, attend different places, and have distinct aspirations. The division into groups that are not equal is evident even in the school context when there are more privileged famous students and the rest of the adolescents (Belles, belles, belles, 2001). The existence of the rich and the poor illustrates the class division because it represents the extremes in the level of life and income.
Power distribution leads to social class division because access to resources is the most crucial class indicator. It supposes that the upper, middle, and working-class representatives have different rights because their resources are incomparable. The egalitarian approach to social structure presumes that class division emphasizes inequalities in the community (Domhoff, 2021). Therefore, people belonging to various social and economic classes have different starts in life and different opportunities, and everything surrounding them emphasizes their inequality. For instance, different backgrounds affect how people perceive daily things (Trouble in paradise, 2001). From one point of view, this class division might motivate people to develop and grow financially. From another point of view, these chances are minimal due to the comparatively low level of social mobility in the United States (Domhoff, 2021). It means that most people born into working-class families are unlikely to change their class because they do not have access to higher education, and they often have to work from adolescence to provide for themselves.
People do not usually focus on inequalities between social classes because they communicate in a group of equals during their lifetime. Upper-class representatives do not live in the same district as immigrants or working-class populations, reducing their chances of interaction (Alvarez & Kolner, 2001). As is shown in the documentary “People like us: Social class in America,” individuals pay attention to the visual and spoken markers of others and categorize them subconsciously. Those belonging to different social classes are perceived as aliens and ignored.
The story of Tammy Crabtree, who works for years at Burger King and has to provide for her two children, illustrates the idea of social class inequality vividly. The woman has to fight poverty every day and has no opportunities to change her work due to the absence of education and skills. (Tammy Crabtree, 2001). Tammy Crabtree lives in a poor old house, and its poverty is especially evident compared to the luxury mansion where judges live (You are your stuff, 2001). The difference in people’s everyday surroundings who belong to different social classes emphasizes their inequality and the enormous economic gap.
Class division is integral to American life, but many people perceive it as a natural phenomenon. People rarely see those living in extreme poverty or difficult circumstances because they have nowhere to see each other. They study in different educational institutions, live in various districts, and do not communicate daily. It creates the illusion that society is equal and that all people have the same opportunities for personal growth, which is not entirely true.
References
Alvarez, L. & Kolner, A. (2001). People like us: Social class in America. PBS.
Domhoff, G. W. (2021). Who rules America? Routledge.