Homework answers / question archive / Assignment #3 – Social Responsibility Essay In this essay, students will examine: the role humans play; issues of fairness; and possible solutions to social stratification and inequality as they relate to any topic of their interest (e

Assignment #3 – Social Responsibility Essay In this essay, students will examine: the role humans play; issues of fairness; and possible solutions to social stratification and inequality as they relate to any topic of their interest (e

Sociology

Share With

Assignment #3 – Social Responsibility Essay In this essay, students will examine: the role humans play; issues of fairness; and possible solutions to social stratification and inequality as they relate to any topic of their interest (e.g.; stratification and inequality within family, gender, deviance, crime, gender, race & ethnicity, etc.). Students will write an essay that is approximately three pages in length. They will upload this essay into Canvas. The essay format must include: your full name in the header/footer (see above); simple in-text citations where appropriate – i.e. (Chambliss and Eglitis 2019: 89); 12-point font; 1” margins; double spaced. You should add your full citations for each source (the text) immediately after the last paragraph of your report. Do NOT include any of the following: any MLA or other format header; a separate title page; a works cited page. In this essay, students must address the following set of questions related to citizenship, social justice, and ecology (related to social responsibility): • What role do people play – through their actions and inactions – in generating and maintaining systems of stratification and inequality in society (concept from rubric: citizenship)? • What issues of fairness are raised by stratification and inequality with respect to the student’s selected topic (concept from rubric: social justice)? • How might it be possible to overcome inequality in the selected topic (concept from rubric: ecology). Students should use at least two theories from Chapter 18’s discussion on social movements and social change (using one micro level theory and one macro level theory). Social Responsibility Rubric for Signature Assignment #3 Point Value 5 4 Detailed Description of Point Assessment An essay scoring a 5 consistently demonstrates one or more of the following: • Citizenship: Demonstrates orally, in writing, and/or through projects and an understanding of the citizen’s proactive role in society, such as participating in the democratic process and contributing to one’s community AND/OR demonstrates orally, in writing, and/or through activities a clear inclination to participate in the democratic process and contribute to the community. • Social Justice: Demonstrates orally, in writing and/or projects the ability to evaluate the issues of fairness, prejudice, discrimination, and ethical behaviors on the basis of critical thinking and the use of data and scientific information AND/OR demonstrates through projects and interactions in class and in the field the treatment of others in a fair, non-discriminatory manner while demonstrating respect and value for cultural diversity and differences. • Ecology: Demonstrates orally and/or in writing clear understanding of the larger ecological issues related to the interaction or people, environment, science and technology. Understands how actions of individuals, businesses, governments, etc., impact that balance AND/OR participates in projects or activities that demonstrate appreciation and caring for the environment. An essay scoring a 4 demonstrates one or more of the following: • Citizenship: Demonstrates some awareness of the citizen’s role in society. However, is struggling with how important that role might be and the importance of one person within the system. Is open to further learning and improvement AND/OR demonstrates some inclination to participate in the democratic process. Contributes to the community and is open to further learning and improvement. • Social Justice: Demonstrates some ability to access and evaluate issues and evaluate issues of fairness, prejudice, discrimination and ethical behavior based upon critical thinking and use of data and scientific information AND/OR mostly treats others in a fair, non-discriminatory manner. Mostly demonstrates respect and values cultural diversity and differences. However, is still uncertain about many circumstances and is developing further about these issues. • Ecology: Demonstrates some understanding of ecological issues related to the interaction of people, environment, science and technology. Struggles to understand how individuals and institutional actions impact ecological balance. Is interested and open to learn more AND/OR demonstrates some appreciation and caring for the environment through projects or activities. Simple Explanation Excellent Good Your Full Name Here 3 2 1 An essay scoring a 3 demonstrates one or more of the following: • Citizenship: Demonstrates elementary level of awareness of the citizen’s role in society. Gives little consideration to the importance or impact of the individual in society AND/OR demonstrates some reluctance to participate in the democratic process but displays some openness to further learning and improvement. • Social Justice: Demonstrates elementary abilities in assessing issues of fairness, prejudice, discrimination and ethical behaviors based upon critical thinking and the use of data and scientific information AND/OR Shows signs of being unaware, disrespectful, and / or biased toward people of different backgrounds and life styles. However, is in elementary stage of awareness of this and is willing to learn more about these issues. • Ecology: Demonstrates limited understanding of ecological issues related to the interaction of people, environment, science and technology. However, is interested in learning more about such interactions AND/OR demonstrates limited appreciation and caring for the environment. An essay scoring a 2 demonstrates one or more of the following: • Citizenship: Demonstrates very poor understanding and / or clear misunderstanding of the citizen’s role in society AND/OR ignores any responsibility to participate in the democratic process. Reluctant to learn and improve in this area. • Social Justice: Clearly cannot assess and evaluate issues of fairness, prejudice, discrimination, and ethical behaviors based upon critical thinking and the use of data and scientific information AND/OR does not respect nor value cultural diversity and differences. Shows signs of treating others in a discriminatory and prejudicial manner. Is not aware of these behaviors, or is not interested in learning more about these issues. • Ecology: Demonstrates a very narrow view of the world based upon egocentrism. Extremely limited understanding of the interaction of people, environment, science and technology and has little interest to learn more AND/OR absence of any demonstration of appreciation or caring for the environment. An essay scoring a 1 demonstrates one or more of the following: • Citizenship: Refuses to understand or rejects citizen’s role in society AND/OR exhibits blatant rejection of the democratic process. Not open to further learning and improvement in this area. • Social Justice: Refuses to address issues of fairness, prejudice, discrimination and ethical and unethical behaviors AND/OR treats people with disrespect AND/OR is unfair and discriminatory to others who are different from self. Closed to new learning concerning the topic. • Ecology: Refuses to address ecological issues related to the interaction of people, environment, and science. Competent Marginal Poor This rubric is from “General Education Competency Information including Rubrics 2012-2013” (Amarillo College). APPENDIX A: Introduction to Sociology (SOCI 1311) SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING RUBRICS Chapter 7: Social Class and Inequality in the United States Social Class and Inequality in the United States: Introduction ©iStockphoto.com/peeterv Cite format APA Chicago Harvard MLA Social Class and Inequality in the United States: Introduction William J. Chambliss & Daina S. Eglitis Learning Objectives • • • • • 7.1 Identify characteristics of stratification in traditional and modern societies. 7.2 Describe components of social class, including income, wealth, occupation, status, and political voice. 7.3 Describe dimensions of socioeconomic inequality in the United States. 7.4 Discuss the problem of neighborhood poverty. 7.5 Analyze the existence and persistence of stratification and poverty from sociological perspectives. What Do You Think? 1. What is income? What is wealth? Why is it important to distinguish between the two when studying class status and inequality? 2. What factors explain rising income and wealth inequality in the U.S.? 3. What explains the existence and persistence of widespread poverty in the U.S.? Poverty and Profit ©Mario Tama/Getty Images According to the U.S. Census, about 6% of the U.S. population resides in a trailer park. Mobile homes comprise the largest share of the nonsubsidized market for affordable housing in the U.S., providing about 8.5 million housing units to about 20 million residents at an average cost of just over $37,000 (Kirk, 2017). Up until the 1990s, many trailer parks were owned by local residents, some of whom lived on site and knew their tenants. The demand for affordable housing, which grew when hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their homes in the foreclosure crisis that peaked between about 2008 and 2010, however, has made the parks an attractive investment [Page 170]opportunity and ownership has moved out of localities and into the domain of wealthy investors (Salamon & MacTavish, 2017). Among those already earning significant returns on this demand are high-profile investors such as Sam Zell, whose controlling interest in about 140,000 parks earned him $777 million in revenue in 2014, and Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the U.S., whoowns both the country’s largest mobile home manufacturer and two biggest mobile home lenders. Investment in mobile home parks is an attractive proposition. In the words of one owner: “’Sell to the masses, eat with the classes.’ There’s a lot more poor people than there are rich people and they’re not making any more trailer parks” (Neate, 2015). An article in Bloomberg Markets profiled one such investor: When Dan Weissman worked at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and, later, at a hedge fund, he didn’t have to worry about methamphetamine addicts chasing his employees with metal pipes. Or SWAT teams barging into his workplace looking for arsonists. Both things have happened since he left Wall Street and bought five mobile home parks: four in Texas and one in Indiana. Yet he says he’s never been so relaxed in his life. . . . [He] attributes his newfound calm to the supply–demand equation in the trailer park industry. With more of the U.S. middle class sliding into poverty and many towns banning new trailer parks, enterprising owners are getting rich renting the concrete pads and surrounding dirt on which residents park their homes. The greatest part of the business is that we go to sleep at night not ever worrying about demand for our product. . . . It’s the best decision I’ve ever made. (Effinger & Burton, 2014) For those interested in investment, millionaire Frank Rolfe offers Mobile Home University, a three-day, $200 boot camp to prepare them. Among the lessons for would-be landlords: “[The rents] do not go down, that’s one thing that’s a safe bet in the trailer park world” (Neate, 2015). While profits for investors grow, the fortunes of those who inhabit the country’s trailer parks may be sinking. Indeed, as rents rise, many trailer park residents are trapped in an economic conundrum: new options for parking the trailer are few and moving a trailer (which is not as mobile as the name would imply) is costly and difficult. Unlike a conventionally built residence, ownership of a mobile home rarely confers the benefits of rising value and home equity. Rather, a mobile home is similar to a vehicle, which loses value after its purchase, making it difficult to use the mobile home as a stepping stone to a standard home purchase (Salamon & MacTavish, 2017). The decline of the U.S. middle class has wrought substantial consequences for millions of families. It has also, as the story above suggests, opened new economic opportunities for others, including members of the upper class. The economic security of the middle class, particularly its less educated fraction, has been declining since the late 1970s. At the top of the economic ladder, however, incomes have risen and fortunes expanded. These important changes in U.S. class structure are of great interest to sociologists.Helping you to understand them is a key goal of this chapter. We begin this chapter with an examination of forms of stratification in traditional and modern societies, followed by a discussion of the characteristics of caste, social class, and [Page 171]stratification. Next, we look at important quantitative and qualitative dimensions of inequality and both household and neighborhood poverty in the United States. We then turn to a discussion of theoretical perspectives on class and inequality. Next, we shift our gaze to key dimensions of global inequality and ask why these deep global disparities exist and persist. Stratification in Traditional and Modern Societies Cite format vard APA MLA Chicago Har 7.1 Stratification in Traditional and Modern Societies Learning Objective7.1 Identify characteristics of stratification in traditional and modern societies. In the United States today, there is substantial social inequality—a high degree of disparity in income, wealth, power, prestige, and other resources. Sociologists capture the disparities between social groups conceptually with an image from geology: They suggest that society, similar to the earth’s surface, is made up of different layers. Social stratification is thus the systematic ranking of different groups of people in a hierarchy of inequality. Sociologists seek to outline the quantitative dimensions and the qualitative manifestations of social stratification in the United States and around the globe, but—even more important—they endeavor to identify the social roots of stratification. Stratification systems are considered closed or open, depending on how much mobility between layers is available to groups and individuals within a society. Caste societies (closed) and class societies (open) represent two important examples of systems of stratification. Caste Societies In a caste society, social positions are closed, so that all individuals remain at the social level of their birth throughout life. Social status is based on personal characteristics—such as race or ethnicity, parental religion, or parental caste—that are present at birth, and social mobility is virtually impossible. Social status, then, is the outcome of ascribed rather than of achieved characteristics. Historically, castes have been present in some agricultural societies, such as rural India and South Africa prior to the end of White rule in 1992. In the United States before the end of the Civil War in 1865, slavery imposed a racial caste system because enslavement was usually a permanent condition (except for those slaves who escaped or were freed by their owners). In the eyes of the law, the slave was a form of property without personal rights. Some argue that institutionalized racial inequality and limits on social mobility for African Americans remained fixtures of the U.S. landscape even after the end of slavery (Alexander, 2010; Dollard, 1957; Immerwahr, 2007). Indeed, enforced separation of Blacks and Whites was supported by federal, state, and local laws on education, family formation, public spaces, and housing as late as the 1960s. Caste systems are far less common in countries and communities today than they were in centuries past. For example, India is now home to a rising middle class, but it has long been described as a caste-based society because of its historical categorization of the population into four basic castes (or varnas): priests, warriors, traders, and workmen. These categories, which can be further divided, are based on the country’s majority religion, Hinduism. At the bottom of this caste hierarchy one finds the Dalits or untouchables, the lowest caste. Since the 1950s, India has passed laws to integrate the lowest caste members into positions of greater economic and political power. Some norms have also changed, permitting members of different castes to intermarry. Although members of the lowest castes still lag in educational attainment compared with higher-caste groups, India today is moving closer to a class system. Class Societies In a class society, social mobility allows an individual to change his or her socioeconomic position. Class societies exist in modern economic systems and are defined by several characteristics. First, they are economically based, at least in theory—the hierarchy of social positions is determined largely by economic status (whether earned or inherited) rather than by religion or tradition. Second, class systems are relatively fluid: Boundaries between classes are violable and can be crossed. In fact, in contrast to caste systems, in class systems, social mobility is looked at favorably. It has long been an American aspiration for parents to hope that their children will live better than they do. Finally, class status is understood [Page 172]to be achieved rather than ascribed: Status is, ideally, not related to a person’s position at birth or religion or race or other inherited categories, but to the individual’s merit and achievements in education, entrepreneurship, and work. As we will see in this chapter, these ideal-typical characteristics of class societies do not necessarily correspond to historical or contemporary reality, and class status can be profoundly affected by factors such as race, gender, and class of birth. 7.2 Sociological Building Blocks of Social Class Learning Objective7.2 Describe components of social class, including income, wealth, occupation, status, and political voice. Nearly all socially stratified systems share three characteristics. First, rankings apply to social categories—categories of people who share common characteristics without necessarily interacting or identifying with one another. In many societies, women may be ranked differently than men, wealthy people differently than the poor, and highly educated people differently than those with little schooling. Individuals may be able to change their rank (through education, for instance), but the categories themselves continue to exist as part of the social hierarchy. Second, people’s opportunities and experiences are shaped by how their social categories are ranked. Ranking may be linked to achieved status, social position linked to a person’s acquisition of socially valued credentials or skills, or ascribed status, social position linked to characteristics that are socially significant but cannot generally be altered (such as race or gender). Although anyone can exercise individual agency, membership in a social category may influence whether an individual’s path forward (and upward) is characterized by obstacles or opportunities. The third characteristic of a socially stratified system is that the hierarchical positioning of social categories tends to change slowly over time. Members of groups that enjoy prestigious and preferential rankings in the social order tend to remain at the top, although the expansion of opportunities may change the composition of groups over time. Societal stratification has evolved through historical stages. The earliest human societies, based on hunting and gathering, had little social stratification; there were few resources to divide, so differences within communities were not very pronounced, at least materially. Advances in agriculture produced considerably more wealth and a consequent rise in social stratification. The hierarchy in agricultural societies increasingly came to resemble a pyramid, with a large number of poor people at the bottom and successively smaller numbers in the upper tiers of better-off members. Across the United States, increases in rent have dramatically outpaced increases in wages, contributing to high rates of eviction in many poor neighborhoods. By one estimate, about a fifth of Black women renters have faced eviction, often more than once (Desmond, 2016a, 2016b). ©John Moore/Getty Images Modern capitalist societies are, predictably, even more complex: Some sociologists suggest that the shape of class stratification resembles a teardrop (Figure 7.1), with a large number of people in the middle ranks, a slightly smaller number of people at the bottom, and very few people at the top. Before we continue, let’s look at what sociologists mean when they use the term class. Class refers to a person’s economic position in society, which is usually associated with income, wealth, and occupation (and sometimes associated with political voice). Class position at birth strongly influences a person’s life chances, the opportunities and obstacles the person encounters in education, social life, work, and other areas critical to social mobility. Social mobility is the upward or downward status movement of individuals or groups over time. Many middle-class Americans have experienced downward mobility in recent decades. Upward social mobility may be experienced by those who earneducational credentials or have social networks they can tap. A college degree is one important step toward upward mobility for many people. The class system in the United States is complex, as class is composed of multiple variables. We may, [Page 173]however, identify some general descriptive categories. Our descriptions follow the class categories used by Gilbert and Kahl, as shown in Figure 7.1(Gilbert, 2011). At the bottom of the economic ladder, one finds what economist Gunnar Myrdal (1963), writing in the 1960s, called the underclass: “a class of unemployed, unemployables, and underemployed who are more and more hopelessly set apart from the nation at large” (p. 10). The term has been used by sociologists such as Erik Olin Wright (1994) and William Julius Wilson (1978), whose work on the “black underclass” described that group as “a massive population at the very bottom of the social ladder plagued by poor education and low-paying, unstable jobs” (p. 1). Figure 7.1 Class in the United States (Gilbert-Kahl Model) Source: Gilbert, D. L. (2015). The American class structure in an age of growing inequality. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. FIGURE 7.1 DESCRIPTION People who perform manual labor or work in low-wage sectors such as food service and retail jobs are generally understood to be working class, although some sociologists distinguish those in the working class from the working poor. Households in both categories cluster below the median household income in the United States and are characterized by breadwinners whose education beyond high school is limited or nonexistent. People in both categories depend largely on hourly wages, even though the working poor have lower incomes and little or no wealth; although they are employed, their wages fail to lift them above the poverty line, and many struggle to meet even basic needs. Author David Shipler (2005) suggests that they are “invisible,” as U.S. mainstream culture does not equate work with poverty. Those who provide skilled services of some kind (whether legal advice, electrical wiring, nursing, or accounting services) and work for someone else are considered—and usually consider themselves—middle class. Lawyers, teachers, social workers, plumbers, auto sales representatives, and store managers are all widely considered to be middle class, although there may be significant income, wealth, and educational differences among them, leading some observers to distinguish between the (middle) middle class and the upper middle class. As most Americans describe themselves in surveys as “middle class,” establishing quantitative categories is challenging. In fact, in 2010, the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, led by Vice President Joe Biden, opted for a descriptive rather than a statistical definition of the middle class, suggesting that its members are “defined by their aspirations more than their income. [It is assumed that] middle class families aspire to homeownership, a car, college education for their children, health and retirement security and occasional family vacations” (U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, 2010). Those who own or exercise substantial financial control over large businesses, financial institutions, or factories are generally considered to be part of the upper class, a category Gilbert and Kahl term the capitalist class (Gilbert, 2011). This is the smallest of the categories and consists of those whose wealth and income, whether gained through work, investment, or inheritance, are dramatically greater than those of the rest of the population. Below, we look more closely at some key components of social class position: income, wealth, occupation, status, and political voice. Income Income is the amount of money a person or household earns in a given period of time. Income is earned most commonly at a job and less commonly through investments. Household [Page 174]income also includes government transfers such as Social Security payments, veterans’ benefits, or disability checks. Income typically goes to pay for food, clothing, shelter, health care, and other costs of daily living. It has a fluid quality in that it flows into a household in the form of pay-period checks and then flows out again as the mortgage or rent is paid, groceries are purchased, and other daily expenses are met. For most working- and middle-class Americans, home ownership is their primary source of wealth: about two thirds of the median household’s wealth is comprised of housing equity. Changes in home values due to large-scale economic shifts can significantly affect household wealth. ©Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images U.S. household incomes have largely stagnated over the past decades, a topic we cover in detail later in the chapter. Effects of the recent economic crisis have not been felt evenly, but they have been experienced by all U.S. ethnic and racial groups (Figure 7.2). Income gains in the United States, however, have been disproportionately concentrated among top earners. According to a recent study by Glassdoor Economic Research, average chief executive officer (CEO) pay in S&P 500 companies is around $13.8 million per year; average median worker pay in those companies is about $77,800. Thus, the average ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay is 204 (meaning that CEOs earn 204 times more than their employees earn; Glassdoor, 2015). Starting in 2017, public companies will be required to share the ratio of CEO to worker salaries, providing even more transparency for inequalities in some of the world’s biggest companies (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2015). Wealth Wealth (or net worth) differs from income in that it is the value of everything a person owns minus the value of everything he or she owes. Wealth becomes a more important source of status as people rise on the income ladder. For most people in the United States who possess any measurable wealth, the key source of wealth is home equity, which is essentially the difference between the market value of a home and what is owed on the mortgage. This form of wealth is illiquid (as opposed to liquid); illiquid assets are those that are logistically difficult to transform into cash because the process is lengthy and complicated. So, a family needing money to finance car repairs, meet educational expenses, or even ride out a period of unemployment cannot readily transform its illiquid wealth into cash. Figure 7.2 U.S. Real Median Household Income by Racial and Ethnic Group, 1967–2017 Source: Table A-1. Semenga, Fontent, & Kollar. 2018. Income and poverty in the United States. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/p60–263.pdf. FIGURE 7.2 DESCRIPTION Economists and sociologists treat net financial assets as a measure of wealth thatexcludes illiquid personal assets, such as the home and vehicles. Examples of net financial assets are stocks, bonds, cash, and other forms of investment assets. These are the principal sources of wealth used by the rich to secure their position in the economic hierarchy and, through reinvestment and other financial vehicles, to accumulate still more wealth. Wealth, unlike income, is built up over a lifetime and may be passed down to the next generation. It is used to create new opportunities rather than merely to cover routine expenditures. Income buys shoes, coffee, and car repairs; wealth buys a high-quality education, business ventures, and access to travel and leisure that are out of reach of most, as well as financial security and the creation of new wealth. Those who possess wealth have a decided edge at getting ahead in the stratification system. In the United States, wealth is largely concentrated at the very top of the economic ladder. Occupation An occupation is a person’s main vocation. In the modern world, this generally refers to paid employment. Occupation is an important determinant of social class because it is the main source of income in modern societies. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks 840 detailed occupational categories in the United States. Sociologists have used various classifications to reduce these to a far smaller number of categories. For example, jobs are described as blue collar if they are based primarily on manual labor (factory workers, agricultural laborers, truck drivers, and miners) and white collar if they require mainly analytical skills or formal education (doctors, lawyers, and business managers). The term pink collar is sometimes used to describe semiskilled, low-paid service jobs that are primarily held by women (waitresses, salesclerks, and receptionists). [Page 175]In the 1990s, some writers adopted the term gold collar to categorize the jobs of young professionals who commanded huge salaries and high occupational positions very early in their professional careers thanks to the technology bubble and economic boom of the 1990s (Wonacott, 2002). After the bubble burst, gold-collar workers were more often found in the financial sector, earning very substantial salaries and benefits. The economic recession that commenced in 2007 put a damper on growth in salaries and benefits of gold-collar workers, but they have risen again in recent years. How would you define the U.S. middle class? Should it be defined by income, wealth, or education? Should it be defined by aspirations and achievements? ©iStockphoto.com/andresr Status Status refers to the prestige associated with a social position. It varies based on factors such as family background and occupation. A considerable amount of social science research has gone into classifying occupations according to the degrees of status or prestige they hold in public opinion. We might expect white-collar jobs to rank more highly in prestige than blue-collar jobs, but do they? Doctors and scientists are indeed at the top of the prestige scale—but so are less highly paid professionals such as nurses and firefighters (who top the poll results discussed in this section, with 80% of respondents indicating that firefighters have “very great prestige”). Also in the top ranks are military officers and emergency medicaltechnicians (with 78% and 72% conferring “very great prestige” on them, respectively). At the bottom are politicians, stockbrokers, accountants, and real estate agents (only 32% of respondents indicated “very great prestige” for real estate agents). It seems occupations that require working with ideas (scientist, engineer) or providing professional services that contribute to the public welfare (emergency medical technician, doctor, firefighter) have the highest prestige, and perhaps surprisingly, the U.S. public does not always link prestige to income (Mekouar, 2016). Prestige rankings of specific occupations have been relatively stable over time, although changes do occur. For instance, since 1977, scientists have gained 16 points (after falling by 9 points in 2009) and journalists have increased by 30 points to 47%. What factors might explain these shifts? Have societal changes taken place that might contribute to our understanding of why occupations such as these rise and fall on the prestige scale? Political Voice Political power is the ability to exercise influence on political institutions and/or political actors to realize personal or group interests. It involves the mobilization of resources (such as money or technology or political support of a desired [Page 176]constituency) and the successful achievement of political goals (such as the passage of legislation favorable to a particular group). Sociological analyses of power have revealed a pyramid-shaped stratification system in the United States as well as in most advanced industrial societies, including those of Western Europe. At the top are a handful of political figures, businesspeople, and other leaders with substantial power over political decision-making and the national economy. Moving down the pyramid, we encounter more people—and less power (Domhoff, 2009). Sociologist C. Wright Mills began to write as early as the 1950s about the existence of a “power elite,” which he defined as a group comprising elites from the executive branch of government, the military, and the corporate community who share social ties, a common worldview born of socialization in prestigious schools and clubs, and professional links that create revolving doors between positions in these three areas (Mills, 1956/2000a). In contrast to the pluralist perspective on U.S. democracy, which suggests that political power is fluid and passes, over time, among a spectrum of groups and interests who compete in the political arena, Mills offered a critical perspective. He described a concentration of political power in the hands of a small elite. According to Mills, even though power over local issues remains largely in the hands of elected legislatures and interest groups, decision-making power over issues of war and peace, global economic interests, and other matters of international and national consequence remain with the power elite. The power of the masses is little more than an illusion in Mills’s view; the masses are composed of “entirely private” individuals wrapped up in personal concerns and largely disconnected from the political process. In the 2016 Harris poll, emergency medical technicians/ paramedics were ranked among the top 10 most prestigious professions. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2016, the average salary of these first responders was less than $33,000 annually. What explains the discrepancy between the social value and economic valuation of this occupation? ©iStockphoto.com/simonkr In recent elections, the U.S. middle class has been at the center of political discourse, but are decision makers addressing its fundamental economic concerns, including stagnating wages and challenges such as the steep cost of higher education? Or do the interests of the wealthy guide policy making? What do you think? In the following, we look more closely at trends in inequality in the United States. Class and Inequality in the U.S.: Dimensions and Trends Cite format APA Chicago Harvard MLA 7.3 Class and Inequality in the U.S.: Dimensions and Trends Learning Objective7.3 Describe dimensions of socioeconomic inequality in the United States. The United States prides itself on being a nation of equals. Indeed, except for the period of the Great Depression of the 1930s, inequality declined throughout much of the 20th century, reaching its lowest levels during the 1960s and early 1970s. But during the past three decades, inequality has been on the rise again. The rich have gotten much richer, middle-class incomes have stagnated, and a growing number of poor are struggling tomake ends meet. Income Inequality Sociologist Richard Sennett (1998) writes, Europeans from [Alexis de] Tocqueville on have tended to take the face value for reality; some have deduced we Americans are indeed a classless society, at least in our manners and beliefs—a democracy of consumers; others, like Simone de Beauvoir, have maintained we are hopelessly confused about our real differences. (p. 64) Was Tocqueville right or Beauvoir? Are we classless or confused? What are the dimensions of our differences? Let us look at what statistics tell us. Every year, the U.S. Census Bureau calculates how income is distributed across the population of earners. All households are ranked by annual income and then categorized into quintiles, or fifths. The U.S. Census Bureau calculates how much of the aggregate income, or total income, generated in the United States each quintile gets. In otherwords, imagine all legally earned and reported income thrown into a big pot—that is, the aggregate income. The Census Bureau wants to know (and we do, too!) how much of this income goes to each quintile of earners. In a society with equal distribution across quintiles, each fifth of earners would get about one fifth of the income in the pot. Conversely, in a society with complete inequality across quintiles, the top would get everything, and the bottom [Page 177]quintiles would be left emptyhanded. The United States, like all other countries, falls between these two hypothetical extremes. In Figure 7.3, we see how aggregate income in the United States is divided among quintiles of earners. When we look at the pie, we see that income earners at different levels take in disparate proportions of the income total. Those in the bottom quintile take in just over 3% of the aggregate income, while those in the top quintile get more than half; that means the top 20% of earners bring in as much as all in the bottom 80% combined. No less significant is the fact that the top 5% take in more than 22% of the total income—more than the bottom 40% combined (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2014). Figure 7.3 Shares of Aggregate U.S. Income by Quintile, 2018 Source: Table A-2. Semenga, Fotentot, & Kollar. 2018. Income and Poverty in the United States. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html. Note: Values add up to 99%. Data compiled by economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, with a formula that uses pretax income (as do the census figures) but includes capital gains, suggest an even more stratified picture. According to Saez and Piketty’s calculations, about 50% of pretax income goes to the top 10% of earners: Notably, the income is not composed primarily of wages but of capital income such as capital gains and dividends (Tankersley, 2016). Within this well-off decile (or tenth) of earners, there is a still more dramatic division of income, because the top 1% of earners takes about a fifth of the aggregate income (Saez, 2010). Clearly, gains have been concentrated at the top of the income ladder. As economist Joseph Stiglitz (2012) points out, the fraction of the aggregate income taken by the upper 1% has doubled since 1980, while the fraction that goes to the upper 0.1% has nearly tripled over that period. When we study issues such as income inequality, we benefit from understanding the data we gather in their historical context. Figure 7.3 presents a snapshot of one moment intime, but what about decades past? The economic prosperity of the middle to late 1990s brought some benefit to most American workers: The median U.S. income rose faster at the end of the 1990s than it had since the period from the late 1940s to the middle 1950s. Saez (2010) calculates that the real annual growth of income among the bottom 99% of earners grew 2.7% in the period he terms the “Clinton Expansion” (1993–2000), but it dropped during the 2000–2002 recession (by 3.3%) and again during the 2007–2008 period (by 6.9%). On the whole, the period from 1993 to 2008 saw a real annual growth of only 0.75% for the incomes of the bottom 99%. Over the same period, the top 1% of earners experienced a real annual growth of almost 4% (although this group also experienced significant losses in the recessionary periods). From about World War II until the middle 1970s, the top 10% earned less than a third of the national income pool (Pearlstein, 2010). In the years since, however, the incomes of people at or near the top have risen far faster than those of earners at the bottom or middle of the income scale (Figure 7.4). The stagnation of wages is illustrated by the poor growth of average wages of young high school and college graduates (Figure 7.5). The economic position of college graduates is significantly better than that of high school graduates, but wage growth has been slow for both groups. For those with no college degree, lagging wage growth has contributed to economic struggles in recent decades (Kroeger & Gould, 2017). Even for those with a college degree in hand, the labor market can be challenging: The Economic Policy Institute estimates that more than 12% of men and 11% of women graduates are underemployed (Gould, Mokhiber, & Wolfe, 2018). That is, they areworking in jobs that do not make full use of their skills (for instance, a college graduate working in a job that does not require a college degree) or working part time when they would like to be working full time. Notably, Figure 7.6 shows only those graduates who are working part time when they would like to be working full time. [Page 178]A recent publication by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, estimates that in early 2018, 42% of young college graduates were working in jobs that did not require a college degree (Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2018). Figure 7.4 Changes in Income Inequality in the United States, 1967–2015 Source: Table A-2. Semenga, Fontent, & Kollar. 2017. Income and poverty in the United States. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/P60–259.pdf. FIGURE 7.4 DESCRIPTION Figure 7.5 Average Hourly Wages of U.S. College and High School Graduates Ages 21–24, 1989–2017 Source: “The Class of 2017,” by Teresa Kroeger and Elise Gould, May 4, 2017. Figure O. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Reprinted with permission. FIGURE 7.5 DESCRIPTION Wealth Inequality We see the growth of inequality in the distribution of income, but what about the wealth gap? What are its dimensions? Is it growing or shrinking? Recall that even though income has a fluid quality—flowing into the household with a weekly or monthly check and flowing out again as bills are paid and other goods of daily life are purchased—wealth has a more solid quality. Wealth represents possessions that do not flow into and out of the household regularly but instead provide a set of assets that can buy security, educational opportunity, and comfortable retirement years. The distribution of wealth gives us another [Page 179]important gauge of how U.S. families are doing relative to one another in terms of security, opportunity, and prospects. Figure 7.6 Underemployment by Gender and Race/Ethnicity, 2000 and 2018 Source: “The Class of 2018,” by Elise Gould, Zane Mokhiber, and Julia Wolfe, May 10, 2017. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/147514.pdf. Notes: AAPI stands for Asian American/Pacific Islander. Data for 2000 and 2018 use an average of January 1998–December 2000 and March 2015–February 2018, respectively. FIGURE 7.6 DESCRIPTION Figure 7.7 Wealth Gap by Race/Ethnicity 1983–2013 Source: “Wealth inequality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession.” Pew Research Center, Washington, DC (December 2014). http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/. Notes: Blacks and Whites include only non-Hispanics. Hispanics are of any race. Chart scale is logarithmic; each gridline is ten times greater than the gridline below it. Great Recession began Dec. 2007 and ended June 2009. FIGURE 7.7 DESCRIPTION Today, more Americans than ever have money invested in the stock market—many through 401(k) and other retirement accounts. Does that mean wealth is more evenly spread across the population than before? No, it does not—in fact, the distribution of wealth is even more unequal than the distribution of income. If we exclude the ownership of cars and homes—which, as we noted, are not normally sources of wealth that people can use to pay regular bills or get richer—the difference in wealth between high-income families and everyone else is particularly pronounced. Figure 7.8 shows the growing concentration of wealth at the very top of the U.S. economic ladder (Saez & Zucman, 2014). Data suggest that in the last 30 years, the share of household wealth held by the top 0.1% has risen to about 22%; significantly, this share is nearly equal to that held by the bottom 90% of households, whose worth has been eroded by declining wages, a fall in home values, and an increase in debt (Monaghan, 2014). Minority groups hold far fewer net financial assets than Whites. The wealth held by minority households has historically lagged; for instance, in 1990, Black households held about 1% of total U.S. wealth (Conley, 1999). This percentage rose markedly in the economic boom years of the 1990s and continued to expand into the 2000s. Black household [Page 180]wealth reached an average of just over $12,000 in 2005. This climb, however, was reversed by the housing crisis and the Great Recession, which saw a fall in household wealth among minorities. In 2013, the U.S. median net worth of a household was just over $81,400 and differences by race and ethnicity were stark: Although White median net worth was $134,000, Black household wealth was just $11,000 and Hispanic household wealth was about $14,000 (Kochhar & Fry, 2014; Jones, 2017). Mean (rather than median) wealth differences are even more stark (Urban Institute, 2017; Figure 7.7). Many city neighborhoods lack access to large, well-stocked supermarkets with competitive prices. Residents must often choose between overpriced (and often poor-quality) goods and a long trip to a suburban market. The low rates of private vehicle ownership among the urban poor can make shopping for healthy food a burden. ©Charles O. Cecil/Alamy Stock Photo Many U.S. families have zero or negative net worth, a condition worsened when household wealth was eroded by the recent recession. Consider a Pew Research Center finding that in 2009, nearly one third of Hispanic households had zero or negative net worth, a figure that put them between White households (15% had zero or negative net worth) and Black households (35% had zero or negative net worth; Kochhar et al., 2011). A recent report on U.S. wealth examined the distribution of wealth by quintile: the findings show that about 90% of wealth is held by the top quintile; the bottom two quintiles hold zero or negative wealth (Wolff, 2017). When broken out like a pie with 100 slices, the distribution can be visualized as in the figure below (Figure 7.8). Other Gaps: Inequalities in Health Care, Health, and Access to Consumer Goods Along with the gap in income and wealth, there is a critical gap in employer benefits, including health insurance. From the 1980s to the 1990s, health care coverage for workers in the bottom quintile of earners fell more dramatically than for any other segment of workers: From a rate of 41% coverage, it dropped to 32% in the late 1990s (Reich, 2001). In 2011, about 25% of those living in households earning less than $25,000 a year were uninsured, along with more than 21% of those in households earning $25,000–$49,999 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a). Altogether, more than 15% (48.6 million) of the U.S. population was without health insurance, including 7 million children younger than 18 years of age (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a). Many of the jobs created in the 1980s and 1990s were positions in the service sector, which includes retail sales and food service. Although the quantity of jobs created in this period helped push down the unemployment rate, the quality of jobs created for those with less education was not on par with the quality of many of the jobs lost as U.S. manufacturing became automated or moved overseas. Many service sector jobs pay wages at or just above minimum wage and have been increasingly unlikely to offer employer benefits. Figure 7.8 Share of American Wealth Owned by Top 1 Percent versus Bottom 90 Percent Source: Adapted from “Household Wealth Trends in the United States, 1962–2016: Has Middle Class Wealth Recovered? By Edward N. Wolff, working Paper 24085, National Bureau of Economic Research. Source: Fontenot, Semenga, & Kollar. 2018. Income and poverty in the United States. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/ p60–263.pdf. FIGURE 7.8 DESCRIPTION One goal of President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known simply as the Affordable Care [Page 181]Act or ACA), signed into law in 2010, was to expand insurance coverage for the working poor. In the first year the law was in effect, more than 8 million people signed up for health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act, and 57% of those people had been uninsured before enrolling in ACA-compliant plans. Moreover, those who enrolled in ACA-compliant plans reported slightly worse health than nonenrollers, and most said that they would not have sought insurance if the law had not taken effect (Hamel et al., 2014). The rolls of insured Americans have grown with expanded access through Medicaid, a government health insurance program that primarily serves the poor, many of whom do not have employer-provided insurance and cannot afford to purchase insurance. At this time, 34 states provide poor residents with Medicaid enrollment opportunities through the ACA (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2018). The most recent state to expand Medicaid access is Virginia, which passed a measure that potentially provides insurance to400,000 uninsured residents (Vozzella & Schneider, 2018). The Republican-dominated Congress elected in November 2017 has acted to weaken key provisions of the ACA, including mandates that all Americans purchase insurance. The provision that insurance companies may not discriminate against applicants for insurance who have preexisting health conditions is also under threat. At this time, no replacement plan for the ACA has been enacted. The degree to which political and policy changes will affect access to care and coverage is as yet uncertain. Perhaps predictably, data show a powerful relationship between health and class status. Empirical data show that those with greater income and education are less likely than their less-well-off peers to have and die of heart disease, diabetes, and many types of cancer. Just as income is distributed unevenly in the population, so is good health. Notably, modern medical advances have disproportionately provided benefits for those at the top of the income spectrum (Scott, 2005). In fact, a recent study found that greater income is associated with greater longevity. The gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest Americans is about 15 years for men and 10 years for women (Chetty, Stepner, & Abraham, 2016). Children in disadvantaged families are more likely than their better-off peers to have poor physical and mental health. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (2008), the rate of hospitalization for asthma for Black children, who are more likely than their peers to be poor, is four to five times higher than that for White children. The problem is not only the lack of health insurance in families—although this factor is important—but also the lack of physical activity that may result when children don’t have safe places to play and exercise and when their families are unable to provide healthy foods because both money and access to such foods are limited. No less importantly, poverty can take a toll on mental health and mental capacity in the young: A recent study found that children who grow up poor are at risk of reduced short-term spatial memory as well as persistent feelings of powerlessness and are more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviors such as bullying (Dallas, 2017). Significantly, research suggests that families living in poverty have higher levels of the stress hormone, cortisol, and lower levels of the happiness hormone, serotonin (Johnston, 2016). The problem of poor health may be related to another disadvantage experienced by those on the lower economic rungs: Many poor urban neighborhoods lack access to high-quality goods at competitive prices. Most middle-class shoppers purchase food at large chain grocery stores that stock items like fresh fruit and vegetables and meat at competitive prices. In contrast, inhabitants of poor neighborhoods are likely to shop at small stores that have less stock and higher prices because large grocery chains choose not to locate in poor areas. If they want to shop at big grocery stores, poor residents may need to travel great distances, a substantial challenge for those who do not own cars and a costlier proposition for those who do. As one study noted, “lower-income shoppers must travel further and/or have fewer shopping options than do higher-income shoppers” (Hatzenbuehler, Gillespie, & O’Neil, 2012, p. 54). Some researchers refer to areas (often urban neighborhoods or rural towns) characterized by poor access to healthy and affordable food, as food deserts(DeChoudhury, Sharma, & Kiciman, 2016). A USA Today article describes the situation of Louisville retiree Jessie Caldwell, who regularly makes an hour-long bus trip to get fresh vegetables or meat: For her and many others, it’s often tempting to go to a more convenient mini-market or grab some fast food. “The corner stores just sell a lot of potato chips, pop and ice cream,” she said. “But people are going to eat what’s available.” (Kenning & Halladay, 2008, para. 8) Although we do not always think of access to stores with competitive prices and fresh goods as an issue of class inequality, lack of such access affects people’s quality of life, conferring advantage on the already advantaged and disadvantage on those who struggle to make ends meet. Writer Barbara Ehrenreich (2001) highlights this point: There are no secret economies that nourish the poor; on the contrary, there are a host of special costs. If you can’t put up the two months’ rent you need to secure an apartment, you end up paying through the nose for a room by the week. If you have only a room, with a hot plate at best, [Page 183]you can’t save by cooking up huge lentil stews that can be frozen for the week ahead. You eat fast food and hot dogs and Styrofoam cups of soup that can be microwaved in a convenience store. (p. 27) The Problem of Neighborhood Poverty Cite format vard APA MLA Chicago Har 7.5 The Problem of Neighborhood Poverty Learning Objective7.5 Analyze the existence and persistence of stratification and poverty from sociological perspectives. In this section, we discuss the issue of concentrated poverty, looking specifically at measures, causes, and consequences of high levels of neighborhood (or area) poverty. We thus distinguish between household poverty, which an individual or family may experience while living in a mixed- income neighborhood, and neighborhood-level poverty. Notably, research suggests that being poor in a poor neighborhood has more negative social, economic, and educational effects than household poverty in a more economically heterogeneous context (Wilson, 2010). Neighborhood poverty affects those households that are poor, but it also affects those in the neighborhood who are not officially poor. Living in an impoverished neighborhood has significant consequences for both poor and nonpoor households. Diminished opportunities for work, education, consumption, and recreation affect entire neighborhoods. ©iStockphoto.com/Peeter Viisimaa A Census Bureau report shows that a growing proportion of Americans reside in poverty areas, defined in the report as census tracts featuring 20% or more households in poverty (Bishaw, 2014). (Census tracts are areas with between 1,200 and 8,000 residents; most tracts fall in the 4,000 range.) In 2000, just over 18% of U.S. inhabitants lived in poverty areas; by 2010, nearly a quarter did. Poverty areas can be rural, suburban, or urban: Just over half are in central cities, another 28% are in the suburbs, and about 20% are outside metropolitan areas. Female-headed households are more likely than other family types to live in poverty areas: In 2010, more than 38% of femaleheaded households resided in areas with more than 20% poverty. Recent data also show a rise in residents living in high-poverty [Page 188]neighborhoods, defined as census tracts where 40% or more households fall below the poverty line. According to a 2015 report, “more than one in four of the black poor and nearly one in six of the Hispanic poor lives in a neighborhood of extreme poverty, compared to one in thirteen of the white poor” (Jargowsky, 2015, para. 3). Sociologists study the development of poverty areas, particularly in urban neighborhoods (Wilson, 1996, 2010). The rise of the suburbs in the post– World War II period fostered the out-migration of many city residents, particularly members of the White middle class, and was accompanied by a shift of public resources to new neighborhoods outside cities. Public housing built in U.S. cities around the same period was intended to offer affordable domiciles for the poor, but it also contributed to the development of concentrated poverty, as policies foresaw income limitations that foreclosed the possibility of maintaining mixed-income neighborhoods. Racially discriminatory policies and practices, including limitations on Black access to mortgages or to homes in White neighborhoods, made Blacks far more vulnerable than their White counterparts to becoming trapped in poor neighborhoods. Even today, Black and Hispanic households are more likely to reside in poverty areas (Bishaw, 2014). As many families moved to the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s, jobs eventually followed, contributing to a “spatial mismatch” between jobs in the suburbs and potential workers in urban areas (Wilson, 2010). The decline of manufacturing in the 1970s and the decades following also had a profound effect on some urban areas, such as Chicago and Detroit, which were deeply reliant on heavy industry for employment. As noted earlier, area poverty compounds the negative effects of household poverty and presents challenges to all residents of economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Research has shown, for instance, that nonpoor Black children are more likely than their White counterparts to reside in poor neighborhoods and to experience limitations to social mobility; no less importantly, children are more likely than adults to be living in high poverty areas (Jargowsky, 2015). Poor areas are more likely than better-off or even mixed-income neighborhoods to experience high levels of crime, to have lowquality housing and education, and to offer few job opportunities to residents (Federal Reserve System & Brookings Institution, 2008; Jargowsky, 2015). Among the challenges to poor neighborhoods is that individual households that have enough resources to leave may choose to do so, contributing to even less circulating capital and an increasing withdrawal of businesses, fewer employed residents, weaker social and economic networks, and more empty buildings (Wilson, 1996). Cities such as Detroit and Cleveland have, in fact, lost thousands of residents in recent decades. Significantly, children who live in high-poverty neighborhoods are more likely to experience food insecurity than children in low-poverty neighborhoods ( Morrissey, Oellerich, Meade, Simms, & Stock, 2016). They are also less prepared for school than their peers ( Wolf, Magnuson, & Kimbro, 2017). Girls who live in poverty-strickenneighborhoods are also at higher risk of experiencing sexual harassment, exploitation, pressure, and sexual violence. Poor neighborhoods may, over time, develop what the researchers have called “coercive sexual environments or CSEs,” in which sexual violence becomes “normal” (Zweig, Popkin, & Bogle, 2015). The revival of economically devastated neighborhoods is an important public policy challenge. How can the fortunes of poor—particularly very poor— neighborhoods be reversed? How does such a process begin and what does it entail? What do you think? In the following section, we examine the issues of stratification and poverty from the functionalist and conflict [Page 189]perspectives. As you read, consider how these perspectives can be used as lenses for understanding phenomena such as income and wealth inequality, household and neighborhood poverty, and other issues discussed above. overty Exist and Persist in Class Societies? Cite format vard APA MLA Chicago Har 7.6 Why Do Stratification and Poverty Exist and Persist in Class Societies? Learning Objective7.6 Analyze the existence and persistence of stratification and poverty from sociological perspectives. We find stratification in virtually all societies, a fact that the functionalist and social conflict perspectives seek to explain. The functionalist perspective highlights the ways in which stratification is functional for society as a whole. Social conflict theorists, in contrast, argue that inequality weakens society as a whole and exists because it benefits those in the upper economic, social, and political spheres. We take a closer look at each of these theoretical perspectives next. The Functionalist Explanation Functionalism is rooted in part in the writings of sociologist Émile Durkheim (1893/1997), who suggested that we can best understand economic positions as performing interdependent functions for society as a whole. Using this perspective, we can think of social classes as equivalent to the different organs in the human body: Just as the heart, lungs, and kidneys serve different yet indispensable functions for human survival, so do the different positions in the class hierarchy. In the middle of the 20th century, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945) built on these foundations to offer a detailed functionalist analysis of social stratification. They argued that in all societies some positions—the most functionally important positions—require more skill, talent, and training than others. These positions are thus difficult to fill—that is, they may suffer a “scarcity of personnel.” To ensure that they get filled, societies may offer valued rewards such as money, prestige, and leisure to induce the best and brightest to make sacrifices, such as getting a higher education, and to do these important jobs conscientiously and competently. According to Davis and Moore, social inequality is an “unconsciously evolved device by which societies ensure that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons” (p. 243). An implication of this perspective is that U.S. society is a meritocracy, a society in which personal success is based [Page 190]on talent and individual effort. That means your position in the system of stratification depends primarily on your talents and efforts: Each person gets more or less what he or she deserves or has earned, and society benefits because the most functionally important positions are occupied by the most qualified individuals. Stratification is then ultimately functional for society because the differential distribution of rewards ensures that highly valued positions are filled by wellprepared and motivated people. After all, Davis and Moore might say, we all benefit when we get economic information from good economists, drive across bridges designed by well-trained engineers, and cure our ills with pharmaceuticals developed by capable medical scientists. Clearly, the idea that the promise of higher pay and prestige motivates people to work hard has some truth. Yet, it is difficult to argue that the actual differences in rewards across positions are necessarily suitable ways of measuring the positions’ relative worth to society (Tumin, 1953, 1963, 1985; Wrong, 1959). Is an NBA (National Basketball Association) point guard really worth more than a teacher or a nurse, for instance? Is a hedge fund manager that much more important than a scientist (particularly given that both positions require extensive education)? Moreover, when people acquire socially important, higher-status positions by virtue of their skills and efforts, they are then often able to pass along their economic privilege, and the educational opportunities and social connections that go with it, to their children, even if their children are not particularly bright, motivated, or qualified. As Melvin Tumin (1953) points out in his critique of Davis and Moore, stratification may limit the discovery of talent in society rather than ensure it by creating a situation in which those who are born to privilege are given fuller opportunities and avenues to realize occupational success while others are limited by poor schooling, little money, and lack of networks upon which to call. Such a result would surely be dysfunctional for society rather than positively functional. How would functionalism account for the fact that people are often discriminated against because of their skin color, sex, and other characteristics determined at birth that have nothing to do with their talents or motivations, resulting in an enormous waste of society’s human skills and talents? Can you see other strengths or weaknesses to Davis and Moore’s perspective on stratification? In a twist on the functionalist perspective, sociologist Herbert Gans (1972) poses this provocative question: How is poverty positively functional in U.S. society? Gans begins with a bit of functionalist logic, namely, that if a social phenomenon exists and persists, it must serve a function or else it would evolve out of existence. But he does not assume that poverty is functional for everyone. So, for whom is it functional? Gans suggests that eliminating poverty would be costly to the better-off. Thus, poverty is functional for the nonpoor but not functional for the poor—or even for society as a whole. Among the “benefits” to the nonpoor of the existence of a stratum of poor people, Gans includes the following: • Poverty ensures there will be low-wage laborers prepared—or driven by circumstances—to do society’s dirty work. These are the jobs no one else wants because they are demeaning, dirty, and sometimes dangerous. A large pool of laborers desperate for jobs also pushes down wages, a benefit to employers. • Poverty creates a spectrum of jobs for people who help the poor (social welfare workers), protect society from those poor people who transgress the boundaries of the law (prison guards), or profit from the poor (owners of welfare motels and cheap grocery shops). Even esteemed sociologist Herbert Gans has built an academic career on analyzing poverty. • Poverty provides a market for goods and services that would otherwise go unused. Day-old bread, wilting fruits and vegetables, and old automobiles are not generally purchased by the better-off. The services of second-rate doctors and lawyers, among others, are also peddled to the poor when no one else wants them. • Beyond economics, the poor also serve cultural functions. They provide scapegoats for society’s problems and help guarantee some status for those who are not poor. They also give the upper crust of society a socially valued reason for holding and attending lavish charity events. Gans’s (1972) point is stark. He notes that the functions served by the poor have functional alternatives—that is, they could be fulfilled by means other than poverty. Nevertheless, he suggests, those who are better off in society are not motivated to fight poverty comprehensively because its existence is demonstrably functional for them. Although he is not arguing that anyone is in favor of poverty (which is difficult to imagine), he is suggesting that “phenomena like poverty can be eliminated only when they become dysfunctional for the affluent or powerful, or when the powerless can obtain enough power to change society” (p. 288). Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not? The Social Conflict Explanation Social conflict theory draws heavily from the work of Karl Marx. As we saw in the opening chapter, Marx divided [Page 191]society into two broad classes: workers and capitalists, or proletarians and bourgeoisie. The workers do not own the factories and machinery needed to produce wealth in capitalist societies—they possess nothing of real value except their labor power. The capitalists own the necessary equipment—the means of production—but require the labor power of the workers to run it. Herbert Gans suggests that poverty ensures a pool of workers “unable to be unwilling” to do difficult and dirty jobs for low pay. Such jobs could also be filled in the absence of poverty through better pay and benefits. But, says Gans, this would be costly and, thus, dysfunctional to the nonpoor. ©America/Alamy Stock Photo These economic classes are unequal in their access to resources and power, and their interests are opposed. Capitalists seek to keep labor costs as low as possible to produce goods cheaply and make a profit. Workers seek to be paid adequate wages and to secure safe, decent working conditions and hours. At the same time, the two groups are interdependent: The capitalists need the labor of the workers, and the workers depend on the wages they earn (regardless of how meager) to survive. Although more than a century has passed since Marx formulated his theory, a struggle between workers and owners (or, in our time, between workers and owners, managers, and even stockholders, who all depend on a company’s profits) still exists. Conflict is often based on the irreconcilability of these competing interests. A study found that collective action lawsuits alleging wage and hour violations have skyrocketed, increasing 400% in the past 11 years. Among companies such as Bank of America, Walmart, and Starbucks, Taco Bell has been one of the latest to be sued for allegedly forcing employees to work overtime without pay (Eichler, 2012). The source of inequality, then, lies in the fact that the bourgeoisie own the means of production and can use their assets to make more money and secure their position in society. Most workers do not own substantial economic assets aside from their own labor power, which they use to earn a living. Although successful lawsuits for lost wages show that workers have avenues for asserting their rights against employers, the conflict perspective contrasts these small victories with the far more significant power and control exercised by large economic actors in modern society. [Page 192]In short, the conflict perspective suggests that significant and persistent stratification exists because those who have power use it to create economic, political, and social conditions that favor them and their children, even if these conditions are detrimental to the lower classes. Inequality thus is not functional, as Davis and Moore argued. Rather, it is dysfunctional, because it keeps power concentrated in the hands of the few rather than creating conditions of meritocracy that would give equal opportunity to all. Similar to the functionalist perspective, the conflict perspective has analytical weaknesses. It overlooks cooperative aspects of modern capitalist businesses, some of which have begun to take a more democratic approach to management, offering workers the opportunity to participate in decisionmaking processes in the workplace. [Page 193]Modern workplaces in the technology sector, for instance, thrive when decision making and the production of ideas come from various levels rather than only from the top down. Like modernization theory, the dependency and world systems theoretical perspectives illuminate some aspects of the case while obscuring others. Variables such as the exploitative power of Western oil companies are a key part of understanding the failure of Nigeria to develop in a way that benefits the broader population, but conflict-oriented perspectives pay little attention to the agency of poor states and, in particular, their governing bodies in setting a solid foundation for development. Chapter 18: Social Movements and Social Change • o o • o • o o • o o • o • o • o • o o o Sociological Perspectives on Social Change Cite format APA MLA Chicago Harvard 18.1 Sociological Perspectives on Social Change Learning Objective18.1 Apply sociological perspectives to understand characteristics and paths of social change. The concept of social change is all-encompassing. It refers to small-group changes, such as a social club changing a long-standing policy against admitting women or minorities, and to global-level and national-level transformations, such as the outsourcing of jobs to low-wage countries and the rise of social movements that seek to address the threat of climate change. When sociologists speak of social change, they are generally referring to changes that occur throughout the social [Page 513]structure of an entire society. Societies are understood sociologically as entities comprising those people who share a common culture and common institutions. Social change may refer to changes within small, relatively isolated communities such as those of the Amish or the small, culturally homogeneous tribes that dot the Amazon basin; changes across complex and modern societies such as the United States, Japan, or Germany; or changes common across similar societies, such as the economically advanced states of the West or the Arab countries of North Africa and the Middle East. Three key types of social change theories in sociology are functionalist theories, conflict theories, and cyclical theories. Sociological perspectives on social change begin with particular assumptions about both the social world and basic processes of change. Below, we briefly consider each theoretical perspective and discuss its utility for helping us understand the nature of social change in the world today. The Functionalist Perspective Functionalist theories of social change assume that as societies develop, they become more complex and interdependent. Herbert Spencer (1892) argued that what distinguishes modern societies is differentiation—the development of increasing societal complexity through the creation of specialized social roles and institutions. Spencer was referring to what Émile Durkheim conceptualized as the division of labor, which is characterized by the sorting of people into interdependent occupational and task categories (and, by extension, class categories). Think of medieval England, when craftsmen working at home made tools and shoes that they exchanged for food or clothing, using a broad range of skills to act relatively independently of one another. Compare this to modern society, where factory workers each produce parts of an automobile, managers sell completed cars to dealerships, and salespeople sell them to customers. Today, people master a narrow range of tasks within a large number of highly specialized (differentiated) institutional roles and thus are highly interdependent. (Note the similarity here to Durkheim’s notion that societies evolve over time from mechanical to organic solidarity—the former being characteristic of traditional, homogeneous societies and the latter characteristic of diverse, modern societies.) The earliest functionalist theories of social change were evolutionary theories, which assumed that all societies begin as simple or primitive and eventually develop into more complicated and civilized forms along a single, unidirectional evolutionary path. During the 20th century, however, this notion of unilinear development became increasingly shaky, as anthropologists came to believe that societies evolve in many different ways. More recent evolutionary theories (sometimes termed multilinear) argue that multiple paths to social change exist, depending on the particular circumstances of the society (Moore, 2004; Sahlins & Service, 1960). Technology, environment, population size, and social organization are among the factors that play roles in determining the path a society takes. Some evolutionary theorists viewed societies as eventually reaching an equilibrium state in which no further change would occur unless an external force set it in motion. For example, Durkheim believed that primitive or less developed societies were largely unchanging unless population growth resulted in such a differentiation of social relationships that organic solidarity replaced mechanical solidarity. Talcott Parsons (1951) viewed societies as equilibrium systems that constantly seek to maintain balance—the status quo—unless something external disrupts equilibrium, such as changes in technology or economic relationships with other societies. Parsons later came to argue, however, that societies do change by becoming more complicated systems that are better adapted to their external environments (Parsons & Shils, 2001). Although no one can deny that modern societies contain many more specialized roles and institutions than earlier ones, evolutionary theories also assume that social changes are progressive and that modern (European) societies are more evolved than earlier primitive ones. Such beliefs appealed to countries whose soldiers, missionaries, and merchants were conquering or colonizing much of the rest of the world, since these beliefs helped justify those imperialist actions as part of the “civilizing” mission of a more advanced people. Anthropologists and sociologists eventually rejected these ideas (Nolan & Lenski, 2009). Up to the early 20th century, it was commonly believed that women should not vote and should not be involved in politics. Women such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony challenged both public beliefs and legal practices that prevented women from casting ballots. ©FPG/Archive Photos/Getty Images [Page 514]On a more micro level, consider dedifferentiation in the mainstream marital relationship. Traditionally, the man was the head of the household and often ruled over his wife and children with an iron fist. Both the norm and the reality of marriage today are characterized by a dedifferentiation of roles in which men take on domestic responsibilities and, increasingly, the wife is a major income producer for the family. Since different parts of society undergo the processes of differentiation and dedifferentiation to varying degrees and at different times, considerable conflict may arise between them (Alexander, 1998; Alexander & Colomy, 1990; Colomy, 1986, 1990). It is, however, the conflict perspective that assumes conflict as the foundation for social change. We look at that perspective below. The Conflict Perspective Conflict theories suggest that conflict is the product of divergent and perhaps irreconcilable social group interests and contradictory goals of social relationships. Even if a population or technology is in a state of stasis rather than change, conflict theorists see social change as inevitable, as people create ways of dealing with the conflicts and contradictions inherent in social life. Responding to the conflicts and contradictions can potentially bring a society to the brink of sharp and sometimes violent breaks with the past. Unlike their functionalist peers in sociology, conflict theorists do not see social stability as the ultimate goal of social organization. They recognize conflict as a vital, transformative part of social life. Karl Marx focused his research on the contradictions and conflicts built into capitalist societies, where the world is divided between owners of the means of production and workers who own only their own labor power and must sell it under conditions not of their own making. In Marx’s view, the revolutionary transformation of a society into a new type—from feudalism to capitalism or from capitalism to socialism, for example—would occur when the consciousness of the people or the concentration of power in one social class was sufficient to create a social movement able to transform political and economic institutions into new sets of social relationships. As we have seen throughout this text, Marx’s conflict theory adhered to its own evolutionary view of social change, in which all societies would advance to the same final destination: a classless, stateless society. We have earlier noted several weaknesses in this theory. Of particular importance is Marx’s tendency to overemphasize economic conflict while underestimating cultural conflict and other noneconomic factors, such as gender, ethnicity, race, and nationalism, which have become increasingly important in the world today. Later conflict theorists have addressed key questions about processes of social change, such as how groups come to want and pursue social change. Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1971), for instance, highlighted the importance of ideas in maintaining order and oppression in society. He observed that the ruling class is often able to create ideological hegemony, a generally accepted view of what is of value and how people should relate to their economic and social status in society. Ideological hegemony may lead people to consent to their own domination by, for instance, socializing them to believe that the existing hierarchy of power is the best or only way to organize society. Consider, for example, that in the past, women were socialized by schools, families, and religious institutions to believe they should not have jobs outside the home or vote. The idea that women should not hold positions outside the home could be considered a hegemonic idea of this period. Gramsci also spoke of organic intellectuals—those who emerge from oppressed groups to create counterhegemonies that challenge dominant (and dominating) ideas. In the mid-19th century, women’s suffrage activists—including Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton—were organic intellectuals, challenging powerful beliefs that women should be excluded from politics. Over time and through the efforts of activists, the counterhegemonic idea that women should have a voice in politics became the hegemonic, or dominant, belief in Western society. In the 1950s, in response to the dominant functionalist paradigm, sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf published an influential article titled “Out of Utopia” (1958). Dahrendorf argued that functionalist theory, with its emphasis on how social institutions exist to maintain the status quo, overlooks critically important characteristics of society that lead to social conflict, such as the role of power, social change, and the unequal distribution of resources. The distribution of authority in society, said Dahrendorf, is a means of determining the probability of conflict. Where hierarchical structures such as states, private economic entities such as manufacturing firms, and even religious organizations are all dominated by the same elite, the potential for conflict is higher than in societies where authority is more dispersed. Put another way, if Group A dominates all or most key hierarchical authority structures and Group B is nearly always subordinate, conflict will be likely because Group B has little stake in the existing social order. Nevertheless, if Group B has authority in some hierarchical structures and Group A has authority in others, neither group has great incentive to challenge the status quo. Marx emphasized control of the means of production as a source of power and conflict; Gramsci highlighted control of dominant ideas in society as an important source of power and change; and Dahrendorf put authority and its concentration or distribution at the center of his work. Conflict theorists differ in their beliefs about what sources [Page 515]are most likely to underlie social conflict and social change, but all agree that social conflict and social change are both inevitable and desirable components of society and progress. Rise-and-Fall Theories of Social Change Rise-and-fall theories of social change deny that there is any particular forward direction to social change; rather, they argue that social change reflects a cycle of growth and decline. Rise-and-fall or cyclical theories are common in the religious myths of many cultures, which view social life as a reflection of the life cycle of living creatures or the seasons of the year, with the end representing some form of return to the beginning. Sociology, emerging in an era that equated scientific and technological advancement with progress, at first tended to reject such cyclical metaphors in favor of more evolutionary or revolutionary ones that emphasized the forward motion of progress. There have been several significant exceptions, however, among historically oriented social theorists. Pitirim Sorokin (1957/1970, 1962), a historical sociologist of the mid20th century, argued that societies alternate among three different kinds of mentalities: those that give primacy to the senses, those that emphasize religiosity, and those that celebrate logic and reason. Societies that value hedonism and the satisfaction of immediate pleasures more highly than the achievement of long-term goals give primacy to the senses; religiosity occurs in societies that value following the tenets of a religion over enjoying the senses or solving problems through logic and reason. We tend to think of modern societies as defined largely by the emphasis on logic and reason. Societies everywhere have contained a mixture of religiosity, an emphasis on the senses, and the celebration of logic and reason. Sorokin’s ideal types may nonetheless be useful for describing the relative emphasis of each of these modes of adaptation in different societies. For example, we might say that the modern Western world puts greater emphasis on logic and reason than on religion or giving primacy to the senses; it would be a mistake, however, to say that there is no emphasis on the senses or religion, because these traits also play important roles in shaping the modern Western world. In The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987), historian Paul Kennedy traces the conditions associated with national power and decline during the past five centuries. As nations grow in economic power, he argues, they often seek to become world military powers as well, a goal that proves to be their undoing in the long run. Wielding global military power eventually weakens a nation’s domestic economy, undermining the prosperity that once fueled it. Kennedy forecasts that this might well be the fate of the United States. More recently, writer Cullen Murphy (2007) has pointed to parallels between the Roman Empire and the United States, noting that Rome was also characterized by an overburdened and costly military, a deep sense of exceptionalism, and a tendency to denigrate and misunderstand other cultures. He also notes the Roman pattern of shifting the onus for providing services to citizens away from the public sector to the private sector, seeing this as a form of enrichment for the few but a disadvantage for the many. A key point in rise-and-fall narratives is that social change can be both progressive and regressive—power does not invariably beget more power; it may also beget decline. The most renowned sociologist considered by some to be a cyclical theorist is Max Weber. Although he took an evolutionary view of society as increasingly moving toward a politically and economically legal-rational society governed by rules and regulations, Weber (1919/1946) also emphasized the role of irrational elements in shaping human behavior. For example, although he wrote about the growing formal rationality of the modern world, he also recognized the possibility that a society’s path could be altered by the appearance of a charismatic figure whose singular personal authority transcended institutionalized authority structures. Leaders who drastically changed a nation’s trajectory include Haile Selassie, who governed Ethiopia for half a century, Adolf Hitler in Germany, Mao Zedong in China, and Fidel Castro in Cuba. In the United States, Martin Luther King Jr. led the civil rights movement in the 1960s and fundamentally changed race relations. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had a transformational dream. His words and deeds inspired and continue to inspire social change. The actions of a single person can be truly significant. ©CNP/Hulton Archive/Getty Images Inequality Matters Sports and Social Change [Page 516]The U.S. is a country that loves sports and idolizes its greatest athletes. Some of those talented athletes are among those who have used their status and visibility to drive social change and, more specifically, draw attention to racial inequality. Jackie Robinson was the first African American baseball player in the major leagues, joining the Brooklyn Dodgers at first base in 1947. Robinson was a player of exceptional talent, which helped him gain acceptance in the ranks of White-dominated Major League Baseball (MLB), although he was still subject to racism. Robinson was a tireless advocate for racial equality. When Robinson retired and took a senior position at the Chock Full O’Nuts company, he used his power to advocate for fair wages for Black workers in the company. At his final public appearance in 1972, Robinson declared in an award acceptance speech at the World Series that he would be even more proud of Major League Baseball if he looked over toward third base and saw an African American coach: The first Black MLB manager, Frank Robinson, took that position in 1975. Although Jackie Robinson was one of the first prominent Black athletes to use his status to take a stand against racial inequality, he would not be the last. After medaling in the 200-meter race at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City, U.S. team members Tommie Smith and John Carlos famously raised their fists in a Black power salute to protest the treatment of African Americans (Cosgrove, 2014). They stood on the podium as the U.S. national anthem played with their fists raised and shoeless, wearing black socks to symbolize the struggle of Black poverty. In response to what was construed as a political action, the International Olympic Committee expelled Smith and Carlos from the games. Smith later reflected on the moment, saying that if I win, I am American, not a black American. But if I did something bad, then they would say “a Negro.” We are black and we are proud of being black. Black America will understand what we did tonight. (BBC, 2005) Contemporary athletes have also used their visibility to bring attention to issues of concern to minority communities. In 2010, for instance, the Phoenix Suns, a National Basketball Association (NBA) team, wore “Los Suns” jerseys to draw attention to Arizona’s new immigration law (SB 1070), which permitted police to use “reasonable suspicion” as a basis for detaining people. Advocates for the Latino/a community argued that the law promoted and justified racial profiling. In December 2014, Cleveland Cavaliers basketball players LeBron James and Kyrie Irving entered the team warm-up against the Brooklyn Nets wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the words “I can’t breathe.” Four players from the opposing team wore them as well. The words were the last ones uttered by Eric Garner, a Staten Island man who died in July of that year in a confrontation with a New York City police officer. Eric Garner was the fourth unarmed African American man to die in a confrontation with police in July 2014 (Harkinson, 2014). James told reporters, “As a society we have to do better. We have to be better for one another no matter what race you are” (Strauss & Scott, 2014, para. 14). Baseball player Jackie Robinson was the first African American to play on a Major League Baseball team. He was recruited by the Brooklyn Dodgers and played for the team for the first time in 1947. In 1997, his uniform number, 42, was retired across major league baseball. ©Photo File/MLB Photos via Getty Images From the time Jackie Robinson integrated the MLB to the time NBA players launched their protest actions on the court, there has been important progress, including better access to education, [Page 517]stronger political and social voice, and expanded legal protections for minorities. At the same time, race—and racism—continues to shape opportunities and obstacles in the U.S. Black athletes are among those who continue to take a stand for equality. Think It Through • What makes sports a potential vehicle for social change rather than “just a game”? Can you think of other instances in which sports or particular athletes have had a powerful social impact? READ MORE Cyclical theories have not enjoyed great popularity among sociologists. Even Weber’s theory is not truly cyclical; his idea of charismatic authority is a sort of wild card, providing an unpredictable twist in an otherwise predictable march of social change from one form of authority to another. The more far-reaching versions of cyclical theory, such as Sorokin’s theory that society swings among three different worldviews, are framed in such broad terms that it is challenging to prove them right or wrong.